#115200 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 21, 2011 7:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi, Robert - You make some valid points below, most specifically in pointing out the weakness of some of my examples. I do, however, maintain that there are numerous instances in which of Q and ~Q, which is the quality, and which it's mere absence, is in the eye of the beholder and a matter of convention in terms of both naming and concept. (More below.) In a message dated 5/20/2011 4:14:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Howard: ...But is not being selfless (i.e., lacking identity, > lacking > > independent existence as a separate existent/entity) a quality with > > consequences as much as would be having identity? > Robert: > I think you are right Howard that lacking something can be a > characteristic and it does have consequences; but the important point for what I have > been arguing is the simple fact that an absence, however characteristic it > may be, and however consequential it may be, is not a "thing." It is not a > "structure," but merely an identifiable absence that itself is a condition > but does not have substantial existence. > > I am just avoiding saying that the "no self characteristic" is a positive > structure of some kind called a "no self," which though absurd, is where > the idea of a positive nature of a negative characteristic is trending. > --------------------------------------------------- > H: > I understand you, Robert, though I don't entirely agree with you even > in this case, which I will discuss further down in this post. > In general, for some "positive qualities," IT is "the quality," while > its absence is not considered a quality. But for other "qualities," the > opposite holds, and in some cases both Q and not-Q are viewed as qualities. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Another example: Is being satisfied > > any more of a quality than being dissatisfied? > > That is a little different, as satisfied and dissatisfied are both > shorthands for a whole complex of reactions, feelings and behaviors. I'm not sure > if you can find a single thing in the human system to identify as > "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction" even though we experience them and they add up > to a generally positive or negative response to something. > > Dissatisfaction is only conceptually a "lack of something called > satisfaction," since "satisfaction" is also not a real thing, but a kind of > subjective assessment. > ---------------------------------------------------- > H: > Satisfaction is a sort of equanimity, whereas dissatisfaction is > discontent, a form of aversion. Each is viewed as a quality. The 3rd jhana is > characterized by satisfaction, whereas dissatisfaction includes restlessness, > one of the hindrances and a mental quality. > -------------------------------------------------- I agree they are qualities that can be identified and experienced. I'm just not sure if they fit the bill as truly objective opposites, rather than states to be cultivated vs. states to be avoided. ------------------------------------------------------- H: Well, I'm not sure either. ----------------------------------------------------- When you are talking about anatta, it's an absolute, an absolute absence of an imagined entity, so to me it's in a category with things that definitely do exist vs. things that definitely do not exist. I think that's different than comparing opposites which both can exist. --------------------------------------------------- H: While you believe that this is a strong case, I tend to think that it may well also be a strong case for the opposite view. The bottom line, I think, is that convention enters in. Consider empty versus not-empty: Which is the quality? What about (with regard to existence) dependent versus independent? Which is the quality? As regards atta versus anatta, I say more below. --------------------------------------------------- > It is quite different to talk about things and their opposites and to talk > about substantial things that exist or don't exist. If I am missing a > limb, that is a definite absence of something; if I am not happy one day, that > is not an objective "absence of a thing called happiness," but just a state > that I label in a different subjective way. If we talk about whether a > "self" exists or not, that is not subjective. > ---------------------------------------------------- > H: > Is not a characteristic of a snake "being limbless"? And could that > not be renamed in a positive manner, say as "whole-body-ambulator," which > could also apply to most fish. Consider also certain hairless dogs. Is not > their being hairless a positive characteristic? Consider also sighted versus > blind. Also, what about male versus female - ignoring for the moment > ambiguous cases: Male is non-female, while female is non-male. Well, I hate to be nit-picky, but with the hairless dog, for instance, as regards the "hair" only, it is an absolute absence. As regards the dog, that absence is also a defining feature, but only when compared with other dogs that have hair. ----------------------------------------------- H: And vice-versa. When we see a hairless dog, don't we think "What an unusual characteristic!"? ----------------------------------------------- In a world where all dogs where hairless, "hairlessness" would not be a characteristic, although some other feature that does exist, such as "smooth-bodied" or "flat" or whatever would still exist. "Hairless" is a measure against hair. Even though it is a characteristic, it is not a positive characteristic. ------------------------------------------------------- H: If we think of there being some "thing" being present or absent, you are correct. But where almost all dogs have hair, being hairless appears as a positive characteristic. And what happens when we describe that characteristic as "smooth-surfaced "? ------------------------------------------------------ It shows the conceptual nature of many things we call characteristics. If they are comparisons, they are only part characteristic, and part concept. ------------------------------------------------------ That's quite right!! And often times of Q and ~Q, depending on thought and language, either one could be the quality with the other its absence, or each could be a quality. ----------------------------------------------------- Anatta does say something about the nature of all things - they have no self. But the only reason that characteristic is spoken and thought about is because it is a realization away from the illusion of self-hood which we are all born into. That does not mean anatta is conceptual or unreal. Whatever is true about a 'selfless' process or occurrence is true; but the fact that we call it "no-self" is a comparison to "self-concept." How would we experience the "non-self" nature of dhammas without the concept of self to compare it with? That is an interesting question. There must be a variety of positive characteristics that dhammas have that would not exist if in fact there was a central, permanent, unifying self. We could run those down and say "these are the positive characteristics of an event, capacity, act or occurrence that has no self at its center." ------------------------------------------------------- H: Again, by adjusting language it could be viewed oppositely: There are "dependently existent" and "seamlessly attached" and "intimately connected." Each of these is a positive formulation for "lacking in separate, independent being". ------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact that there is no structure called a "self" is a realization of > absence in Buddhism. To say that "no self" is an equal presence is to say > that an absence is a presence, which is absurd. I agree that 'not having a > self' is an important characteristic that has consequences, but it is > important to establish that it's a lack of something, not a thing itself. There > is no such thing as a "no self > ," my only point in this, because Ken H.'s way of talking about it lapses > into the establishment of a 'no-self' structure in a dhamma, which can > become an alternate kind of entity-view. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Actually there are neither presences nor absences EXCEPT AS A MATTER > OF CONVENTION. But, yes, for some pairs, Q and not-Q, only Q is considered a > quality and not-Q it's mere absence. However, and this should be > considered: All dhammas are anatta, and no dhammas are atta!! So, which is more > worthy of being called a quality, the one which all dhammas have or the one > that no dhammas have??! ;-) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- I think they're both negations, no matter how you put it, so there is no positive characteristic either way. If I say I never drink milk, that does define me in a certain way, but there is no occurrence or structure there, just an observation of something that does not take place. Are there positive characteristics of a 'non-milk-drinker?' Probably so, but the "not drinking of milk" is not one of them. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- H: All a matter of speech, thought, and emphasis. ------------------------------------------------------- It can be observed by its non-occurrence, but there is nothing there in the actual lack of milk drinking to put one's hands on, therefore it is a negative attribution. If you found there was an association between people who don't drink milk and tidiness, finickiness, intelligence and depression, you could say "these are the positive characteristics of people who don't drink milk," but not drinking milk would still in itself be an observation, not a positive attribute that has a presence in the world. "Non-milk-drinking" isn't a thing, never takes place, and doesn't exist . Likewise with anatta. > > The presence/absence dichotomy is often only a matter of language and > > concept. Sometimes, of A and not-A, either one could be taken as a > quality > > (and thus both), at other times A only, and at still other times not-A > > only. Which is more of a quality, being uneasy or being at ease? Is > ease the > > absence of restlessness, or is restlessness the absence of ease??? > (This is > > what I meant, Ken, in the confirming by me to which you refer.) > > BTW, you have good memory, Ken. I'm flattered that this has remained > > with you. > > -------------------------------------------------- > > I would be interested, Howard, in an example of A and not-A existing > together or being equal possibilities, in a more objective example. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > H: > What is not objective in this example? > And how about bald versus hairy (of head)? Which is the quality? Of > course, they do not coexist, since each is the absence of the other. In that case you are taking two observable characteristics and calling one of them the negative of the other. Both hairy and bald are conditions that are not dependent on each other. Bald can be called "smooth and shiny," even without the concept of hair in play. Hairy means that there is hair there; they are only a comparison conceptually. This differs from anatta in that there is no atta, so there is no opposite condition, just non-existence of the opposing object. -------------------------------------------------------------- H: That makes the case stronger for "anatta" being the quality! Of two conceived-of conditions, A and B, if A never occurs and B always occurs, which deserves to be viewed as an actual quality?? LOLOL! ----------------------------------------------------------- Atta is like a unicorn, it's a fictional entity which we can have a concept of, but which never appears in actuality. ---------------------------------------------------------- H: So, it is certainly, then, not a quality of anything anywhere! And as for "entities", neither "self" nor "non-self" is a thing. In fact, we need to banish things entirely from our discourse, and especially as regarding qualities. But absences are no less things than presences. All this "thing business" is conceptual proliferation gone wild. ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------ 'No unicorn' is not a characteristic of something, it is just an acknowledgment that unicorns are fictional. Same with anatta. Anatta is an absence, not a presence. ----------------------------------------------------------- H: All just a matter of language convention, thought, and emphasis. --------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------- Ken H. > And > > there are characteristics (jovial, intelligent, brave . . .) that > belong > > to people. Those are shadows of realities. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Shadows of shadows! > > ------------------------------------------- > Robert: > Now that Ken has established that we conventional shadows can appear to > own and possess things, this serves as a shadow proof that real dhammas can > also own and possess things - one of the most interesting acts of logic I > have ever seen. The shadow knows! > ---------------------------------------------- > H: > Mwah, hah, hah, hah, hah!!!! (Eyes and nostrils flaring like Lamont > Cranston! ;-)) > ---------------------------------------------- :-) Best, Robert E. ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #115201 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 21, 2011 7:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Confused NAME & FORM, labels Hi, Colette - In a message dated 5/21/2011 1:39:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: Hi Group, Why does WISDOM have to PRECEDE "DOING"? Isn't it just as reasonable to perform an act, "DOING", before or preceding WISDOM? Wisdom is being considered as RESULTANT PHENOMENA. Is a person paralyzed for their entire existence as long as they DO NOT HAVE WISDOM? ================================== Interestingly, what you say here is very "Judaic". Somewhere in the five books of Moses (pertaining to the mythic event at Sinai, I think), there is said "We shall do, and we shall hear." The doing, counter-intuitively, comes first, expressing a behavioral perspective with understanding following from (of-course-appropriate) action. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #115202 From: han tun Date: Sun May 22, 2011 12:31 am Subject: Re: ahosi kamma, II. Dear Nina, Your explanations and examples are well taken with thanks. I have only one point on the last pair. ---------------- > (11) There will be action (bhavissatikamma.m), there will be action-result (bhavissatikammavipaako). > (12) There will be action (bhavissatikamma.m), there will be no action-result (nabhavissatikammavipaako). Nina: Kh S: as to 12: refers to the arahat: from the moment he has become an arahat he does not commit any kamma that produces result in the future. N: The kamma he committed in the present life before he became an arahat can still produce results, until he passes away. But these kammas do not produce results in the future, since the arahat cannot be reborn. ----- Han: You did not mention No (11). But I think the second last sentence of your above text takes care of No (11). The kamma he commits in the present life and *will* continue to commit can produce results *later* in this life or in the next life. Respectfully, Han #115203 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 22, 2011 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ahosi kamma, II. Dear Han, Thank you for your comments. Op 21-mei-2011, om 16:31 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > (11) There will be action (bhavissatikamma.m), there will be action- > result (bhavissatikammavipaako). ------- N: No special comment from the commentary or from Kh Sujin. I think that this does not refer to the arahat. For us: no end to samsara yet. We keep on committing kamma also in future lives and this will produce results. A warning of the dukkha of samsara. It is so long. I will take a break now. I can resume later on. Nina. #115204 From: Vince Date: Sun May 22, 2011 3:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Lukas you wrote: > L: AS said no intentionaly. said without ill-intention, which is not the same thing. If we kill a mosquito thinking "f* insect!!" it would be with ill intention. If we make an automatic movement as soon we feel a contact in our skin, it would be killing without ill intention. best, Vince. #115205 From: "colette" Date: Sun May 22, 2011 6:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Howard and Robert, Interesting debate. I think that Howard is speaking more to my point that THE NOUMENAL WORLD (world of the mind only i.e. THOUGHTS) HAS EXISTENCE and is a valid strucure to examine. Robert, on the other hand, is clearly making the point that ONLY TANGIBILITY IS A PROOF THAT A WORLD EXISTS robert: " an absence, however characteristic it may be, and however consequential it may be, is not a "thing." It is not a "structure," but merely an identifiable absence that itself is a condition but does not have substantial existence. colette: this also raises several of my other points. The first point is the most obvious point, that of NAME & FORM, which I have already opened the can of worms on this issue. Robert, by simply NAMING something or giving something a LABEL or a STEREOTYPE has no value to MANIFEST IT'S EXISTENCE. It either does exist or it does not exist i.e. Buddha Nature exists in all people or it does not exist in any people. Identifying the ABSENCE or PRESENCE of a thing, a characteristic, only makes the person happy who is spending their time LABELING and IDENTIFYING the thing in the first place. Simply "identifying" has no "magikal" quality to it, other than the act of being an EXTENSION OF THE MIND THAT BOTH COGNIZED AND LABELED IT. Robert: "...some kind called a "no self," which though absurd, is > where the idea of a positive nature of a negative characteristic is trending. colette: Ahhhh, the truth comes out. Robert, you really are not a practicing Buddhist and you have ulterior motivation in studying the Buddhist Philosophy i.e. the concept of "no self" being an absurd concept. However, back to your tendency to LABEL and to NAME things so that they can ACQUIRE FORM through your godlike gift of creating MANIFESTATION. You are suggesting that it is a "GOOD THING" or "RIGHT ACTION" to LABEL or NAME something to suit your own personal objectivity. You say this by saying that it is a "positive" thing to LABEL on that trying to LABEL A NEGATIVE THING IS ABSURD. I think you're absurd, here. Buddhism would not exist if it was not for "ANATTA", the concept of NO SELF. By removing the KEYSTONE from the Arch you basically render the Arch, itself, valueless and without merit, it will fall of it's own weight. Isn't that "sooooo Trendy"? ----------------------- MY NOTE: Howard, I don't understand your scientific notation using Q and ~Q. I am going to equate this to ABSOLUTE VALUE where the ABSOLUTE VALUE OF A NEGATIVE NUMBER EQUALS the Positive Number. ----------------------- I agree with you Howard, that there are actual QUALITIES of the alleged NO SELF, or as I refer to it, ANATTA. Again, all my T's have not been crossed and all of my I's are not dotted. So, to the lawyers and the judges out there that have to report to the numbers crunchers, accountants, DO NOT TAKE MY IGNORANT MEANING OF ANATTA AS BEING THE ULTIMATE MEANING OF ANATTA THAT BUDDHIST TRADITION HAS MANIFESTED, it is MY simple way of cognizing a world that I exist in. ------------------------------ I read Howard's example of SATISFACTION and DISSATISFACTION, thinking it to be a good example. Then there was a separation and HOWARD tried to QUALIFY his previously valid and cognizable statement, position, Point of View, pair of shoes he's standing in, etc. While reading, though, I REALIZED that Howard was caught up in the disease that plagues Americans, plagues the SKEPTICAL SOCIETY, that plagues the Scientific community, and just outright sends the slaves of ORGANIZED RELIGION into a frenzy of EXTASY. It appeared to me that Howard was contented on spending his life explaining one simple aspect of something so that LAWYERS and JUDGES can be satiated thus allowing the accountants to earn their money by lining up all the numbers in nice neat rows and collumes so that money can be distributed as UNEVENLY AS POSSIBLE BY USING THE LAWS MADE BY THE MINDLESSNESS OF THE ORTHODOXY. I thought, for a second, I gotta go back and see that Howard made the example of SATISFACTION and DISSATISFACTION then tried to answer his own example's existence or if Robert made the example of SATISFACTION and DISSATISFACTION. All Robert did was AVOID THE ISSUE, when he eventually gave an reply. ------------------ Howard, I'm taking it that you wrote this: > > When you are talking about anatta, it's an absolute, an absolute absence > of an imagined entity, so to me it's in a category with things that > definitely do exist vs. things that definitely do not exist. I think that's > different than comparing opposites which both can exist. I have not read past this. Based on your past example of writing and rationalizing behavior I'm gonna say, now, before I scroll down and finish reading, STOP RIGHT THERE! ANATTA IS VALID. ANATTA IS AN EXCELLENT WAY OF DESCRIBING THE BARDO STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS. Do Not play your typical game of trying to QUALIFY your own VALID STATEMENTS. However, you also show an unfortunate characteristic by REQUIRING that for mental activity to exist you MUST HAVE THE RATIONALITY OF "THINGS DEFINITELY DO EXIST vs. things that definitely do not exist." THERE IS NO SUCH CONCEPT IN THE NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES THAT I HAVE HAD TO ENDURE SUCH TRAUMA. Tangibility, ITSELF, is questionable if having to be compared to the reality that we are experiencing at this moment. ------------- Now, I can see that you're both getting a bit NEGATIVE and are trying to create a pig stye or a quagmire or maybe even a LABYRINTH. How can you say that a snake is a snake if it had one arm, or one leg, or any one penis or any kind of appendage? It would cease to be a SNAKE if it had an appendage. The FORM would remove it's applicability to it's NAME i.e. THE SHUNYATA OF SHUNYATA. Time for me to go and leave this conversation to those in adoration of MINUTIA and how beautiful the MAGNIFICENCE OF THE TINIEST OF THINGS, IS. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > You make some valid points below, most specifically in pointing out > the weakness of some of my examples. I do, however, maintain that there are > numerous instances in which of Q and ~Q, which is the quality, and which > it's mere absence, is in the eye of the beholder and a matter of convention in > terms of both naming and concept. (More below.) #115206 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 22, 2011 7:49 am Subject: The 3 Signs... Friends: The Three Signs of all Existence! The Blessed Buddha once pointed out: Sabbe Sankh�ra Anicca! All constructions are impermanent! When realizing that by understanding, one gets disgusted with suffering... This is the path to purity! Sabbe Sankh�ra Dukkha! All constructions are miserable! When realizing that by understanding, one gets disgusted with suffering...This is the path to purity! Sabbe Dhamm� Anatta! All states are no-self! When realizing that by understanding, one gets disgusted with suffering... This is the path to purity! Dhammapada 277-79 <.....> Source: BPS Wheel no 54 (Edited Excerpt): The Mirror of the Dhamma. A Manual of Buddhist Devotional Texts. By N�rada Thera and Bhikkhu Kassapa. Revised By Bhikkhu Khantip�lo: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/Wheels/wh_054.pdf Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <....> #115207 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 22, 2011 4:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi, Colette - In a message dated 5/21/2011 6:09:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: Howard, I'm taking it that you wrote this: > > When you are talking about anatta, it's an absolute, an absolute absence > of an imagined entity, so to me it's in a category with things that > definitely do exist vs. things that definitely do not exist. I think that's > different than comparing opposites which both can exist. ================================ No, that wasn't mine. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #115208 From: "colette" Date: Sun May 22, 2011 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Confused NAME & FORM, labels Hi Howard, I guess you have an idea of what I'm speaking of but I think you're trying to make a round peg fit in the square hole. Why did Galileo end up in the prison of his home by organized religion's command? Galileo was speaking of things that are MIND ONLY since they could not ascend to the "heavens". He suggested that the earth was NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE and that THE EARTH IS NOT A FLAT DISC. How is it possible, THEN, for thoughts to exist BEFORE ACTIONS? Is it in a better perspective? Can you see it better? I'm just sick of this "end of times" <.....> from paranoid psychopaths and megalomaniacs that publishers use to sell books and magazines so I'm going to try to ignore that line on "Judaic" and that schtick from this "Moses" character. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Colette - > > In a message dated 5/21/2011 1:39:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > ksheri3@... writes: > > Hi Group, > > Why does WISDOM have to PRECEDE "DOING"? Isn't it just as reasonable to > perform an act, "DOING", before or preceding WISDOM? Wisdom is being > considered as RESULTANT PHENOMENA. Is a person paralyzed for their entire existence > as long as they DO NOT HAVE WISDOM? > ================================== > Interestingly, what you say here is very "Judaic". Somewhere in the > five books of Moses (pertaining to the mythic event at Sinai, I think), there > is said "We shall do, and we shall hear." The doing, counter-intuitively, > comes first, expressing a behavioral perspective with understanding > following from (of-course-appropriate) action. <....> #115209 From: "azita" Date: Sun May 22, 2011 11:45 am Subject: view hallo Sarah I have a question about view such as "khandha as self, self as possessing khandha, khandha as in self or self as in khandha" These are various aspects of wrong view. Could we have all these views or not? I know they refer to all the 5 khandhas and I'm guessing that we could have different views for the different khandhas - yes/no??? patience, courage and good cheer azita #115210 From: "azita" Date: Sun May 22, 2011 11:52 am Subject: Re: ahosi kamma, II. Hallo Nina and Han. I do enjoy the posts bet you two. Not only very helpful but so gently and respectfully delivered to each other (IMHO) patience, courage and good cheer, Azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Han, > Thank you for your comments. > Op 21-mei-2011, om 16:31 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > > (11) There will be action (bhavissatikamma.m), there will be action- > > result (bhavissatikammavipaako). > ------- > N: No special comment from the commentary or from Kh Sujin. I think > that this does not refer to the arahat. For us: no end to samsara > yet. We keep on committing kamma also in future lives and this will > produce results. > A warning of the dukkha of samsara. It is so long. > > I will take a break now. I can resume later on. > Nina. > > > > > #115211 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Sun May 22, 2011 1:50 pm Subject: Re: From an India tour. Dear Nina Thank you for the reminder below, Nina. It seems so simple, so basic. Yet it is the core of what is to be understood through the development of understanding. The understanding that knows nama from rupa is so great, yet so subtle and easily misunderstood in terms of its development. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > < It is essential to gradually learn the difference between nma and > rpa, because so long as we confuse their characteristics there is no > way to become detached from the concept of self. Khun Sujin often > repeated that seeing is nma, the element which experiences visible > object, and that visible object is rpa. Some people may feel bored > to hear this again and again, but when we carefully consider the > reality appearing at the present moment it never is boring; it is > always new, because by considering what we hear understanding can > grow little by little. We are so used to thinking of a self who sees, > we have to be reminded again and again that it is nma which sees. We > are absorbed in our thoughts arising on account of what is seen that > we forget that seeing can only see what is visible. We cannot hear > often enough that it is only visible object which is seen, a kind of > rpa. > #115212 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 22, 2011 7:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving my backgrounds Hi Ken H, Adam & all, --- On Thu, 5/5/11, Ken H wrote: >> A: What to do to stop obessive thinking about my problems (drugs, family and studying - currently I am not studying... ---- >KH: Thinking about them is not the problem. The problem is thinking about them with wrong understanding. >When you have *right* understanding you can think about absolutely anything, and nothing will spoil your equanimity. >It's just a matter of understanding the present reality. Here and now (WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES) there are only conditioned dhammas, and they are all anicca, dukkha and anatta (no self). >So what difference does it make if things are going wrong and you are stuck with stories about drugs, family disputes, and failed exams? No difference at all. The present reality is the same as when everything is going beautifully. ..... S: I thought this answer was very helpful. It's so tempting to give a "situational" answer - "Do this.....don't do that" - but this is really the only answer that really points to the Path as taught by the Buddha, that is to understanding the realities of life as anatta, beyond anyone's control. Any more reflections, Adam? Metta Sarah ====== #115213 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 22, 2011 7:16 pm Subject: audio uploading Dear Phil, Ann, Azita, Sukin, Rob K, Maeve & all, As you know, our editing and uploading or recorded discussions with K.Sujin is very slow, especially this last year with all our moves and with Jon working full-time. We've decided to start uploading partially edited series as we go along. So take a look here as usual: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ Click on "audio discussions with K.Sujin" Scroll down to the end to: "Editing in Progress" You'll see some segments from the first afternoon's discussion during our recent visit to Kaeng Krajan with Phil. Phil, Han, Rob E, everyone - I think you'd enjoy these segments as the topics raised by Phil all relate to common "peeves" raised on DSG before and to points discussed beforehand with Han and ourselves. If anyone would like to transcribe any short segments for further discussion, that would be helpful. Thx to Phil and all who contributed to the lively discussions. More to follow in due course. Metta Sarah ====== #115214 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 22, 2011 7:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Vince, --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Vince wrote: >> S: Sotapannas will not ever break the precepts again and will not "fall" from the knowledge developed, having experienced nibbana. They will never again be born into lower planes or break the precepts again. Max 7 more lives. ... >V: So they are reborn even 7 times and respecting precepts from the beginning of each live ? .... S: Yes. The precepts will never again be broken. These rebirths will usually be in heavenly or brahma realms of course. Metta Sarah ===== #115215 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 22, 2011 7:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Alex, --- On Wed, 18/5/11, truth_aerator wrote: >>S:....Max 7 more lives. >V:So they are reborn even 7 times and respecting precepts from the >beginning of each live ? A:>I wonder how will a sotopanna child behave. .... S: A sotapanna child would behave with perfected morality and no wrong view. However, I don't believe there are any examples in the texts of sotapannas reborn as humans. It doesn't say it's impossible however. ... >Also, what if s/he were asked some philosophical question, would s/he answer correctly? What if the child was brought up in a household that taught wrong view? .... S: Again, wrong view has been eradicated and there will never again be any doubt about dhammas as anatta. We have examples of those who became sotapannas at the age of seven after listening to the Teachings. They would have been brought up in households with with wrong view, but once enlightened, any questions were answered correctly and wisely. .... A:>Some ideas. >BTW, a sekha can break minor precepts, MN48: "Again, bhikkhus, the noble disciple reflects. I share this view with those come to righteousness of view. I'm also endowed with that unique characteristic. Bhikkhus, what is that unique characteristic of one come to righteousness or view? When he does any wrong, it becomes manifest to him, and he instantly goes to the Teacher or a wise co-associate in the holy life and declares and makes it manifest and makes amends for future restrain, like a toddler who is slow to stand and lie would tred on a burning piece of charcoal and would instantly pull away from it. In the same manner when he does any wrong, it becomes manifest to him, and he instantly goes to the Teacher or a wise co-associate in the holy life and declares and makes amends for future restrain. This is a unique character of one come to righteousness of view. This is the fourth noble knowledge attained, not of the world and not shared by the ordinary." ..... S: Not the 5 precepts. Minor rules for the bhikkhus might be broken unknowingly. As it says, as soon as this becomes evident, they make amends. >http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/048-kosambiya\ -sutta-e1.html .... Metta Sarah ===== #115216 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 22, 2011 7:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Enlightenment from the light side Hi Dieter, --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Dieter Moeller wrote: >just discovered the fine work done by the systematisation of (useful) posts following the topic. <...> >Now I will look for Zany ( I noted the Etymology : " originally Zanni, Venetian dialect variant of Gianni, pet form of Giovanni "John." ) ... possibly coming back with my favorites .. ;-) ... S: Thx for your kind feedback and the etymology of zany:-)) Come back with anything you like.... Metta Sarah ======== #115217 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 22, 2011 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some thoughts on Anatta and Path (Long) Hi Kevin (& Alex), Your comments on "Two Truths" and Mahayana were very helpful. And the following was very relevant: --- On Fri, 20/5/11, Kevin F wrote: >For some of the actual Buddhist view on this, we read in th Udana atthakatha (trans. masefield p.878), Blind from birth chapter: >QUOTE"Since they do not know Dhamma, they do not know that which is not Dhamma either. For these, on account of pervesenesses, take dhamma though skilled as unskilled, take dhamma though unskilled as skilled. And not only are they confused where dhamma and what is not dhamma are concerened, but also the ripening thereof are concerned..Similarly, they neither know dhamma to be a thing having an owm nature (sabhava), nor do they know that which is not dhamma to be a thing lacking an own nature.(Dhammam sabhavadhammam..adhammam asabhavadhammam) And as such they declare a thing having an own nature as though it were a thing lacking an own nature...." .... S: And just as you said: >It's important to understand that most modern day Buddhists, not just Mahayanists, could be said to match the description of the people described in the above passage from the atthakatha. Without understanding the own-nature (sabhava) how could they realistically reach even the first stage of insight, delineation between nama and rupa (since they cannot understand nama and rupa to have essences and characteristics)? That was a rhetorical question. ... S: thx again for your helpful contribution to this topic. Metta Sarah ====== #115218 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 22, 2011 7:54 pm Subject: Re: audio uploading Hi Sarah, Jon and all Thanks for your hard work to get these up. They were great discussions. However, I think I'll keep listening to the Saturday discussions at the foundation, which tend to be on more technical points, which I like. I was calm and conciliatory during the discussions because I wanted people to like me. But if I listen now, I will find things that only feed the peeves. I think they are not to be settled, but wisely put aside so that other things can be discussed. But unlikely to be able to put them aside now! But I do appreciate the thing that I really felt I understood during the discussions. Satipatthana can arise, and develop gradually, by listening and reflecting, and in daily life. I am more impressed by A. Sujin's explanation of satipatthana than by, for example, the Mahashi explanation/technique. Where we differ is the need for protection other than satipatthana, the protection of conventional morality whether there is understanding of dhammas or not. Thanks again, hope to be asking questions based on SPD and the Saturday session talks sooner or later... Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Phil, Ann, Azita, Sukin, Rob K, Maeve & all, > > #115219 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 22, 2011 7:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More dukkha Hi Connie, --- On Tue, 17/5/11, connie wrote: > Write on, Sarah. >When it comes to dukkha, more is never enough; woe, lobha's stealth mode! .... S: Yes, plenty of lobha for more of the same. We might not like the unpleasantness, but even now the lobha is conditioning more of that too. Write on too..... all the family skeletons and woes are just in this citta after all. We all need reminders... I can't understand how the "sobhana kiriya cittas" can be ahosi of any colour, but then I need an interpreter - I think even Rob E might be stretched at putting it in simple English. Splitting hair or splitting heads? Sounds serious down your way, at least down in those Seattle cittas:-) Great to see you around again..... Metta Sarah >Akusala hetu! en guarde!!* against the self, perhaps... who cares who... just recognize the enemy... no need to call! haha. But if you're down pointing folk out, Lobha Mula Citta, there's one of the usual suspects - 8 types of the devil anyway. If memory serves, the dosa mulas round out the basic dirty dozen & then it seems like the 2 general mohas are the real brains behind the akusala javana cittas / cetasikas / gangs, but lets not split heads. We're not talking about sobhana kiriya cittas here! That's "ahosi" of a different color. ======== #115220 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 22, 2011 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: audio uploading Hi Phil, --- On Sun, 22/5/11, philip wrote: >Thanks for your hard work to get these up. They were great discussions. However, I think I'll keep listening to the Saturday discussions at the foundation, which tend to be on more technical points, which I like. I was calm and conciliatory during the discussions because I wanted people to like me. But if I listen now, I will find things that only feed the peeves. I think they are not to be settled, but wisely put aside so that other things can be discussed. But unlikely to be able to put them aside now! ..... S: :-) Ann & Maeve had particularly asked us to upload them as soon as possible. Who knows - you might still find yourself "calm and conciliatory" when you listen again! .... >But I do appreciate the thing that I really felt I understood during the discussions. Satipatthana can arise, and develop gradually, by listening and reflecting, and in daily life. I am more impressed by A. Sujin's explanation of satipatthana than by, for example, the Mahashi explanation/technique. Where we differ is the need for protection other than satipatthana, the protection of conventional morality whether there is understanding of dhammas or not. .... S: Understood. .... >Thanks again, hope to be asking questions based on SPD and the Saturday session talks sooner or later... ... S: Look f/w to it anytime.... "Hi" to Naomi - she might like to listen sometime with you.... Are things back to normal in Tokyo now? Metta Sarah ====== #115221 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 12:44 am Subject: Re: audio uploading glenjohnann Hi Sarah Thank you and Jon very much for putting up the partially edited recordings of the wonderful discussions in KK. I realize that you have both been extraordinarily busy over the past year or so and that time for doing your "fully edited" discussions, always beautifully done, has been greatly reduced. So I really appreciate you taking the time to do any editing at all and posting it. It is always good to be able to relisten to discussions, so jam packed with good information and reminders - as these were. Hope that you are both keeping relatively well. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Phil, Ann, Azita, Sukin, Rob K, Maeve & all, > > As you know, our editing and uploading or recorded discussions with K.Sujin is very slow, especially this last year with all our moves and with Jon working full-time. > > We've decided to start uploading partially edited series as we go along. So take a look here as usual: > #115223 From: "connie" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 1:16 am Subject: A Sotapanna Hi Vince, v: If we kill a mosquito thinking "f* insect!!" it would be with ill intention. If we make an automatic movement as soon we feel a contact in our skin, it would be killing without ill intention. c: or maybe with Less 'ill will', but still, why bother to brush anything off if it's not 'bothering' / dosa? best, connie #115224 From: "connie" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 1:17 am Subject: view hallo azita, a: I have a question about view such as "khandha as self, self as possessing khandha, khandha as in self or self as in khandha" These are various aspects of wrong view. Could we have all these views or not? I know they refer to all the 5 khandhas and I'm guessing that we could have different views for the different khandhas - yes/no??? c: wouldn't there be different views at different times? so, my vote's Yes. It reminds me of asking 'which character type am I?' - as in 'what meditation subject suits ME?’ best wishes, connie #115225 From: "connie" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 1:21 am Subject: More dukkha nichiconn Hi Sarah, c: Akusala hetu! If memory serves, the dosa mulas round out the basic dirty dozen & then it seems like the 2 general mohas are the real brains behind the akusala javana cittas / cetasikas / gangs, but lets not split heads. We're not talking about sobhana kiriya cittas here! That's "ahosi" of a different color. s: I can't understand how the "sobhana kiriya cittas" can be ahosi of any colour, but then I need an interpreter - I think even Rob E might be stretched at putting it in simple English. Splitting hair or splitting heads? Sounds serious down your way, at least down in those Seattle cittas:-) c: you're trying too hard: "ahosi just means past" (not kamma!). The dirty dozen are the 12 basic types of akusala Cittas... but there are 14 dirty Cetasikas & i was having trouble remembering the numbers, so hairs would've done but you know how 'gangsters' split heads ('into seven pieces' is usu said) -- doesn't get much more serious than & maybe when it's family story time, we might ask ourselves, "Who's your daddy now?" s: Great to see you around again..... c: thanks. I'll try to remember I'm not just talking to myself. best wishes, connie ...in short the 5 upadana khandhas are dukkha. #115226 From: Vince Date: Mon May 23, 2011 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna cerovzt@... Dear Sarah you wrote: >>V: So they are reborn even 7 times and respecting precepts from the beginning of each live ? > .... > S: Yes. The precepts will never again be broken. These rebirths will usually > be in heavenly or brahma realms of course. in that case the 7 lives would be impossible, because we cannot find in the Suttas any being who becomes a sotapanna in other realm than human or deva. What I wrote you about the -self is not only my personal view: "...Having seen Nibbana for oneself once, one loses some of the difficulties one had before. The most drastic hindrance that one loses is the idea that this person we call "I" is a separate entity. The wrong view of self is lost. But that doesn't mean that a sotapanna is constantly aware of no-self. The wrong view is lost. But the right view has to be reinforced again and again and experienced again and again through that reinforcement." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khema/bl095.html this losing of wrong view is not a permanent anatta experience. It would be only the case of arhants. Understanding of what is anatta is not the same of abiding in non-self. A similar distance of explaining a song from just enjoy it. best, Vince. #115227 From: Vince Date: Mon May 23, 2011 4:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna cerovzt@... Dear connie you wrote: > c: or maybe with Less 'ill will', but still, why bother to brush anything off > if it's not 'bothering' / dosa? I suppose because there is just a contact but with a quick thought of "contact... with ME". So it would be not hatred towards a being but attachment to my body. well I don't know about the exact process. best, Vince. #115228 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 7:40 am Subject: Re: view glenjohnann Hi Azita and Connie I tend to agree with Connie - different moments of wrong view arising at different times, with regard to the khandhas individually as well as in aggregate. Connie - I am picking up from other posts that you live in Seattle. If so, then we are practically neighbours as I am in Vancouver, BC. Do you ever come this way? We have not been your way for a number of years but do think of visiting again from time to time. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > hallo azita, > > These are various aspects of wrong view. Could we have all these views or not? I know they refer to all the 5 khandhas and I'm guessing that we could have different views for the different khandhas - yes/no??? > > c: wouldn't there be different views at different times? so, my vote's Yes. It reminds me of asking 'which character type am I?' - as in 'what meditation subject suits ME?’ > best wishes, > connie > #115229 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 9:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Robert: As regards the dog, > that absence is also a defining feature, but only when compared with other > dogs that have hair. > ----------------------------------------------- > H: > And vice-versa. When we see a hairless dog, don't we think "What an > unusual characteristic!"? > ----------------------------------------------- I think that makes my point that it is a negative characteristic, based on comparison with having hair. That is why it's unusual. Sure it's a characteristic, but it's based on comparison, not on a specific quality of its own. See below. > In a world where all dogs where hairless, "hairlessness" would not be a > characteristic, although some other feature that does exist, such as > "smooth-bodied" or "flat" or whatever would still exist. "Hairless" is a measure > against hair. Even though it is a characteristic, it is not a positive > characteristic. > ------------------------------------------------------- > H: > If we think of there being some "thing" being present or absent, you > are correct. But where almost all dogs have hair, being hairless appears as > a positive characteristic. And what happens when we describe that > characteristic as "smooth-surfaced "? > ------------------------------------------------------ "Smooth-surfaced" is a positive observable, a positive characteristic in its own right. When you define it in terms of itself and say "smooth-surfaced" rather than hairless, it is not dependent on hair one way or the other, and therefore you have identified what its own actual positive characteristic is, rather than defining it in terms of something that it *doesn't* have. "Smooth" exists. "Hairless" does not. > It shows the conceptual nature of many things we call characteristics. If > they are comparisons, they are only part characteristic, and part concept. > ------------------------------------------------------ > That's quite right!! And often times of Q and ~Q, depending on thought > and language, either one could be the quality with the other its absence, > or each could be a quality. > ----------------------------------------------------- I still think there's a big distinction between opposite qualities - where either one could be the quality, and existents and non-existents, where only the existent can possibly exist. > Anatta does say something about the nature of all things - they have no > self. But the only reason that characteristic is spoken and thought about is > because it is a realization away from the illusion of self-hood which we > are all born into. That does not mean anatta is conceptual or unreal. > Whatever is true about a 'selfless' process or occurrence is true; but the fact > that we call it "no-self" is a comparison to "self-concept." How would we > experience the "non-self" nature of dhammas without the concept of self to > compare it with? That is an interesting question. There must be a > variety of positive characteristics that dhammas have that would not exist if in > fact there was a central, permanent, unifying self. We could run those > down and say "these are the positive characteristics of an event, capacity, > act or occurrence that has no self at its center." > ------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Again, by adjusting language it could be viewed oppositely: There are > "dependently existent" and "seamlessly attached" and "intimately > connected." Each of these is a positive formulation for "lacking in separate, > independent being". > ------------------------------------------------------- Well that's actually exactly what I've proposed. I've said that there are positive identifiable characteristics that are the actual observable existents that are associated with the negative characteristic "no self." If you identify the positives, which really can be observed, you are fine. You are now dealing with actuality, rather than negation and comparison. So "dependently existent" and "seamlessly attached" could be very good substitutes for 'no self' and also explain conceptually what you have in absence of a false concept of self. Where "dependently existent" really *is* a characteristic, "no self" is not, except as a negation. ... Bald can be called "smooth and shiny," > even without the concept of hair in play. Hairy means that there is hair > there; they are only a comparison conceptually. This differs from anatta in > that there is no atta, so there is no opposite condition, just > non-existence of the opposing object. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > That makes the case stronger for "anatta" being the quality! Of two > conceived-of conditions, A and B, if A never occurs and B always occurs, > which deserves to be viewed as an actual quality?? LOLOL! > ----------------------------------------------------------- Only if you substitute a true positive for the negative characteristic. Even if anatta is more true than the existence of a self, it is still a comparative term. You can say it is true, it points to the true condition of dhammas, but it is not positively identifying how that is so, which is put positively by identifying, as you did above, 'dependently arisen,' and other positive identifiers. > Atta is like a unicorn, it's a fictional entity which we can have a > concept of, but which never appears in actuality. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > H: > So, it is certainly, then, not a quality of anything anywhere! No one said it was. I'm talking about positive existent characteristics vs. negative non-existent ones. When you negate a non-existent object, like saying "There is no unicorn here," it seems you are negating something that could otherwise exist. But in fact you are really asserting that it doesn't exist. That's fine, but that's not a reason to confuse asserting non-existence of a non-existent object with asserting existence of a non-existent negation! That's anatta in a nutshell! > And as > for "entities", neither "self" nor "non-self" is a thing. In fact, we need > to banish things entirely from our discourse, and especially as regarding > qualities. But absences are no less things than presences. I don't believe that is correct. Things that do appear are not the same as things that never appear. > All this "thing > business" is conceptual proliferation gone wild. ;-) > ------------------------------------------------------------ Still, experiences take place, and there is also false imagination. If we imagine we experience a self and it is not there, then that is a false assertion. It's not the same as saying "there is a leg here" when I am looking at my leg. Even if you break down the definitions of things and say they are conceptual, the thing itself still does appear, even speaking strictly phenomenologically. Atta never appears. It is a fiction. And anatta never appears either. It is a negation of a fiction. > 'No unicorn' is not a characteristic of something, it is just an > acknowledgment that unicorns are fictional. Same with anatta. Anatta is an > absence, not a presence. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > H: > All just a matter of language convention, thought, and emphasis. I think that is incorrect. Not all objects denoted by language terms are equally imaginary. I think it is better to separate the issue of ultimate nonexistence of discrete objects from the issue of objects that even conventionally never appear except as concepts. A person's legs are not nonexistent in the same way as atta and anatta are, which never appeared except as concepts in any way, shape or form. To gloss them all together as "linguistic artifices" when they are not of the same kind I think is a mistake. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #115230 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 9:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Colette. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > colette: Ahhhh, the truth comes out. Robert, you really are not a practicing Buddhist and you have ulterior motivation in studying the Buddhist Philosophy i.e. the concept of "no self" being an absurd concept. Didn't say that, and your accusation, based on cutting my sentence in half and thereby changing the meaning of what I said, is rather intense. Please restore my sentence to its original form and you will see that I said that "a THING called a 'no-self' is absurd, not 'no-self' as as concept or even characteristic. I have said repeatedly that anatta is a characteristic of everything that is conditioned, so it would be helpful if you would read sentences before you cut them in half to change their meaning. Thank you. I have snipped the rest of your comments, since they were either addressed to Howard, or else not pertinent to what we were discussing. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #115231 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 2:39 pm Subject: Re: wisdom and doing kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------- <. . .> > KH: I would have agreed with that too, except I know from previous conversations that you are denying the absolute reality of the nama or rupa being experienced. All this silly talk about "no own being" has led you astray. :-) >> > RE: Own-being is an extraneous and dangerous concept which adds an extra layer of ownership to something which merely occurs. One shouldn't add an unnecessary concept that smacks of self-hood. It is a foolish risk and leads to wrong concepts of how thoroughly anatta functions. I would err on the side of no-ownership which is akin to no-self, rather than a weird no-self that owns things. --------- KH: There are basically two Buddhist teachings. There is the one that is found in the Pali Tipitaka and commentaries, and there are all the others. The first one describes the universe as a single moment of conditioned dhammas. All the others don't. In order to survive as well as they have, the other Buddhist teachings have simply ignored, denied, or otherwise cast doubt upon, paramattha dhammas. So that is what you and I should be discussing - the reality or unreality of dhammas. When we have agreed there *are* paramattha dhammas we can argue over exactly how their characteristics can be inherent. I doubt, though, whether we will take up the option. We will probably be like Sarah and regard such arguments as "verbal quibbles." Ken H #115232 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 3:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Howard, ------- <. . .> >> KH: When we, or the texts, are talking about something that takes place over a number of cittas, it's a concept. And therefore it's not something that can be known directly by satipatthana. A concept can help to explain how the present dhammas came to be, and therefore what their nature is, but it is not a paramattha dhamma. >> > H: We know such things conceptually, but a Buddha does better! ;-) ------- KH: I don't follow your reasoning. Surely a concept is a concept no matter who experiences it? -------------- <. . .> >> H: There is only the present moment. The Dhamma points out the realities that exist *in the present moment.* In the process, it tells us their cause, their cessation, and the path leading to their cessation. >> >>That's all there is to it. > H: There is only the present moment AT THAT MOMENT!! But the Buddha could directly know of trans-temporal phenomena such as rebirth and past lives, and most importantly, dependent origination. ------------- KH: Rebirth is a momentary citta. Past lives were exactly the same as this one; just one citta that has followed after another, and is already falling away. Dependent Origination is what is happening now, in the present moment. There is nothing trans-temporal about any of it. ----------------------- <. . .> >> KH: If it was "shadows all the way down" - nothing real - then there would be no way out. >> > H: Absolutely not. It is the very realization of that thoroughgoing emptiness and the consequent relinquishment of absolutely everything which is the way out! Holding onto to the idea of things at the bottom to depend on is itself a shackle that needs to be removed. --------------------- KH: What you call "holding on to the idea of things to depend on," I would call "taking refuge in the Dhamma" or, "right understanding of the way things are." Ken H #115233 From: Shalini S Date: Mon May 23, 2011 12:33 pm Subject: hello Hello everybody, I am Shalini from India, practicing Vipassana in SN Goenkaji's tradition. I recently got interested in studying Dhamma much more seriously in addition to practicing, with the intention of strengthening my practice and knowledge and to more wisely integrate the practice into my daily life. I started of with Abhidhammatta Sangaha analysis by an unknown author and while I searched for some questions I had, I came across this study group and subscribed to it. Nice to read the postings. Thanks ShaliniSerenity comes to those who trade expectations with acceptance. 20) #115234 From: "colette" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 1:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Robert, Ah, that explains it. I've played this game many times, especially back in the 80s when those DOGMATISTS from organized religion and their slaves began persecuting me back in '81. Sorry, my mistake, <....> Sorry, those shoes, the perspective,position that you're trying to place me in, the size is far too small. Anyway, I'm not into pain as a way of bringing my person HAPPINESS so the Chinese practice of FOOTBINDING is not a position I chose to accept from you. I thought that, AT LEAST, I would be accepted as a chef with a very promising ability. Alas, I've played this role many times unfortunately I don't know who the "Baker" is and who the "Candlestick Maker" is. OBVIOUSLY I'm being LABELED, NAMED (see NAME & FORM) as being THE BUTCHER and so I figured that I wasn't alone and had two colleagues in the same boat as myself. DOGMA requires that the Butcher is accompanied by the Baker and the Candlestick Maker. I guess I should go watch Anthony Bourdain describe how a proper butcher is to behave. Although I have never been able to FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD nor THE HO CHI MIN TRAIL. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > colette: Ahhhh, the truth comes out. Robert, you really are not a practicing Buddhist and you have ulterior motivation in studying the Buddhist Philosophy i.e. the concept of "no self" being an absurd concept. > > Didn't say that, and your accusation, based on cutting my sentence in half and thereby changing the meaning of what I said, is rather intense. <....> 349) #115235 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon May 23, 2011 8:40 am Subject: Impermanence = Anicca! Friends: It appears as Lasting, but it is never! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhu, There is no lasting materiality, no lasting form whatsoever... There is no lasting feeling whatsoever... There is no lasting perception whatsoever... There is no lasting mental construction whatsoever... There is no lasting conscious awareness whatsoever... Nothing here is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, not transient, not vanishing! Nothing is stable, safe or lasting ... !!! SN 22.96/vol. iii, 144 The eye is impermanent, visual forms, eye-consciousness, eye contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant, painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, born of this eye-contact, that also is impermanent... The ear is impermanent, sounds, hearing-consciousness, ear contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant, painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, born of this ear-contact, that also is impermanent... The nose is impermanent, smells, smelling-consciousness, nose contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant, painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, born of this nose-contact, that also is impermanent... The tongue is impermanent, flavours, tasting-consciousness, tongue contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant, painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, born of this tongue-contact, that also is impermanent... The body is impermanent, touches, touching-consciousness, body contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant, painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, born of this body-contact, that also is impermanent... The mind is impermanent, thoughts, thinking-consciousness, mind contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant, painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, born of this mind-contact, that also is impermanent... SN 35.43/vol. iv, 28 All formations, all constructions, all conditions are impermanent... MN 35/vol. i, 230 Whatever can emerge, that will indeed also cease... MN 56/vol. i, 380 Impermanence, as pointed out in the commentaries, is not always Evident unless specifically looked for! Know it in advance and then you can see it... False Apparent Continuity covers up and camouflages Impermanence: The characteristic of impermanence does not become apparent because, when rise and fall are not given attention, it is concealed by continuity... However, when apparent continuity is disrupted by discerning rise and fall, the characteristic of impermanence becomes apparent in its true nature. Vism. Ch. xxi/p. 640 Observing the abrupt Change of all States discloses their discrete nature: When continuity is disrupted means when continuity is exposed by observation of the perpetual alteration of states as they go on occurring in succession. For it is not through the connectedness of states, that the characteristic of impermanence becomes apparent to one who rightly observes rise and fall, but rather the transience characteristic becomes properly evident through these states discrete disconnectedness, regarded as if each moment were iron darts hitting the screen of awareness. Or as single pearls on a string, but not continuous as the string itself... VismA. 824 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> 1) #115236 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 23, 2011 7:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] hello Dear Shalini, Glad to welcome you here! Whereabouts in India do you live, if I may ask? I'm glad to read your intro and to hear that you enjoy reading the postings. You started with the Abhidhammattha Sangaha - wow! You should be familiar with many of the terms and much of the language used here, then! This text is a very highly regarded summary of the Abhidhamma, compiled by Acariya Anuruddha. Little is known about him, but this compendium has been accepted commentary of Theravada Buddhism for a very long time. If you had/have any questions/points you wished to discuss, pls start a new thread or join in a current one anytime. Metta Sarah --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Shalini S wrote: From: Shalini S > Hello everybody, I am Shalini from India, practicing Vipassana in SN Goenkaji's tradition. I recently got interested in studying Dhamma much more seriously in addition to practicing, with the intention of strengthening my practice and knowledge and to more wisely integrate the practice into my daily life. I started of with Abhidhammatta Sangaha analysis by an unknown author and while I searched for some questions I had, I came across this study group and subscribed to it. >Nice to read the postings. #115237 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 23, 2011 7:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Rob E, --- On Sat, 21/5/11, Robert E wrote: >> S... or all biased, depending on who we're addressing (or think we're addressing:-)) R:>Well, it reminds me of my favorite Peter Sellers bit, in the old Pink Panther movie - the original. Peter Sellers, as Inspector Clouseau, the self-inflated imbecile detective, is exiting from an apartment and trying to impress a young lady at the same time while saying his goodbyes. He is so busy smiling and nodding at her that he doesn't look where he's going and he very indecorously bangs his head against the wall instead of getting out the door, making him look like the idiot he is. Unfazed, he turns around, looks at the wall in disbelief, turns back to the young lady, and announces with great pomposity: "Stupid architect." .... S: Very funny indeed:-). Do you tell a story well. The favourite one round here is usually "Stupid Yahoo" whenever anyone messes up.... Metta Sarah ===== Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #115238 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 23, 2011 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How is wisdom accumulated Hi Colette, --- On Fri, 20/5/11, colette wrote: >Dear, please, I know, am certain, that I have 100% ignorance when it comes to BUDDHISM and the more complex versions of Buddhist Philosophy i.e. the Yogacara, Epstein, Mueller, even Berzine, et al. To be "ashamed" or saddened by my own characteristics is to get in line at a head shrinker's shop so that they can call it DEPRESSION and prescribe a long list of chemicals that they want to test in my body for their drug cartels. .... S: :-) We'd just call the shame/sadness/depression all kinds of "dosa" - impermanent unwholesome mental states arising with unpleasant feeling - none of them belonging to Colette, Sarah or anyone else. Passing "namas" - that's all. Very, very common. Why do they arise whilst reflecting on ignorance? Only because we're used to finding ourselves important in some regard or other. ... >Pardon me, Robert. It was interesting though, that I got to delusion that I was worthy of such a scholar as Ronald Epstein being willing to speak with such an ignorant person as myself. Ya had to do it, didn't ya, Sarah; ya had to just take away what little fun I could have. .... S: :-) .... >HOWEVER, I am still honored to be accepted enough by such wise people to discuss Buddhist philosophy with me and help me to reach my own conclusions without having DOGMA shoved down my throat.... .... S: We're honoured to have your continued participation here, Colette. We're all just beginners on the path, trying to share with and assist each other. If we don't reach our own conclusions, it's useless. Metta Sarah ====== #115239 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 23, 2011 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is "direct" understanding? Hi Rob E, We're discussing satipatthana and jhana cittas/cetasikas as objects of insight: --- On Fri, 20/5/11, Robert E wrote: >I think there is a difference between clinging to an object or trying to control the choice of object, and simply recognizing the attributes of a particular object. I think you have pointed out wisely many times that any object can be an object of insight, but that does not mean that every object and every object and every configuration of cetasikas is equally beneficial for the arising of insight or enlightenment factors. ..... S: I think that insight and the accompanying enlightenment factors don't care/are completely detached from the reality which is experienced with wisdom and these other factors. This is why the object experienced in the process leading to enlightenment, i.e split mini-seconds before nibbana is experienced, may be a jhana citta, lobha, dosa or any other conditioned reality. As you know we read about those who experienced jhana cittas just prior to enlightenment. We also read about those who were in deep despair and attempting to commit suicide. In the Satipatthana Sutta, we don't just read about breath as object, we also read about the various hindrances as objects. The first kind of citta mentioned as object of satipatthana is that with lobha. Where you do have a good point, however, is that those who became enlightened based on jhanas were able to experience phala (fruition) cittas (with nibbana) again and again and clearly the knowledges of those who had attained all jhanas and patisambhidas was far superior to those without these. As for how any of this affects us, I think we should just stress that there's no choice in the matter! Right understanding will know and sati will be aware of whatever there are conditions for. No one can choose whether to attain jhanas first, just as no one can choose whether to be aware of a reality now. ... >I also think there's a difference between clinging and cultivating. One can realize that there's no ultimate control and still follow principles and practices that are conducive to development. Jhana may not be possible for most people in this day and age, but it's still good to recognize what it is and the role that it plays. .... S: Even this "following principles and practices that are conducive to development" is conditioned. If there is a wish now or an attempt to develop metta now, it's different from just understanding the value of metta. The first indicates a clinging to oneself and to one's mental states. .... >It's in the sutta on jhanas, where Buddha describes the process of exiting the jhana and then contemplating the jhana as an object of insight immediately afterwards: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html >Here's a quote: >"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'" .... S: Exactly - "He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self." This applies equally to jhana cittas or unwholesome mental states, even extreme anger, for example. "he turns his mind away from those phenomena..." - when he realises how equally worthless they all are - all impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self - the mind turns to nibbana, to the cessation of all conditioned dhammas. Instead of saying "there is the case where a monk.....first jhana....", it could have said, "there is the case where anyone......lobha/dosa/moha/visible object....." ... >In the above segment, Buddha describes the way in which the properties of the kandhas are seen in the light of the jhana are contemplated as objects of insight leading to contemplation of nibbana; and he also says at the beginning that "the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the ... jhana.' ... S: As explained in what follows, it just means that in this case the jhana citta and associated factors precede the enlightenment. In this sense, these states are the proximate cause, a condition by natural decisive support condition for that insight and enlightenment. .... .... >>S: But are we really ready for a vacation from the attachment and all we hold dear? Honestly? R:>Me? Can I bring green tea on the vacation? .... S: :-) Next you'll be wanting to bring along a handful of pleasant sights, sounds and a soft pillow.... Metta Sarah ======= 73) #115240 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 1:19 am Subject: Re: A Sotapanna Hi Vince, just beween: you wrote: 'Understanding of what is anatta is not the same of abiding in non-self. A similar distance of explaining a song from just enjoy it.' well said , and - you may perhaps agree- this understanding involves experiencing.. with Metta Dieter 188) #115241 From: "connie" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 1:31 am Subject: Re: view Hi Ann, > Connie - I am picking up from other posts that you live in Seattle. If so, then we are practically neighbours as I am in Vancouver, BC. Do you ever come this way? We have not been your way for a number of years but do think of visiting again from time to time. c: Omak is about 50 miles south of Osoyoos. I can't come up, but (lol) WalMart seems to be a pretty big attraction here for Canadians and Seattlites alike. I'll see if I can't think of some better incentive for you to come this way if you do decide to take off :) peace, connie 10) #115242 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 3:27 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses Hi Alex (114405) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Jon, all, > ... > > J: Yes, the parts of the body are valid objects of contemplation >in >the development of samatha. As regards the development of >insight, >however, it is the 'paṭhavīdhātu' >mentioned in the >sutta that is the object. > > What is wrong with properly following instructions (such as 32 bodyparts) found in Satipatthana sutta? > =============== J: I do not see the section on the 32 body parts in the Satipatthana Sutta as instructions to be followed. I see this passage as satipatthana for those who are also developing (and have already attained a high level of) samatha with body parts as object. > =============== > IMHO, the Buddha's teaching is about eliminating all craving and ignorance. Sometimes rough, literal and "conceptual" objects (such as corpses, 32 bodyparts, etc) are more effective than clean abstract qualities that we do not perceive (and may never be able to). > =============== J: I have no problem with the observation that the Buddha's teaching is about the elimination of all craving and ignorance. But it's a question of the path by which that elimination occurs, as taught by the Buddha. To my understanding, the elimination (= permanent eradication) of both craving and ignorance comes as a result of the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas. The development of samatha to high levels can suppress attachment to sense-objects temporarily, but does nothing to permanently eradicate that attachment. And as regards the other kilesas such as the remaining kinds of attachment (bhava tanha, miccha ditthi) or ignorance, samatha does not even suppress (let alone eradicate). So while the development of samatha was extolled by the Buddha in numerous suttas, its role in the development of the path is a supporting one. Jon 355) #115243 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 3:32 am Subject: [dsg] What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Paññaa Hi Robert E (114406) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > ... > > Development of the path only comes if, firstly, the teachings have been heard/read about in a way that is appropriate to one's level of understanding, and, following that, if what has been heard (and properly understood) is reflected upon, and so forth. > > > > None of this can be achieved by the doing of any particular activity. If one does happen to hear the teachings explained in a way that is meaningful for one's present level of understanding, it's the result of past kamma rather than, for example, deciding to listen to a particular recording, attend a discussion or read a book. The doing of the specific activity is not the determining factor (despite the fact that the hearing of the teachings will inevitably involve some or all such intentional activities). > > [RE:] That's a damned good explanation, Jon. I see by this that the "kamma system" is responsible for an awful lot of what takes place. > =============== J: Yes. Coming across the dhamma (properly explained) and being able to associate with people who have a good understanding of the Dhamma is clearly something that, in terms of the teaching on kamma and vipaka, is a result of previous deeds (such as an interest in the Dhamma in previous lives) rather than something that happens because of deliberate effort in the present life. > =============== [RE:] Well I guess a lot hinges on one's faith that this is the way things work, that things happen as the result of past-life kusala which lead to greater development of the path. > =============== J: No, I don't think there needs to be that kind of faith at all. Just a willingness to keep an open mind about the possibility of the kamma/vipaka connection. =============== > [RE:] Given that past kusala kamma has led to present-life events that cause the path to become more accessible, how is future kusala generated? I mean, what is taking place now that will lead to auspicious developments in future lives? We must be doing something or generating kusala in some way, shape or form now that is not the result of past kamma; otherwise it would be vipaka and would lead to future kusala. Am I right in how I am describing this? > =============== J: The development of right understanding now is kamma that will bring as result contact with the Dhamma in future lives (those whose focus is on securing rebirth in the human plane are missing this point, perhaps). > =============== > [RE:] So visible object does not "look like" that property which it represents in the conceptual object *at all?* > =============== J: The appearance of a conceptual object is itself a conceptual object, whereas visible object is something that is directly experienced. Focussing on the former cannot lead to the latter. > =============== [RE:] In other words, my touching of the computer and feeling that "computer is a hard object" has *no relation* to paramatha tactile object "hardness" that is actually being experienced? =============== J: It's not a question of relation or no relation between the conventional object and paramattha dhammas, but of appreciating that focussing on the former is not the gateway to seeing/understanding the latter. =============== > [RE:] When you say it is of another register altogether, the way I would interpret that analogously would be like a microscopic view of matter revealing space, individual fibers, etc. rather than a "solid table." In the analogy, the microscope gives me a totally different view of the object, and breaks it down into much smaller units, but those units still do represent the "reality of" the table that I ordinarily see. Yet the knowledge of what the table actually consists of is much more specific through the microscope. > =============== J: That's not the analogy I was intending to convey. The hidden reality is revealed not by looking at conventional reality through the microscope of the teachings, but by reflecting on the teachings and considering how they might relate/apply to the present moment. Jon 64) #115244 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 3:39 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? Hi Robert E (114412) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: But I think it's worth knowing, and reminding ourselves, that in the absolute sense vipaka is the *experiencing* of pleasant or unpleasant objects through the sense-doors. > > > > For instance, a person could be born into very favourable circumstances but still have a lot of bodily pain, or born poor but experience good health and comfortable surroundings for his whole life. > > [RE:] Thanks, that is clear. Is there a special reason why certain kammas can lead to a mixed result, such as pleasant vipaka within unpleasant surroundings, or vice versa? > =============== J: There is no kaamma that leads to a 'mixed' result. Kamma is either kusala or akusala, leading to kusala (pleasant) or akusala (unpleasant) vipaka. A 'mixed result' is in fact the result of both good kamma and bad kamma, each bringing its own appropriate result. Jon 568) #115245 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 3:43 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses Hi Robert E (114413) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > [RE:] I think that the commentators seem to [in my limited scope of experience] take an Abhidhamma point of view towards sutta. That does not totally convince me that this is the only level of interpretation that is valid, although it may also be valid and perhaps ultimately of great importance. However, it does not settle the question of whether the Buddha's explicit conventional teachings, which in fact he gave to actual people who he wanted to hear what he was saying at the time, are not also valid in their own right and have something quite important to offer - that is, a guide to world-bound worldlings as to how to live their lives and practice in a way that will lead them to the development of path factors by a conventional route. Sure, it may be slow, it may be of a less precise level of reality, and it may be a stepping-stone or a raft, but it may also be extremely important to follow for those of us who do not yet "switch at will" from the conventional to the paramatha view from moment to moment. > =============== J: I am not suggesting any such thing as switching at will from the conventional to the paramattha. What I've been saying is that the path taught by the Buddha is one of awareness of paramattha dhammas, rather than of awareness of conventional objects. > =============== > [RE:] My reading of the suttas, again limited though it is, is that the Buddha felt quite free to switch back and forth from the conventional to the paramatha view and that he did so, by all appearances, purposely without announcing that he was doing it. If that is the case, then why would he do this? I think it is because the conjunction of the two levels of teaching worked better together when addressing the person in a seamless, easy-to-absorb way. If you talked about a corpse and how to regard it to develop dispassion for the [conventional] body, and then at the end snuck in some statements that say that "after all this is also a view of specific rupas which one can detach from" or something to that effect, the person listening can get both benefits, both teachings, without being confused about where the paramatha view comes in, if it is connected to something they [we] can understand from our version of direct experience. So I think they go together quite well, if you don't insist on extracting the paramatha and discarding the rest. > =============== J: We would need to look at a specific example to take this discussion further, since there are any number of suttas that mix conventional with paramattha but do so for perhaps different reasons. > =============== > > [J:] However, the problem with an interpretation to this effect is that what you refer to as our "deluded experience" of the world is going to be examined with the same deluded mind. It is only the arising of moments of insight with dhammas as object that can counter ignorance and wrong view. > > [RE:] I understand your view of this. I think there is only one mind, be it a collection of cittas or whatever, and that moments of understanding can arise in any kind of mud. [ see: Lotuses. :-) ] > =============== J: Yes, certainly, moments of understanding can arise in any kind of mud, but the question is what the Buddha said were the conditions for that to occur. Jon 355) #115246 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 3:45 am Subject: Hallelujah! (Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best?) Hi Howard (114418) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert and Jon - > > I find the general agreement between you two in yesterday's posts, > particularly as summed up in msg 114417, much to my liking! (I give the msg # > here instead of quoting the post to save band width.) I also find that > what you both are saying closely matches my take on kamma, kamma patha, and > kamma vipaka. Hallelujah!! Surely the messiah, er, the buddha-to-be, is > coming soon! ;-)) > =============== J: Thanks, Howard. Always a pleasant surprise to find agreement between us! Jon 3) #115247 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 4:07 am Subject: Kusala intention (was, Re: The clansman who is a beginner ...) Hi Robert E (114424) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > [RE:] In most areas, disputes are resolved by evidence. In Buddhism, apparently, they are resolved by doctrine. Buddha does say explicitly that future life circumstances are the result of previous kamma, so one either believes that doctrine or not. On the other hand, in the extreme case where we do not see any of the current effects of kamma, but it is said that they are all the result of past kamma, it is a bit more difficult. That means we never get any direct evidence that kamma is in operation. > =============== J: You would like direct evidence and you would like it now ;-)). The `evidence', when it comes, may be inferential (but nevertheless substantial). I don't think we should worry too much about it at this (early) stage. > =============== > [RE:] My understanding of kamma and DO, which is not very good and for which I invite your correction, is that some goes to future and some appears more rapidly. In the small cycle of DO, a lot of results show up almost immediately, as I have heard it explained before. > =============== J: Even were this the case, how is it to be known that a given experience is the result of a given prior deed? As far as I know, there's nothing in the teachings on this, except in the context of one of the super powers. > =============== [RE:] If it is the case that all sensory experience is vipaka, then a lot of that is canceled out, and we can only presume that what we are experiencing now is the result of past kamma. With that in mind, what is there to "come and see" in any given lifetime prior to enlightement? A tiny drop more intellectual clarity about the reality of dhammas? I don't think that's what the Buddha meant or implied, as important as that may be. He strongly indicated that one could see the results of the path in the present lifetime, to an extent that one would understand that the path was real and changed the quality of existence. Do you disagree? If not, where do we see the quality of life and the path express itself now, other than a bit more pariyatti? > =============== J: If there is the correct development of the path, there will be a clearer understanding of dhammas and their characteristics. Nothing could be more worthwhile than this. > =============== > [RE:] I understand that the commentaries may not give the expected interpretation, but the interpretation given for some seem quite far out. I am not dismissing them out of hand, but I am asking for someone who understands them better than me to explain why the explanation has a useful relationship to the text of the sutta. There's got to be some relatioship or it's not a commentary, just a new essay. When "the flood" sutta is said by the commentary to be about the middle way between annihilationism and eternalism, that seems to me that the commentator is using the sutta symbolically. Sure, there are two explicit poles, effort and inaction. It seems clear that the middle way in that sutta is to neither resist action, nor force action. That is a great lesson in "right effort" that is not self-based. Instead of going with that obvious theme that is in the actual sutta, it extrapolates off onto eternalism. I see this as a doctrinal exercise rather than a commentary. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but again, what does it have to do with the sutta? If someone can explain it to me, why it is "b" and not the "a" that I have given, which makes good doctrinal sense of the sutta, I will be happy. > =============== J: If my memory is correct, then somewhere else in the texts there's an explanation of the connection between the 2 extremes and the (wrong) views of annihilationism and eternalism. The annihilationist sees no point in developing kusala, while the eternalist believes in a soul that is capable of determining the future (something like that). > =============== [RE:] Otherwise, should I believe the commentary anyway, and say "Well the commentary said it and they know better than me" when it seems like the sutta has been used as a convenient, unrelated jumping-off point? Even an arahant could go off onto a theme that they thought was a good one. It doesn't mean it is a true commentary in such a case. I may be speaking out of turn, but I am just saying what seems clear to me on its face. So I await a more knowledgeable explanation, if you can provide one. > =============== J: It is never necessary (or appropriate) to accept the texts unquestioningly. (Nor for that matter should the texts be rejected because what they say cannot immediately be made sense of.) > =============== > [RE:] Nobody had to discover meditation. It's been the main activity of Buddhist monks since the Buddha put on his first robe. It's not a new-age invention by modern people, and I'm sure you're aware of that. It's part of the tradition of almost every Buddhist in the world and throughout history. I think it's more of a latter-day discovery that no sort of practice is necessary for those who read the Abhidhamma. Now that's radical! :-) > =============== J: The meditation that I think you have in mind was not something exclusive to monks who were followers of the Buddha. So the question then is whether it was central to the development of the path he taught (I of course would say that it wasn't). What is relatively new is the idea of meditation as an intrinsic part of satipatthana/vipassana. Because in the Buddha's time, while there are plenty of suttas that refer to `meditating' monks (such as the anapanasati sutta), and the development of awareness/insight by such monks, there is no doctrinal statement to the effect that the development of the path involves or depends on, or is assisted by, something called `meditation'. > =============== > [RE:] What do Buddhist monks do all day? They work, read and meditate. And meditate, and meditate. > =============== J: Well some (but by no means all) did do what you call meditate, and so did many non-Buddhist monks. That's the point, that what we mean by `meditation' is something that ascetics are rather inclined to do given that they have relatively few other responsibilities. But there is no doctrinal inference to be drawn from this fact alone. Better to examine what the Buddha *said* about the development of the path than to draw our own inferences from descriptions of what monks were doing. > =============== > > J: I don't quite see why the time lag between cause and result should be an issue. Perhaps you could say a little more about your concern on this point. > > [RE:] It's only an issue because it deprives us of evidence that the vipaka is taking place and is related to the kamma. I'm looking for an explanation of the reason for the time lag, though I guess that has to do with fortuitous conditions. > =============== J: I don't see why a time lag of greater than a single lifetime requires a particular explanation ;-)) But in any event, supposing there were more 'same lifetime' kamma and vipaka, how would it be known for sure that a given pleasant/unpleasant experience was the result of deeds done in this lifetime rather than a previous one? > =============== > > J: The verification does not, as far as I know, come from being able to 'see' a given (present) result as having had a specific (past) cause. At least I've never seen that suggested. (True, it is said that those with the power of the 'divine eye' do see beings being reborn according to their past deeds, but this is not one of the vipassana nanas that are attained as mundane insight is developed.) > > [RE:] Yes, that's my question: that being the case, where does the verification come from. Anywhere? Or purely a matter of faith in doctrine? > =============== J: I'm not sure I know the answer to this, but I understand that verification of kamma/vipaka comes with the development of insight (i.e., insight into the true nature of dhammas). One possible source of verification could be that vipaka cittas are seen (by developed insight) to be different in some way from javana cittas. Another possible source: No contradiction between the teaching on kamma/vipaka and what is `seen' with the development of the path. > =============== > > J: Sorry, but I'm missing your point regarding the significance of the period of time between cause and result. > > [RE:] No evidence. > =============== J: But how would the mere fact of the result happening within the same lifetime as the cause make it easier to prove the connection? How is the connection known? > ================ > > [J:] Confirmation of the law of kamma and vipaka does not require seeing both a moment of cause and the result of that moment of cause within a single lifetime. > > [RE:] What does it require? You say what it doesn't require, but not what the confirmation consists of. Is there any? > =============== J: None at the moment ;-)). > =============== > > > In any event, how would it be known that a given moment of experiencing a sense-object was the result of a particular previous moment of intention? > > [RE:] Exactly my point. How can one know? > =============== J: Now then, Rob ;-)) You are the one suggesting that if results occurred within the same lifetime it would be possible to verify, so let's have an answer to my question ;-)) > =============== > > [J:] As for whether your expectation is a reasonable one or not, I'd say I don't see why individual expectations should come into it. One of the oft-repeated points about the Dhamma made by the Buddha was its complexity and depth. > > [RE:] So what is the verification? What is the explanation? How do we as non-enlighteneds understand the workings of kamma on our level? > =============== J: What is the need to understand it all perfectly at this stage? There is still the development of the path to be learnt about. Jon #115248 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 4:17 am Subject: Re: Meditation (was, The clansman ...) Hi Robert E (114425) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > [RE:] I think meditation is correct practice. You don't. So there lies the divergence of view. If I engage in any activity, other than ones that are clearly representing negative intentions, like murder, with faith and devotion, aren't those mental states kusala? =============== J: I think we've stumbled across a significant difference in our understanding of the Dhamma here. To your understanding, any activity other than clearly akusala ones that is engaged in with faith and devotion is a kusala activity, given that faith and devotion are kusala states. I'm sure this is an idea shared by many modern-day students of the teachings, especially those who practise meditation. However, I don't think it has any foundation in the texts. In the teachings, faith (confidence in the teachings) refers to faith/confidence that is based on correct understanding and development of the path. It's a wholesome quality that arises with kusala consciousness. But there's no teaching to the effect that activities done with faith (and/or devotion) are kusala activities. =============== > > J: So on your reading it's a matter of doing specific actions with a belief that what's being done is the form of 'practice' taught by the Buddha? > > > > To my way of thinking, that would be a recipe for wrong practice leading to further wrong view. > > [RE:] Not just any specific action, but ones explictly said by the Buddha to be foundational for the enlightenment factors to develop. They're not arbitrary activities, but the ones the Buddha engaged in with his disciples and taught to his monks. It seems kind of obvious to me. =============== J: So you see the development of the path as involving undertaking, with a mind of faith and devotion, the activities recommended by the Buddha. And it's the faith or devotion that ensures that the practice will be kusala. To my understanding, when the Buddha spoke about being mindful, guarding the sense-doors, exerting effort and other things generally taken (wrongly, in my view) to be activities to be done, he was referring to developed kusala. =============== > > J: The "action" part of the Noble Eightfold Path are certain mental factors that abstain from unwholesome conduct. Not to be confused with conventional, worldly actions. > > [RE:] What about right livelihood, right action, etc.? Do they not constitute areas of positive conduct, not just abstention? =============== J: As path factors, they are moments of abstention accompanied by awareness/insight (otherwise, a person lived a wholesome life but who had never heard of the teachings would be developing path factors but that could not be so, unless the path factors are `nothing special' ;-)). =============== > [RE:] I think it depends on where the devotion and effort come from. Buddha spoke of Right Effort, Right Concentration, etc. It seems to me that these are correct practices if done with the right intention. =============== J: Yes, that is a commonly held view, that as long as one is sincere in one's interest in the Dhamma, then any effort exerted or concentration applied will be kusala. It's a comforting idea, but it's not what the teachings say. Jon #115249 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 4:19 am Subject: Re: wisdom and doing Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > -------- > <. . .> > > KH: I would have agreed with that too, except I know from previous > conversations that you are denying the absolute reality of the nama or rupa being experienced. All this silly talk about "no own being" has led you astray. :-) > >> > > > RE: Own-being is an extraneous and dangerous concept which adds an extra layer of ownership to something which merely occurs. One shouldn't add an unnecessary concept that smacks of self-hood. It is a foolish risk and leads to wrong concepts of how thoroughly anatta functions. I would err on the side of no-ownership which is akin to no-self, rather than a weird no-self that owns things. > --------- > > KH: There are basically two Buddhist teachings. There is the one that is found in the Pali Tipitaka and commentaries, and there are all the others. The first one describes the universe as a single moment of conditioned dhammas. All the others don't. Sutta does not describe the universe as a single moment of anything. Find me a sutta that says that. Sutta describes the universe as a collection of changing, shifting, selfl-less processes called kandhas. There is nowhere in sutta that Buddha says that only one moment exists and that there is not a continuing, shifting changing set of processes of the kandhas. He also speaks of many other things that are not described in sutta as occurring in a single moment only. He speaks of mind and properties and functions of mind, and does not describe mind as an only one-moment citta process that is complete unto itself. He speaks of right livelihood and action in terms of real-world [in the conventional sense] activities and choices. He speaks of birth, life, old age, disease and death, none of them described in sutta as occurring in a single moment. He speaks of three lifetimes cycle of kamma. Do you think that "three lifetimes" is the same thing as saying "one moment?" Do you? Do you think that "three lifetimes" occurs in a single citta? How exactly do you do the math on that? Obviously there are series of moments of consciousness and each one of those moments is indeed a single moment of consciousness. But Buddha speaks voluminously of the patterns of those moments, of the processes of those moments, how they mutually affect each other and accumulate properties and factors. He speaks of development. Do you think 'development' takes place in a single moment? The very definition of development is something that takes place over time, over a great series of moments. Please don't take all that the Buddha says about processes that take place over time and reduce them to your static one-moment philosophy. It's not what the Buddha has said. The analysis of citta as a single momentary phenomena takes place in Abhidhamma, not in sutta. And even in Abdhidhamma it is a mix of momentary and developmental factors that are discussed. Your obsession with the single-moment citta, as if all of the factors of development and the path take place in one moment all by itself, is a view that contradicts the entire sense that the path is a path, that it has movement and development and that knowledge and understanding develops, grows and accumulates from moment to moment. The idea of a single moment universe is not a balanced view. The single moment and its factors needs to be balanced out with an understanding of the connection between each moment and the next, and the unbroken chain of conditionality that influences each next moment. Your static view of the single moment universe is unbalanced and incorrect. In Abhidhamma and commentary a lot of emphasis and analysis is put on the constitution of the single citta and the single moment and what occurs within it. But development, accumulation, the existence of the connection and passing on from one citta to the next is always equally emphasized, in everything from the analysis of latent tendencies and accumulated factors to the understanding of bhavanga cittas and other mechanisms that allow cittas [mind-moments] to continue an unbroken chain from one to the next. The citta does not stand all by itself. It is connected to the citta before and the citta after, and if this were not so, there would be no path, no experience, no understanding of anything, and no conventional concepts. They all take place in chains of moments, not single moments that arise out of nowhere. Every citta arises from the influence of the citta immediately before. Although this is repeated over and over again, you don't seem to accept it, and you are fixated on a single moment that lives and dies by itself and owns stuff. You have to selectively take the analysis of the citta out of the rest of Abhidhamma discussion to create a static one-moment universe of your own making. It's not what sutta is about, and I'm pretty sure it's not what Abdhidhamma is about either. > In order to survive as well as they have, the other Buddhist teachings have simply ignored, denied, or otherwise cast doubt upon, paramattha dhammas. They cast doubt on them yourself by insisting that they are static entities that live independently and have their own possessions, rather than being the outcome of arising conditions that come immediately before and make the citta what it is. > So that is what you and I should be discussing - the reality or unreality of dhammas. > > When we have agreed there *are* paramattha dhammas we can argue over exactly how their characteristics can be inherent. I doubt, though, whether we will take up the option. We will probably be like Sarah and regard such arguments as "verbal quibbles." Who is "we?" Are you saying that I too will regard them as verbal quibbles? Let's start by saying what "paramatha dhammas" are. We can't agree about them if we don't discuss our definitions of dhammas. I believe they are mere occurrences that have no static being or ingredients. They are empty. They perform a function and disappear, and they are part of an unbroken chain of continuous mind-moments that arise, influence and shape the next, and fall away. There is never a dhamma of any kind that stands alone by itself and hangs onto a set of ingredients. Cetasikas and characteristics are shapings of the way the dhamma behaves during its momentary life. They are not "part of" it because a dhamma has no substance, only function. They are part of the way the dhamma behaves and then they are gone along with it. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - #115250 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 4:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Colette. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > Ah, that explains it. I've played this game many times, especially back in the 80s when those DOGMATISTS from organized religion and their slaves began persecuting me back in '81. Sorry, my mistake, <....> Sorry, those shoes, the perspective,position that you're trying to place me in, the size is far too small. Anyway, I'm not into pain as a way of bringing my person HAPPINESS so the Chinese practice of FOOTBINDING is not a position I chose to accept from you. > > I thought that, AT LEAST, I would be accepted as a chef with a very promising ability. Alas, I've played this role many times unfortunately I don't know who the "Baker" is and who the "Candlestick Maker" is. OBVIOUSLY I'm being LABELED, NAMED (see NAME & FORM) as being THE BUTCHER and so I figured that I wasn't alone and had two colleagues in the same boat as myself. DOGMA requires that the Butcher is accompanied by the Baker and the Candlestick Maker. > > I guess I should go watch Anthony Bourdain describe how a proper butcher is to behave. Although I have never been able to FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD nor THE HO CHI MIN TRAIL. I don't know what any of the nonsense above means, but I do know you accused me of not being a practicing Buddhist based on half a sentence that you removed from the other half. I let you know what the whole sentence said, and if you don't want to acknowledge that or take back what you said about me, that's your business. Have fun on whatever road you're on. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = 349) #115251 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 4:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: Rob E.: "Stupid architect." > .... > S: Very funny indeed:-). Do you tell a story well. :-) > The favourite one round here is usually "Stupid Yahoo" whenever anyone messes up.... That too! I'm always happy to join in blaming yahoo! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = 349) #115252 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 4:41 am Subject: Re: what is "direct" understanding? Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Where you do have a good point, however, is that those who became enlightened based on jhanas were able to experience phala (fruition) cittas (with nibbana) again and again and clearly the knowledges of those who had attained all jhanas and patisambhidas was far superior to those without these. Well that does sound like fun, although as you point out, that's not in our control. But still good to know. > As for how any of this affects us, I think we should just stress that there's no choice in the matter! Right understanding will know and sati will be aware of whatever there are conditions for. No one can choose whether to attain jhanas first, just as no one can choose whether to be aware of a reality now. > ... > > >I also think there's a difference between clinging and cultivating. One can realize that there's no ultimate control and still follow principles and practices that are conducive to development. Jhana may not be possible for most people in this day and age, but it's still good to recognize what it is and the role that it plays. > .... > S: Even this "following principles and practices that are conducive to development" is conditioned. If there is a wish now or an attempt to develop metta now, it's different from just understanding the value of metta. The first indicates a clinging to oneself and to one's mental states. Your point is taken, although I still think it's possible to practice through meditation or other means. ... > >>S: But are we really ready for a vacation from the attachment and all we hold dear? Honestly? > > R:>Me? Can I bring green tea on the vacation? > .... > S: :-) Next you'll be wanting to bring along a handful of pleasant sights, sounds and a soft pillow.... Uh...yeah! Is there a problem with that...? :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = 73) #115253 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 4:50 am Subject: [dsg] What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Paññaa Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > =============== > [RE:] Well I guess a lot hinges on one's faith that this is the way things work, that things happen as the result of past-life kusala which lead to greater development of the path. > > =============== > > J: No, I don't think there needs to be that kind of faith at all. Just a willingness to keep an open mind about the possibility of the kamma/vipaka connection. That's interesting. Well, I definitely have an open mind. I just tend to be agnostic about things I haven't directly experienced or else resolved by some sort of evidence. I guess if you had a trusted teacher who had experienced the truth of this, that would also do the trick. Those were the good old days when Buddha and the others were around... > =============== > J: ...The hidden reality is revealed not by looking at conventional reality through the microscope of the teachings, but by reflecting on the teachings and considering how they might relate/apply to the present moment. That's intriguing, Jon. And if the "present moment" is not that which is being experienced, ie, the conventional reality that I am currently aware of, then what is it? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = 64) #115254 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 4:54 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: There is no kaamma that leads to a 'mixed' result. Kamma is either kusala or akusala, leading to kusala (pleasant) or akusala (unpleasant) vipaka. > > A 'mixed result' is in fact the result of both good kamma and bad kamma, each bringing its own appropriate result. So the negative kamma could lead one to born in unpleasant surroundings, while the positive kusala kamma could lead one to have good things happen while in those same surroundings? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = 568) #115255 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 5:01 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (114413) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > [RE:] I think that the commentators seem to [in my limited scope of experience] take an Abhidhamma point of view towards sutta. That does not totally convince me that this is the only level of interpretation that is valid, although it may also be valid and perhaps ultimately of great importance. However, it does not settle the question of whether the Buddha's explicit conventional teachings, which in fact he gave to actual people who he wanted to hear what he was saying at the time, are not also valid in their own right and have something quite important to offer - that is, a guide to world-bound worldlings as to how to live their lives and practice in a way that will lead them to the development of path factors by a conventional route. Sure, it may be slow, it may be of a less precise level of reality, and it may be a stepping-stone or a raft, but it may also be extremely important to follow for those of us who do not yet "switch at will" from the conventional to the paramatha view from moment to moment. > > =============== > > J: I am not suggesting any such thing as switching at will from the conventional to the paramattha. What I've been saying is that the path taught by the Buddha is one of awareness of paramattha dhammas, rather than of awareness of conventional objects. I wasn't suggesting that you were saying that. I was just saying it myself. > > =============== > > [RE:] My reading of the suttas, again limited though it is, is that the Buddha felt quite free to switch back and forth from the conventional to the paramatha view and that he did so, by all appearances, purposely without announcing that he was doing it. If that is the case, then why would he do this? I think it is because the conjunction of the two levels of teaching worked better together when addressing the person in a seamless, easy-to-absorb way. If you talked about a corpse and how to regard it to develop dispassion for the [conventional] body, and then at the end snuck in some statements that say that "after all this is also a view of specific rupas which one can detach from" or something to that effect, the person listening can get both benefits, both teachings, without being confused about where the paramatha view comes in, if it is connected to something they [we] can understand from our version of direct experience. So I think they go together quite well, if you don't insist on extracting the paramatha and discarding the rest. > > =============== > > J: We would need to look at a specific example to take this discussion further, since there are any number of suttas that mix conventional with paramattha but do so for perhaps different reasons. We could look back at the satipatthana sutta again and the body and corpse contemplations. In the following section, Buddha seems to be explicitly recommending contemplation of the parts and ingredients of the body in conventional terms, and defines this as part of the proper contemplation of the body for the arising of satipatthana: "Furthermore...just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice,' in the same way, monks, a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. > > =============== > > > [J:] However, the problem with an interpretation to this effect is that what you refer to as our "deluded experience" of the world is going to be examined with the same deluded mind. It is only the arising of moments of insight with dhammas as object that can counter ignorance and wrong view. > > > > [RE:] I understand your view of this. I think there is only one mind, be it a collection of cittas or whatever, and that moments of understanding can arise in any kind of mud. [ see: Lotuses. :-) ] > > =============== > > J: Yes, certainly, moments of understanding can arise in any kind of mud, but the question is what the Buddha said were the conditions for that to occur. Good question. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = 355) #115256 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 7:47 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses Hello Jon, all, > J: I do not see the section on the 32 body parts in the >Satipatthana >Sutta as instructions to be followed. It clearly says so as being an instruction to do. The commentary also states it as such. > I see this passage as satipatthana for those who are also >developing >(and have already attained a high level of) samatha with >body parts >as object. And the only, the only, way that it will be developing is if one actually does it. Also, the whole "this is just samatha" is not an excuse to avoid it. The Buddha didn't teach something that wasn't useful for Liberation. The fact that this method is in satipatthana sutta, shows that it is part of insight and should belong there. You can't really separate samatha from vipassana, these are both side of the same "stick". Whenever you pick up the stick both sides go up. With metta, Alex 355) #115257 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 9:03 am Subject: Re: wisdom and doing Hi Robert E (and a note to all), -------------- <. . .> >> KH: There are basically two Buddhist teachings. There is the one that is found in the Pali Tipitaka and commentaries, and there are all the others. The first one describes the universe as a single moment of conditioned dhammas. All the others don't. >> > RE: Sutta does not describe the universe as a single moment of anything. Find me a sutta that says that. -------------- KH: They *all* say that, when they are read in the light of the entire Tipitaka and commentaries. That was my point about the two Buddhist teachings; one is in strict accordance with the entire Pali Canon, the other is anything anyone wants it to be. --------------------- >RE: Sutta describes the universe as a collection of changing, shifting, selfl-less processes called kandhas. There is nowhere in sutta that Buddha says that only one moment exists and that there is not a continuing, shifting changing set of processes of the kandhas. He also speaks of many other things that are not described in sutta as occurring in a single moment only. He speaks of mind and properties and functions of mind, and does not describe mind as an only one-moment citta process that is complete unto itself. He speaks of right livelihood and action in terms of real-world [in the conventional sense] activities and choices. He speaks of birth, life, old age, disease and death, none of them described in sutta as occurring in a single moment. He speaks of three lifetimes cycle of kamma. Do you think that "three lifetimes" is the same thing as saying "one moment?" Do you? Do you think that "three lifetimes" occurs in a single citta? How exactly do you do the math on that? ---------------------- KH: It's the same as walking (in the Satipatthana Sutta). When a monk is walking he knows the present paramattha dhamma. When a monk is thinking about three lifetimes he knows the present paramattha dhamma. That's all there is to know in satipatthana. --------------------------- > RE: Obviously there are series of moments of consciousness and each one of those moments is indeed a single moment of consciousness. But Buddha speaks voluminously of the patterns of those moments, of the processes of those moments, how they mutually affect each other and accumulate properties and factors. He speaks of development. Do you think 'development' takes place in a single moment? --------------------------- KH: If the Buddha spoke voluminously about patterns (concepts) it was only to stress how - whatever the pattern - there were ultimately only the presently arisen namas and rupas. I'll have to cut this short and get back to the rest of your reply later, thanks Robert. Note to all: Family duties call and I will be away from the internet for at about three days. Missing you already! :-) Ken H 349) #115258 From: Vince Date: Tue May 24, 2011 9:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Dieter you wrote: >V: 'Understanding of what is anatta is not the same of abiding in non-self. A > similar distance of explaining a song from just enjoy it.' >D: well said , and - you may perhaps agree- this understanding involves experiencing.. well, the point can be about the management of the word "understanding". I mean: if now you are seated, you are abiding in a seat and you don't need keeping thoughts of "I'm seated in a seat". Whether you keep thoughts or not, you are seated and that's all. This first understanding is not understanding at all but the reality as it is. These thoughts are additional, and they arises because attachment to "me...mine". We name to some of these thoughts "understanding" in the sense of panna but I think this is not right. If we change the thought of "I'm seated" by one of "sitting", still this is a another thought. So we can touch something and we can know "hardness" but this is just another thought. However, by practicing with "hearing, touching, seeing"... one can be detached of the self. This practice is powerful and also I do it but this is a practice. Nibbana is not nama, rupa, citta... All them are objects for grasping. I think we should know them to be detached from them and then to eradicate delusion and realizing non-self. They are not a picture of anatta. I believe when we know them just we know a map of how our own attachment. best. Vince. 188) #115259 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 9:53 am Subject: Impermanence Causes Suffering! Friends: Distorted perception imagines: Worldly Happiness is possible! The Blessed Buddha once said: Dukkhānupassanam bhāvento sukhasaññam pajahati... When gradually developing the contemplation of Suffering (dukkha ), one gradually overcomes the false perception of pleasure, of happiness... He once convinced a pedantic disputant by this cut-2-the-bone explanation: Friend Aggivessana, what do you think, is any material form, is any feeling, is any perception, is any mental construction, and is any consciousness, always permanent or always impermanent? Venerable Gotama, they are all always impermanent... If all these things always are impermanent, are they then pleasurable or are they then disappointing and painful? Are they then happiness or suffering? Venerable Gotama, then they are all painful, then they are all suffering... Aggivessana, what do you think, when one searches for what is suffering, clings to what is suffering, resorts to what is suffering, holds on to what is suffering and regards what is suffering as: "This is mine, this I am, this is my self..." can one then ever come to understand suffering or ever be freed from all suffering? How could one ever Master Gotama, no never Master Gotama... Source: MN I [232] At Savatthi the Venerable Radha asked the Blessed One: Venerable Sir, one says: Suffering!! What, Venerable Sir, is suffering? Form, Radha, is suffering, feeling is suffering, perception is suffering, mental constructions are suffering, consciousness is suffering...! Understanding this, Bhikkhu, a well instructed Noble Disciple experiences disgust towards form, disgust towards feeling, disgust towards perception, disgust towards mental construction, and disgust towards consciousness itself! Experiencing disgust, he becomes disillusioned! Through disillusion his mind is released. When it is released, he instantly knows: This mind is liberated, and he understands: Extinguished is this rebirth, this Noble Life is all completed, done is what should be done, there is no state of being beyond this... Source: SN 23:15 III [196.1] <....> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> 1) #115260 From: Kevin F Date: Tue May 24, 2011 12:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Enlightenment from the light side Hi Howard, Lukas, Lukas: I think the problem of Nagarajuna was that he was a philosopher. I know very little of him, therefore I can misjudge him. But on the other hand wasn't he a precursor of mahajana ideology on emptiness? No. He was the main Mahayana author about emptiness in his day, the most influential one of them all, and the most cited by all the ones that came after him. You are certainly right that he was a philosopher. He claimed to discover the prajnaparamita sutras, but probably authored them based on his philosophical views on emptiness, which he wrote treatises on, the names of which are not worth mentioning. Lukas: Theras taught that all (paramattha)dhammas are empty, devoid of Self, devoid of any core, devoid of anything. But they have sabhava(distinct characteristic), so that can be known. This sounds very similar to Nagarjuna, don't u think? Kevin: No, absolutely not. Like most, you haven't studied the man but you want to claim to know what he means, or whether he is right or wrong. The people of this day have level development of the perfection of truthfulness. You should word your questions as question and less like statements. For example, saying something like 'it appears that Nagarjuna's ideas sound similar to those of the Theras. Do you agree?' Instead of of stating that they seem similar This is misleading to unintelligent readers who gloss it and take it on face value because someone said it. You have to keep these people in mind when you write. You should also urge them to study more, and to think for themselves. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin Sarah:"The citta itself (for example, rooted in ignorance, or, for example, rooted in >wisdom), plus all the other accompanying cetasikas which arise with those javana >cittas also accumulate by way of upanissaya paccaya. So, wisdom itself >accumulates when ever it arises." #115261 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 3:20 pm Subject: Re: view Hi Connie I'll remember this next time I feel the need of a Wal-Mart fix - actually, don't think I have ever been to one! If we do come Osoyoos way I will let you know. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > Hi Ann, > > > Connie - I am picking up from other posts that you live in Seattle. If so, then we are practically neighbours as I am in Vancouver, BC. Do you ever come this way? We have not been your way for a number of years but do think of visiting again from time to time. > > c: Omak is about 50 miles south of Osoyoos. I can't come up, but (lol) WalMart seems to be a pretty big attraction here for Canadians and Seattlites alike. I'll see if I can't think of some better incentive for you to come this way if you do decide to take off :) > > peace, > connie > 10) #115262 From: "azita" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 7:18 pm Subject: Re: view hallo Connie and Ann Yes, I think "different views at different times" seems like the right answer to my question. As you say Connie, we cant pinpoint what character we are so its impossible (without satipatthana, that is) to know which wrong view arises at any particular time. Patience, courage and good cheer azita Ann: I tend to agree with Connie - different moments of wrong view arising at different times, with regard to the khandhas individually as well as in aggregate. > > Connie - I am picking up from other posts that you live in Seattle. If so, then we are practically neighbours as I am in Vancouver, BC. Do you ever come this way? We have not been your way for a number of years but do think of visiting again from time to time. > > These are various aspects of wrong view. Could we have all these views or not? I know they refer to all the 5 khandhas and I'm guessing that we could have different views for the different khandhas - yes/no??? > > > > c: wouldn't there be different views at different times? so, my vote's Yes. It reminds me of asking 'which character type am I?' - as in 'what meditation subject suits ME?’ > > best wishes, > > connie > > > 10) #115263 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 24, 2011 7:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] view Hi Azita & all, --- On Sun, 22/5/11, azita wrote: > I have a question about view such as "khandha as self, self as possessing khandha, khandha as in self or self as in khandha" >These are various aspects of wrong view. Could we have all these views or not? I know they refer to all the 5 khandhas and I'm guessing that we could have different views for the different khandhas - yes/no??? .... S: Yes, K.Sujin always says we can know/find out which kinds of wrong view about the khandhas we have, but only when they arise. First, when you mention "khandha as self.....", We can differentiate between sakkaya ditthi, whereby a khandha is taken as self and so on, and attanuditthi which isn't sakkaya ditthi, whereby a khandha is taken for atta, for something, but not for oneself or another self. For both sakkaya ditthi and attanuditthi, there are 20 kinds of wrong view, four for each of the khandhas as you refer to above. For example, the hardness which is experienced now as I touch the key-board may be taken for 'something', for a computer. This is attanuditthi, but not sakkaya ditthi. When touching one's arm, if that hardness is taken for one's arm, that would be sakkaya ditthi. When the hardness (of the computer) is taken as something (computer), that would be an example of taking "khandha as self". When the hardness (of the arm) is taken for one's arm, it may be taking "khandha as self" or "self as possessing khandha". K.Sujin always says that the various kinds of sakkaya ditthi/attanuditthi can only be directly known when they arise. Do we take the hardness to be in the body or the hardness of the computer to be in the room. Whenever there's an idea of "something' or 'some being' as existing, like even the pear in the fruit bowl on the table, it is one kind of attanuditthi or other. Like with everything else in the Dhamma, I think that more and more subtle kinds of wrong view have to be known - not by speculating, but by directly knowing them when they arise. How does this sound to you? Metta Sarah ====== 10) #115264 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 24, 2011 7:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More dukkha Hi Connie, Fun to be discussing one of your cyptic dhamma messages again:-) And no, you're never talking to yourself here:-)) >s: I can't understand how the "sobhana kiriya cittas" can be ahosi of any colour, but then I need an interpreter - I think even Rob E might be stretched at putting it in simple English. Splitting hair or splitting heads? Sounds serious down your way, at least down in those Seattle cittas:-) >c: you're trying too hard: "ahosi just means past" (not kamma!). .... S: >"sobhana kiriya cittas" can be ahosiThe dirty dozen are the 12 basic types of akusala Cittas... but there are 14 dirty Cetasikas & i was having trouble remembering the numbers, so hairs would've done but you know how 'gangsters' split heads ('into seven pieces' is usu said) -- doesn't get much more serious than & maybe when it's family story time, we might ask ourselves, "Who's your daddy now?" .... S: OK, I was fine with the "dirty dozen" (8 lobha rooted, 2 dosa rooted, 2 moha rooted) and the dirty cetasikas and I agree splitting heads is a little more, er "graphic". I'll leave you to the bedtime stories......haven't we all been each others' mothers, fathers and all the rest? Perhaps you could try an explanation along these lines.....billions of fathers stretching back through all the kalpas. Those who like "universe" answers might appreciate it, but then I might be barking up entirely the wrong tree, in which case ignore and clear some space for the Vinaya en route to Omak:-) Metta Sarah ====== s: Great to see you around again..... c: thanks. I'll try to remember I'm not just talking to myself. best wishes, connie ...in short the 5 upadana khandhas are dukkha. 12) #115265 From: "azita" Date: Tue May 24, 2011 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] view Hallo Sarah, Thanks for this... > > I have a question about view such as "khandha as self, self as possessing khandha, khandha as in self or self as in khandha" > > >These are various aspects of wrong view. Could we have all these views or not? I know they refer to all the 5 khandhas and I'm guessing that we could have different views for the different khandhas - yes/no??? > .... > S: Yes, K.Sujin always says we can know/find out which kinds of wrong view about the khandhas we have, but only when they arise. > > First, when you mention "khandha as self.....", We can differentiate between sakkaya ditthi, whereby a khandha is taken as self and so on, and attanuditthi which isn't sakkaya ditthi, whereby a khandha is taken for atta, for something, but not for oneself or another self. > > For both sakkaya ditthi and attanuditthi, there are 20 kinds of wrong view, four for each of the khandhas as you refer to above. azita; mmm, and no short-cuts to knowing these, only, as you quote Achan above, when they arise. But they are probably arising often in a day and it can only be wisdom that knows them as they arise. > When the hardness (of the computer) is taken as something (computer), that would be an example of taking "khandha as self". When the hardness (of the arm) is taken for one's arm, it may be taking "khandha as self" or "self as possessing khandha". > > K.Sujin always says that the various kinds of sakkaya ditthi/attanuditthi can only be directly known when they arise. Do we take the hardness to be in the body or the hardness of the computer to be in the room. Whenever there's an idea of "something' or 'some being' as existing, like even the pear in the fruit bowl on the table, it is one kind of attanuditthi or other. > > Like with everything else in the Dhamma, I think that more and more subtle kinds of wrong view have to be known - not by speculating, but by directly knowing them when they arise. > > How does this sound to you? > azita: this sounds fine to me. Not by speculating, but by directly knowing them when they arise, patience, courage and good cheer, azita 10) #115266 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 24, 2011 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna Hi Connie (& Vince), --- On Sun, 22/5/11, connie wrote: >c: or maybe with Less 'ill will', but still, why bother to brush anything off if it's not 'bothering' / dosa? .... S: I think there's "brushing off" and "brushing off" - can be with almost any kind of cittas - metta, dosa, ignorance, wrong view, name it! I see no reason why an arahat might not brush off mosquitoes, just as they might visit the dentist or have a tumour removed..... Metta Sarah p.s I thought your ans to Azita on the khandhas as self, only just read, was a good one too - a good point about the 'what character am I', 'what med subject suits ME'..... and now we could have a 'what are MY cittas when I brush off the mozzies?" - ans: only panna can know. ========= 188) #115267 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 24, 2011 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Vince, --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Vince wrote: >>V: So they are reborn even 7 times and respecting precepts from the beginning of each live ? > .... > S: Yes. The precepts will never again be broken. These rebirths will usually be in heavenly or brahma realms of course. ... V:> in that case the 7 lives would be impossible, because we cannot find in the Suttas any being who becomes a sotapanna in other realm than human or deva. .... S: "who becomes a sotapanna".... This doesn't mean that having become a sotapanna, there cannot be subsequent rebirths in rupa and arupa brahma realms, for example. Those who had attained various jhanas were usually reborn in these realms and attaining higher stages of enlightenment in those realms before parinibbana. The "7" is absolutely maximum, usually fewer rebirths. .... >this losing of wrong view is not a permanent anatta experience. It would be only the case of arhants. Understanding of what is anatta is not the same of abiding in non-self. A similar distance of explaining a song from just enjoy it. ... S: For the sotapanna (or even the arahat), right understanding of realities as anatta does not arise all the time. However, there are no more conditions for any kind of wrong view to ever arise again. There can be no 'falling back'. Yes, understanding still accumulates, but once wrong view of all kinds has been eradicated, there is no more tendency for this at all. The anusayas of wrong view and doubt (ditthi and vicikiccha) are completely eradicated by the sotapatti-magga citta. Metta Sarah ======= 188) #115268 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 25, 2011 12:45 am Subject: Kusala intention (was, Re: The clansman who is a beginner ...) Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (114424) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > [RE:] In most areas, disputes are resolved by evidence. In Buddhism, apparently, they are resolved by doctrine. Buddha does say explicitly that future life circumstances are the result of previous kamma, so one either believes that doctrine or not. On the other hand, in the extreme case where we do not see any of the current effects of kamma, but it is said that they are all the result of past kamma, it is a bit more difficult. That means we never get any direct evidence that kamma is in operation. > > =============== > > J: You would like direct evidence and you would like it now ;-)). I'm glad you're smiling, because I didn't say that. :-) What I am saying is that if one is honest, there are a few different positions to take with regard to the teaching on delayed kamma. One is to hold judgment in abeyance and follow the teachings, as you advise. Another is to believe in faith because the teaching on kamma was espoused by the Buddha - nothing wrong with that either I think. And the third is to disbelieve the teaching. None of these positions involve direct knowledge, or even convincing inferential knowledge, but they represent where most people will have to start out, whether they like it or not. > The `evidence', when it comes, may be inferential (but nevertheless substantial). I don't think we should worry too much about it at this (early) stage. I guess we'll check in and compare notes in a future lifetime? See you then! :-) My understanding of the teaching on kamma, prior to dsg, was that kamma's results can be delayed or instantaneous, or somewhere inbetween. The idea that almost all kamma expresses as sensory experience in a future lifetime seems unusual to me. I would like to see where this teaching on kamma is derived from, sutta or commentary. > > =============== > > [RE:] My understanding of kamma and DO, which is not very good and for which I invite your correction, is that some goes to future and some appears more rapidly. In the small cycle of DO, a lot of results show up almost immediately, as I have heard it explained before. > > =============== > > J: Even were this the case, how is it to be known that a given experience is the result of a given prior deed? As far as I know, there's nothing in the teachings on this, except in the context of one of the super powers. It would just be something that was more obvious in certain cases, and in others could perhaps be inferred. BTW, I'm curious what you would consider convincing inferential knowledge of kamma. What form would that take? > > =============== > [RE:] If it is the case that all sensory experience is vipaka, then a lot of that is canceled out, and we can only presume that what we are experiencing now is the result of past kamma. With that in mind, what is there to "come and see" in any given lifetime prior to enlightement? A tiny drop more intellectual clarity about the reality of dhammas? I don't think that's what the Buddha meant or implied, as important as that may be. He strongly indicated that one could see the results of the path in the present lifetime, to an extent that one would understand that the path was real and changed the quality of existence. Do you disagree? If not, where do we see the quality of life and the path express itself now, other than a bit more pariyatti? > > =============== > > J: If there is the correct development of the path, there will be a clearer understanding of dhammas and their characteristics. > > Nothing could be more worthwhile than this. Well, that's fine, but doesn't say much about direct understanding of kamma. > > =============== > > [RE:] I understand that the commentaries may not give the expected interpretation, but the interpretation given for some seem quite far out. I am not dismissing them out of hand, but I am asking for someone who understands them better than me to explain why the explanation has a useful relationship to the text of the sutta. There's got to be some relatioship or it's not a commentary, just a new essay. When "the flood" sutta is said by the commentary to be about the middle way between annihilationism and eternalism, that seems to me that the commentator is using the sutta symbolically. Sure, there are two explicit poles, effort and inaction. It seems clear that the middle way in that sutta is to neither resist action, nor force action. That is a great lesson in "right effort" that is not self-based. Instead of going with that obvious theme that is in the actual sutta, it extrapolates off onto eternalism. I see this as a doctrinal exercise rather than a commentary. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but again, what does it have to do with the sutta? If someone can explain it to me, why it is "b" and not the "a" that I have given, which makes good doctrinal sense of the sutta, I will be happy. > > =============== > > J: If my memory is correct, then somewhere else in the texts there's an explanation of the connection between the 2 extremes and the (wrong) views of annihilationism and eternalism. The annihilationist sees no point in developing kusala, while the eternalist believes in a soul that is capable of determining the future (something like that). I see. Well I'm sure those connections are there. I just wonder whether that was what Buddha had in mind, since it's not what you said or suggested in the sutta. > > =============== > [RE:] Otherwise, should I believe the commentary anyway, and say "Well the commentary said it and they know better than me" when it seems like the sutta has been used as a convenient, unrelated jumping-off point? Even an arahant could go off onto a theme that they thought was a good one. It doesn't mean it is a true commentary in such a case. I may be speaking out of turn, but I am just saying what seems clear to me on its face. So I await a more knowledgeable explanation, if you can provide one. > > =============== > > J: It is never necessary (or appropriate) to accept the texts unquestioningly. (Nor for that matter should the texts be rejected because what they say cannot immediately be made sense of.) I'm sure they have plenty of value in any case, but what worries me is a view that develops based on a preponderence of commentarial view that is all dhamma-oriented and reinterprets everything the Buddha says in a completely different light. I like to go back to the Buddha's own words, perhaps with more light shed by a commentary, but not accepting a substitute explanation over and above what is said in the original. And I think that can definitely happen when a specific interpretation is put forth in one way or another over and over again. > > =============== > > [RE:] Nobody had to discover meditation. It's been the main activity of Buddhist monks since the Buddha put on his first robe. It's not a new-age invention by modern people, and I'm sure you're aware of that. It's part of the tradition of almost every Buddhist in the world and throughout history. I think it's more of a latter-day discovery that no sort of practice is necessary for those who read the Abhidhamma. Now that's radical! :-) > > =============== > > J: The meditation that I think you have in mind was not something exclusive to monks who were followers of the Buddha. So the question then is whether it was central to the development of the path he taught (I of course would say that it wasn't). I would disagree with that. What Buddha taught was distinct from the meditation being done around him. He taught satipatthana and insight meditation which were not practiced in that form or with that understanding. His use of jhana as foundation for insight was also unique, quite distinct from yogic states of samadhi. > What is relatively new is the idea of meditation as an intrinsic part of satipatthana/vipassana. Because in the Buddha's time, while there are plenty of suttas that refer to `meditating' monks (such as the anapanasati sutta), and the development of awareness/insight by such monks, there is no doctrinal statement to the effect that the development of the path involves or depends on, or is assisted by, something called `meditation'. I would disagree with that as well. The fact that Buddha constantly talks about meditating monks and talks about the practice, in addition to mindfulness in everyday life, makes it clear to me that his followers were generally practicing meditation. > > =============== > > [RE:] What do Buddhist monks do all day? They work, read and meditate. And meditate, and meditate. > > =============== > > J: Well some (but by no means all) did do what you call meditate, What I call meditate? Are you really so anti-meditation that you don't even acknowledge that it really exists? Do you think it is a mistake to call sitting and doing a meditation practice "meditation," as millions of people do? This bothers me a bit, so I apologize for my tone, but it really seems that this level of rejection of the factual existence of a great Buddhist tradition is a bit over the top. You may not approve of meditation for your understanding of Dhamma but we can at least acknowledge that it is the understanding of a large part of the path for most Buddhists of every tradition, including Theravada, and is even spoken of prominently in parts of the Abdhidhamma. > so did many non-Buddhist monks. Non-Buddhist monks did not practice Buddhist meditation. Buddha taught satipatthana and anapanasati as Buddhist techniques for developing insight and understanding of the reality of the moment leading to enlightenment. The practice that non-Buddhists did was towards the discovery of Atman, mergence with Brahman or development of quiescent forms of samadhi. That is completely different than Buddhist practice. Buddhist meditation is a distinct, actual tradition, started by the Buddha to move beyond Hindu meditation into direct contemplation of the reality of mind and existence, leading to nibbana. > That's the point, that what we mean by `meditation' is something that ascetics are rather inclined to do given that they have relatively few other responsibilities. What I mean by meditation is following the meditation practices spelled out in great detail by the Buddha, and by many Theravadin teachers for the many centuries following his appearance in the world, leading to the development of Right Understanding, Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness in satipatthana through anapanasati, which in fact is not just called meditation but actually *is* Buddhist meditation, practiced by millions, and an extremely large and important part of the Buddhist tradition as practiced by almost all Theravadins. > But there is no doctrinal inference to be drawn from this fact alone. Better to examine what the Buddha *said* about the development of the path than to draw our own inferences from descriptions of what monks were doing. I have. The anapanasati and satipatthana suttas and many many other suttas spell out the steps of Buddhist meditation in its many aspects and applications, and it is not unclear or in any doubt that this is a big part of his path, complete with instructions. > > =============== > > > J: I don't quite see why the time lag between cause and result should be an issue. Perhaps you could say a little more about your concern on this point. > > > > [RE:] It's only an issue because it deprives us of evidence that the vipaka is taking place and is related to the kamma. I'm looking for an explanation of the reason for the time lag, though I guess that has to do with fortuitous conditions. > > =============== > > J: I don't see why a time lag of greater than a single lifetime requires a particular explanation ;-)) Because we don't see the results take place in relation to the causes put forth; therefore it is taken on faith. This is simple logic. It is not an empirically experienced reality, it is a belief. If you don't experience something and you think it is true, you must be convinced that it is the case, or trust the authority that it comes from. This is logical and there is no reason for confusion. > But in any event, supposing there were more 'same lifetime' kamma and vipaka, how would it be known for sure that a given pleasant/unpleasant experience was the result of deeds done in this lifetime rather than a previous one? By logically seeing the chain of events take place in real time. Any child or animal learns after a while that if you do certain things you get either a pleasant or unpleasant result. If you don't get that feedback then you are taking it on faith. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but it is a fact. > > =============== > > > J: The verification does not, as far as I know, come from being able to 'see' a given (present) result as having had a specific (past) cause. At least I've never seen that suggested. (True, it is said that those with the power of the 'divine eye' do see beings being reborn according to their past deeds, but this is not one of the vipassana nanas that are attained as mundane insight is developed.) > > > > [RE:] Yes, that's my question: that being the case, where does the verification come from. Anywhere? Or purely a matter of faith in doctrine? > > =============== > > J: I'm not sure I know the answer to this, but I understand that verification of kamma/vipaka comes with the development of insight (i.e., insight into the true nature of dhammas). > > One possible source of verification could be that vipaka cittas are seen (by developed insight) to be different in some way from javana cittas. > > Another possible source: No contradiction between the teaching on kamma/vipaka and what is `seen' with the development of the path. Well these all seem to be evidence that comes later in the path, so it is not going to be experienced anytime soon. I personally believe that we do experience some results of kamma sooner rather than later and we can see a pattern in doing certain unwholesome things and getting unpleasant results either sooner or later down the road in this lifetime. I would like to see where the teaching is stated that almost all kamma gets its results in a later lifetime rather than this one, as you have espoused. Can you direct me to this teaching? > > =============== > > > J: Sorry, but I'm missing your point regarding the significance of the period of time between cause and result. > > > > [RE:] No evidence. > > =============== > > J: But how would the mere fact of the result happening within the same lifetime as the cause make it easier to prove the connection? How is the connection known? It would be a logical connection based on experience, just as when you do not ask for directions and you get lost, somehow you can see the connection and think, "Hm, maybe I'll ask for directions next time." > > ================ > > > [J:] Confirmation of the law of kamma and vipaka does not require seeing both a moment of cause and the result of that moment of cause within a single lifetime. > > > > [RE:] What does it require? You say what it doesn't require, but not what the confirmation consists of. Is there any? > > =============== > > J: None at the moment ;-)). I thought not. :-( > > =============== > > > > > In any event, how would it be known that a given moment of experiencing a sense-object was the result of a particular previous moment of intention? > > > > [RE:] Exactly my point. How can one know? > > =============== > > J: Now then, Rob ;-)) You are the one suggesting that if results occurred within the same lifetime it would be possible to verify, so let's have an answer to my question ;-)) See above. It is as simple as sticking your hand in a fire and burning it, but in this forum some simple things don't seem to make sense. I'm not sure why. That's how people get on the Buddhist path in the first place. They realize that the ordinary way of living life is getting bad results and they want a better way to live and upgrade the quality of their lives. Otherwise, why bother? > > =============== > > > [J:] As for whether your expectation is a reasonable one or not, I'd say I don't see why individual expectations should come into it. One of the oft-repeated points about the Dhamma made by the Buddha was its complexity and depth. > > > > [RE:] So what is the verification? What is the explanation? How do we as non-enlighteneds understand the workings of kamma on our level? > > =============== > > J: What is the need to understand it all perfectly at this stage? There is still the development of the path to be learnt about. All I am saying is that one must make a choice to adopt this philosophy based on faith and belief in the authority of the Dhamma. It's a simple starting point, so if you want to acknowledge it, that would be great. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = 277) #115269 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed May 25, 2011 1:49 am Subject: Re: A Sotapanna Dear Vicent, you wrote: 'Understanding of what is anatta is not the same of abiding in non-self. A similar distance of explaining a song from just enjoy it.' (D: you may perhaps agree- this understanding involves experiencing..) V: well, the point can be about the management of the word "understanding". D: yes.. as we know the management of right understanding (of the 4 Noble Truths) is a step by step development of penetration. And the most stubborn hindrance is the Self ..only fully abolished at Arahatship. Although the Sotipanna understands anatta by reason , that doesn't mean he/she is free of (self) attachment/identification . As you said before 'not the same of abiding in non-self' , which may mean just taking the opposite view, however insight (perhaps a better fitting term) of anatta is the experience of pure awareness with absence of kamma /cetana. V: I mean: if now you are seated, you are abiding in a seat and you don't need keeping thoughts of "I'm seated in a seat". Whether you keep thoughts or not, you are seated and that's all. This first understanding is not understanding at all but the reality as it is. These thoughts are additional, and they arises because attachment to "me...mine". We name to some of these thoughts "understanding" in the sense of panna but I think this is not right. D: I agree , that is a big difference ..it needs understanding concluded by insight to reach panna. The translation of samma ditthi as right or perfect understanding is better expressed by 'view' , one's philosophy of life (Weltansicht). V: If we change the thought of "I'm seated" by one of "sitting", still this is a another thought. So we can touch something and we can know "hardness" but this is just another thought. However, by practicing with "hearing, touching, seeing"... one can be detached of the self. This practice is powerful and also I do it but this is a practice. Nibbana is not nama, rupa, citta... All them are objects for grasping. I think we should know them to be detached from them and then to eradicate delusion and realizing non-self. They are not a picture of anatta. I believe when we know them just we know a map of how our own attachment. D:good , I think a matter of developing mindfulness. However detachment needs disentchantment , our feelings of passion are often in conflict with reason..it is less the knowing of the map of attachment than being able to letting go by insight (instead of suppression). with Metta Dieter 188) #115270 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 25, 2011 7:03 am Subject: Re: Meditation (was, The clansman ...) Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > =============== > > [RE:] I think it depends on where the devotion and effort come from. Buddha spoke of Right Effort, Right Concentration, etc. It seems to me that these are correct practices if done with the right intention. > =============== > > J: Yes, that is a commonly held view, that as long as one is sincere in one's interest in the Dhamma, then any effort exerted or concentration applied will be kusala. The way you're saying it makes a more extreme case than I am making. I never said that "any effort exerted...will be kusala," just that the practices given by the Buddha, done with the right intention, are right practices. There may be all sorts of pitfalls and factors that will make one's practice correct or incorrect at any given time, but in the long run, adhering to certain principles will point one in the right direction. It just depends on what you think the correct principles are, and in that one is on their own. > > It's a comforting idea, but it's not what the teachings say. I'm not interested in being comforted, but I would like to know what your basis is for saying that it's not what the teachings say. Buddha talked consistently about the practices of anapanasati and satipatthana, and if you think that is not what they say, I would appreciate some sort of citation that directly contradicts my view. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = 277) #115271 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 25, 2011 7:11 am Subject: Re: wisdom and doing Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E (and a note to all), > > -------------- > <. . .> > >> KH: There are basically two Buddhist teachings. There is the one that is found in the Pali Tipitaka and commentaries, and there are all the others. The first one describes the universe as a single moment of conditioned dhammas. All the others don't. > >> > > > RE: Sutta does not describe the universe as a single moment of anything. Find me a sutta that says that. > -------------- > > KH: They *all* say that, when they are read in the light of the entire Tipitaka and commentaries. > > That was my point about the two Buddhist teachings; one is in strict accordance with the entire Pali Canon, the other is anything anyone wants it to be. No that is what you are doing, making the suttas mean whatever you want them to mean. When you make a general statement that "they all say that" that has the same status of truth as saying that all cotton is really made of rubber. You make no effort to prove that you are right, you just make the assertion based on your own bald belief. If all the suttas say that, then quote one of them and show me how it says that. Otherwise what you say is worthless, and it's worse than worthless, because it means that you are making up your own Dhamma without the slightest interest in seeing whether you are really correct or not. You have to do more than say that what you think is true must be true. You have to show it by an interpretation of the Buddha's words that you can justify. > --------------------- > >RE: Sutta describes the universe as a collection of changing, > shifting, selfl-less processes called kandhas. There is nowhere in sutta that Buddha says that only one moment exists and that there is not a continuing, shifting changing set of processes of the kandhas. He also speaks of many other things that are not described in sutta as occurring in a single moment only. He speaks of mind and properties and functions of mind, and does not describe mind as an only one-moment citta process that is complete unto itself. He speaks of right livelihood and action in terms of real-world [in the conventional sense] activities and choices. He speaks of birth, life, old age, disease and death, none of them described in sutta as occurring in a single moment. He speaks of three lifetimes cycle of kamma. Do you think that "three lifetimes" is the same thing as saying "one moment?" Do you? Do you think that "three lifetimes" > occurs in a single citta? How exactly do you do the math on that? > ---------------------- > > KH: It's the same as walking (in the Satipatthana Sutta). When a monk is walking he knows the present paramattha dhamma. When a monk is thinking about three lifetimes he knows the present paramattha dhamma. > > That's all there is to know in satipatthana. That is not what the suttas say, so where are you getting your interpretation. Quote something in scripture that says what you are saying. Or are you just making it up because it's what you believe in? If so you are, again, making up your own Buddhism. If not, then show me where it is written. Don't just say things without any evidence. > --------------------------- > > RE: Obviously there are series of moments of consciousness and each one of those moments is indeed a single moment of consciousness. But Buddha speaks voluminously of the patterns of those moments, of the processes of those moments, how they mutually affect each other and accumulate properties and factors. He speaks of development. Do you think 'development' takes place in a single moment? > --------------------------- > > KH: If the Buddha spoke voluminously about patterns (concepts) it was only to stress how - whatever the pattern - there were ultimately only the presently arisen namas and rupas. > > I'll have to cut this short and get back to the rest of your reply later, thanks Robert. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation. > > Note to all: Family duties call and I will be away from the internet for at about three days. Missing you already! :-) Have a successful time away. I'll look forward to your reply when you return. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = 349) #115272 From: Ken O Date: Wed May 25, 2011 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening Dear Sarah > >>>KH: In what way have the ancient masters said concepts were part of the path? > >>> >> KO: many ways, you could read Visud where the meditation subjects are mostly >>concepts. Or practising of virture where the objects are at times concepts, >>beings and not paramatha dhamma. >> > >--------------------- >>KH: You are talking about moments of dana sila and samatha, but not about >>moments of vipassana. Only vipassana is the path; those other kusala moments are >> >>not. >.... > >S: The "Atthasalinii" states (I, Book I, Part I, Ch I, Triplets in the >Maatikaa, 44) that akusala dhamma as well as kusala dhamma which are not of >the eightfold Path are leading to accumulation, to continuation of the >cycle of birth and death. We read about akusala and kusala which are not of >the Path: >... "leading to accumulation" aacayagaamin) are "those states which go about >severally, arranging (births and deaths in) a round of destiny like a >bricklayer who arranges bricks, layer by layer, in a wall." > KO: this is quote out of context, this passage was meant to state the indication that supramundane wisdom is the one that eradicate accumulations (kamma). If kusala is not path, then we should ask ourselves, how could Buddha become Buddha if he is practising the way to Buddhahood. So all his accumulation of merit which is for Buddhahood is not counted? How do he from time to time teach sila of five precepts through his past lives? Okay I must stop arguing with you as I do not think it is helpful Treatise of Paramis << While striving for the state of Buddhahood -- the store and repositor of inconceivable, immeasurable, vast, lofty, stainless, incomparable, undefiled qualities -- he should encourage the arising of energy; for such energy is endowed with inconceivable spiritual power, which common people cannot even hear about, much less practise. It is entirely through the spiritual power of energy that the practice of all the requisites of enlightenment succeeds the threefold arising of the great aspiration, the four grounds for Buddhahood, the four bases of beneficence, the single flavour of compassion, the reflective acquiescence which is the specific condition for the realization of the Buddha-qualities, being untainted amidst all things, the perception of all beings as his own dear children, not being fatigued by all the sufferings of samsara, the relinquishing of everything that may be given away, delight in so giving, the determination upon the higher virtue, etc., unshakeableness therein, rapture and exultation in wholesome actions, the inclination towards seclusion, application to the jhanas, being insatiable in blameless states, teaching the Dhamma to others as he has learned it out of the wish for their welfare, firm initiative in setting beings upon the true path, sagacity and heroism, being imperturbable in face of the abusive speech and wrongs of others, the determination upon truth, mastery over the meditative attainments, the attainment of power through the direct knowledges, the comprehension of the three characteristics, the accumulation of the requisites for the supramundane path by practising meditation in the foundations of mindfulness, etc., and the descent on to the nine supramundane states.27 Thus from the time of forming the aspiration until the great enlightenment, a bodhisattva should perfect his energy thoroughly and uninterruptedly, without surrendering, so that it might issue in higher and higher states of distinction. And when this energy succeeds, all the requisites of enlightenment -- patience, truthfulness, determination, etc., as well as giving, virtue, etc. -- will succeed; for all these occur in dependence on energy. >> <<(xiii) BY WHAT MEANS ARE THEY ACCOMPLISHED? The means by which the paramis are accomplished is the four-factored method: (1) the accumulation without omission of all the requisites of merit, etc., for the sake of supreme enlightenment, by performing them without deficiency; (2) performing them thoroughly with respect and high esteem; (3) performing them perseveringly without interruption; and (4) enduring effort over a long period without coming to a halt half-way. We will explain the length of time later. For the sake of the supreme enlightenment, the Great Being, striving for enlightenment, should first of all surrender himself to the Buddhas thus: "I offer myself up to the Buddhas." And whenever he obtains any possession, he should first of all resolve upon it as a potential gift: "Whatever requisite of life comes my way, that I will give to those who need it, and I myself will only use what remains over from this gift." When he has made a mental determination to completely relinquish whatever possessions come his way, whether animate or inanimate, there are four shackles to giving (which he must overcome), namely: not being accustomed to giving in the past, the inferiority of the object to be given, the excellence and beauty of the object, and worry over the loss of the object. (1) When the bodhisattva possesses objects that can be given and suppliants are present, but his mind does not leap up at the thought of giving and he does not want to give, he should conclude: "Surely, I have not been accustomed to giving in the past; therefore a desire to give does not arise now in my mind. So that my mind will delight in giving in the future, I will give a gift. With an eye for the future let me now relinquish what I have to those in need." Thus he gives a gift -- generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishing, one who gives when asked, delighting in giving and in sharing. In this way the Great Being destroys, shatters, and eradicates the first shackle to giving. (2) Again, when the object to be given is inferior or defective, the Great Being reflects: "Because I was not inclined to giving in the past, at present my requisites are defective. Therefore, though it pains me, let me give whatever I have as a gift even if the object is low and inferior. In that way I will, in the future, reach the peak in the perfection of giving." Thus he gives whatever kind of gift he can -- generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishing, one who gives when asked, delighting in giving and in sharing. In this way the Great Being destroys, shatters, and eradicates the second shackle to giving. (3) When a reluctance to give arises due to the excellence or beauty of the object to be given, the Great Being admonishes himself: "Good man, haven't you made the aspiration for the supreme enlightenment, the loftiest and most superior of all states? Well then, for the sake of enlightenment, it is proper for you to give excellent and beautiful objects as gifts." Thus he gives what is excellent and beautiful -- generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishing, one who gives when asked, delighting in giving and in sharing. In this way the Great Man destroys, shatters, and eradicates the third shackle to giving. (4) When the Great Being is giving a gift, and he sees the loss of the object being given, he reflects thus: "This is the nature of material possessions, that they are subject to loss and to passing away. Moreover, it is because I did not give such gifts in the past that my possessions are now depleted. Let me then give whatever I have as a gift, whether it be limited or abundant. In that way in the future I shall reach the peak in the perfection of giving." Thus he gives whatever he has as a gift -- generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishing, one who gives when asked, delighting in giving and in sharing. In this way the Great Being destroys, shatters, and eradicates the fourth shackle to giving. Reflecting upon them thus in whatever way is appropriate is the means for dispelling the harmful shackles to the perfection of giving. The same method used for the perfection of giving also applies to the perfection of virtue and the other perfections. >> Ken O 64) #115273 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 25, 2011 7:44 am Subject: Look Mama: No Ego! Friends: Egolessness is the essential core of Buddhism! Question: What is the first hindrance (samyojana=fetter=mental chain) blocking entrance to the Noble Path leading to Nibb�na (sot�patti-magga)? Answer: This first hindrance is Personality View (Sakk�ya-ditth�): "Permanent personality" belief, "Same Self" as baby & old person assumption, "I am this Me" self-deceit, "This Body is my Own" notion, "This Body is my Self" notion, "This Body is ME" notion, "This Body is my Person" notion "I have a permanent Ego" concept "Body is mine+own+person" view "Feeling is mine+own+person" view "Perception is mine+own+person" view "Construction is mine+own+person" view "Consciousness is mine+own+person" view All are conjectures of the false assumption, that these phenomena are stable entities, that can be kept unchanging & thereby definable as the core of a self, an identity, a soul or other metaphysical entity as an ego! "A person" however is rather a process, a transient flux of conditions, continuously becoming otherwise and something else. We are all more different from what we were 5 minutes ago, than we are different from another person ... Never are we the same person ... ! The false assumption: "This is Mine" is obviously rooted in desire. The false assumption: "This is Me, this I Am" is rooted in self-deception. The false assumption: "This is my self" is rooted in a personality view. The always changing 'personality' is thus : " Na ca so, na ca anno" Neither the same, nor another! Source: King Milinda's Questions. Milindapanha. Any "Person" is: Always changing, not the same, not identical, and thus without any identity, yet neither another, but continuously becoming an otherwise and different set of phenomena! Ownerless and empty of definable sameness: Any part of a 'person' is just a momentary mental or physical state, that arises and ceases, and thus cannot be owned or kept by any 'self' or 'ego'. These states arise due to conditions not fully under 'our' control, but due to their own nature. They are dependent on both internal and external conditions, which cannot be controlled by any 'agent', 'ego', 'self' or 'me'! Don't feel fear that 'you' have now lost "your self" Why not? Because a metaphysical & imagined 'self', that was never there in the 1st place, cannot ever be lost or anything else... Secondly: Self-"I"-dentification with something that does not exist, remains a falsehood, yet nevertheless 'we' loves this void and empty puppet 'me' beyond anything else... This is not a case of the emperor's new clothes, since here the ego-emperor is not even there, except as an imagined very evil concept called Egoism! The Buddha once said: View the world as Empty Thus always Aware, Moghar�ja Giving up belief in any Self One may escape Death, since the king of Death cannot see one with such void view. Sutta Nip�ta 1119 Sabbe Dhamm� Anatt� All phenomena are egoless, impersonal, without any self! Selflessness = No-Self= Anatta Is difficult to comprehend as habitually counterintuitive, yet the most essential & unique teaching in all the Dhamma! <....> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <....> 2) #115274 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed May 25, 2011 5:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Enlightenment from the light side Hi Kevin, > Lukas: Theras taught that all (paramattha)dhammas are empty, devoid of Self, > devoid of any core, devoid of anything. But they have sabhava(distinct > characteristic), so that can be known. This sounds very similar to Nagarjuna, > don't u think? > > Kevin: No, absolutely not. Like most, you haven't studied the man but you want > to claim to know what he means, or whether he is right or wrong. The people of > this day have level development of the perfection of truthfulness. > > You should word your questions as question and less like statements. For > example, saying something like 'it appears that Nagarjuna's ideas sound similar > to those of the Theras. Do you agree?' Instead of of stating that they seem > similar This is misleading to unintelligent readers who gloss it and take it on > face value because someone said it. You have to keep these people in mind when > you write. You should also urge them to study more, and to think for > themselves. L: Thanks for pointing it out, but I can't change it. I just let it all to be, don't think much how I write, this is my nature. Best wishes Lukas 32) #115275 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed May 25, 2011 5:38 pm Subject: Re: audio uploading Hi Phil, I like very much this new discussions. Nice to hear you on tape. Best wishes Lukas > Thanks for your hard work to get these up. They were great discussions. However, I think I'll keep listening to the Saturday discussions at the foundation, which tend to be on more technical points, which I like. I was calm and conciliatory during the discussions because I wanted people to like me. But if I listen now, I will find things that only feed the peeves. I think they are not to be settled, but wisely put aside so that other things can be discussed. But unlikely to be able to put them aside now! > > But I do appreciate the thing that I really felt I understood during the discussions. Satipatthana can arise, and develop gradually, by listening and reflecting, and in daily life. I am more impressed by A. Sujin's explanation of satipatthana than by, for example, the Mahashi explanation/technique. Where we differ is the need for protection other than satipatthana, the protection of conventional morality whether there is understanding of dhammas or not. > > Thanks again, hope to be asking questions based on SPD and the Saturday session talks sooner or later... 10) #115276 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 25, 2011 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pali Canon Dear Revtriple & all, --- On Fri, 20/5/11, revtriple wrote: > Does anyone know of anywhere I can download a complete copy of the Pali Canon Tipitaka in English? I can find the Thai and Pali but not the English. .... S: I don't think you got a reply and problem the reason is because there isn't a very good answer. As far as I know, there is nowhere where you can download "a complete copy of the Tipitaka in English." If you go to the "bookmarks" section of DSG, you'll find links to many of the most common sites where parts of the Tipitaka have been translated. I don't think any of the Abhidhamma is on line. I believe the Vinaya, "Book of Discipline" transl by Miss Horner can now be found on line. As for the Sutta Pitaka, I used to use the "metta" site, but don't know where this is anymore. The most commonly used site for the Sutta Pitaka (not complete) is accesstoinsight. Perhaps Chris, Connie, Alex or others can give you a more helpful answer. Metta Sarah ======= 5) #115277 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 25, 2011 7:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Rob E, --- On Fri, 20/5/11, Robert E wrote: >> S: It is the anicca characteristic of a dhamma. Its arising conditions its falling away instantly. This is different from a conventional idea of impermanence which everyone knows about. > .... R:>Could you say a bit more about this? How does the arising condition the falling away, and how does that represent the anicca of the dhamma? .... S: As soon as a conditioned dhamma arises, it falls away. I liked this quote Ven Samahita gave recently: "However, when apparent continuity is disrupted by discerning rise and fall, the characteristic of impermanence becomes apparent in its true nature." Vism. Ch xxi/p.640 We read that it is the eye-sense, the visual objects, the eye-cosnciousness, the eye-contact and so on that are impermanent - these are all paramattha dhammas. Again, Ven S gave another very good quote: "When continuity is disrupted means when continuity is exposed by observation of the perpetual alteration of states as they go on occurring in succession. For it is not through the connectedness of states, that the characteristic of impermanence becomes apparent to one who rightly observes rise and fall, but rather the transience characteristic becomes properly evident through these states discrete disconnectedness, regarded as if each moment were iron darts hitting the screen of awareness. Or as single pearls on a string, but not continuous as the string itself..." VismA. 824 S: We take there to be a continuity of experiences, like the string, but only through the direct understanding and awareness of the rising and falling of dhammas will the characteristic of their impermanence become apparent and this is not until the third stage of insight. First there has to be the understanding of those dhammas as namas and rupas without any atta. ..... > S: All conditioned dhammas... It is an understanding of the ti-lakkana of dhammas, not just an understanding of anicca and so on.... > .... R:>Could you say a word about the interrelationship of the three marks? I'm not sure I'm quite clear how they work together. .... S: As I mentioned, first conditioned dhammas have to be understood as just dhammas, just namas and rupas, for example, just seeing, just visible object, no 'thing' or 'person' involved. By directly understanding particular dhammas more and more clearly, their conditioned nature becomes more apparent and eventually the arising and falling away of dhammas at this moment. "When he sees the arising of aggregates with the arising of ignorance and the cessation of aggregates with the cessation of ignorance, this is his seeing of rise and fall according to condition. When he sees the rise and fall of aggregates by seeing the characteristic of generation and the characteristic of change, this is his seeing of rise and fall according to instant. For it is only at the instant of arising that there is the characteristic of generation, and only at the instant of dissolution that there is the characteristic of change." Vism. XX 99 " 'So, it seems, these states, not having been, are brought into being; having been, they vanish'." S: And what is impermanent is painful: "And here the following differences should be understood: the impermanent, and the characteristic of impermanence; the painful, and the characteristic of pain; the not-self, and the characteristic of not-self. "Herein, the five aggregates are impermanent. Why? Because they rise and fall and change, or because of their non-existence after having been. Rise and fall and change are the characteristic of impermanence; or mode alteration, in other words, non-existence after having been [is the characteristic of impermanence]. "Those same five aggregates are painful because of the words, 'What is impermanent is painful' (S. iii, 22). Why? Because of continuous oppression. The mode of being continuously oppressed is the characteristic of pain. "Those same five aggregates are not-self because of the words, 'What is painful is not-self' (S. iii, 22). Why? Because there is no exercising of power over them. The mode of insusceptibility to the exercise of power is the characteristic of not-self." Vism. XX1, 5ff .... >R: I also have a problem with sabhava - .... S: The sabhava is just the characteristic or nature of a dhamma. For example, visible object is not the same as sound. Hardness is not the same as heat. Lobha is not the same as dosa. Why not? They are different dhammas with different particular natures/characteristics. Furthermore, each sound is different from each other sound, each tangible object is different from each other tangible object. If they didn't have different 'sabhavas', then it would be impossible to ever directly know/be aware of any dhamma and there would be no reason to think in different ways about them or to like some and dislike others. There are realities, they have characteristics, but they are anatta - not in anyone's control and not anything other than just dhammas. Metta Sarah ======= 349) #115278 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 25, 2011 8:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question about Angulimala Dear Yoginder, --- On Thu, 19/5/11, hmmmm wrote: >A litle bit about 'myself': I am originally from Punjab but now am in Shimla, up in the Himalayas, where I am a fellow at a research institute. As someone from a Hindu background, I do have some basic familiarity with Buddhism and have visited many Buddhist pilgrimage centres, but, of course, my understanding is still very limited. .....However, I have started reading on Buddhism and I am finding it really appealing, particularly the Theravad tradition. .... S: Very interesting - thx for telling us a little about your background. ... >About the story of Angulimala--although I am not, of course, in any position to comment on it, I was using it to ask a larger question--i.e. If all such details about figures in all the Buddhist texts are to be taken literal, historical, inerrant, truth, rather than as figuratively illustrating a point....If someone takes it as the former, is she/he not doing precisely what religionists in other traditions--especially the Semitic--do with regard to their scriptures, this conducing to blind faith? Is that really Buddhistic? .... S: Well, the Buddha encouraged us all to 'test out' the Teachings for ourselves, to check whether what is taught is the Truth or not. I think that the more we test out, the more confidence we have in the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries and the stories they include. But as Nina, said, what is important is the present understanding of dhammas, not whether we accept all such details such as those about Angulimala. ... >So, for instance, can one ask if the story of Angulimala is really historically true in all its details or whether it is, instead, true in a different sense--as illustrating a certain point or moral lesson but perhaps not factually true in the literal sense? This question relates, as I mentioned above, to the larger issue of how one should approach details in the scriptural texts that might appear to conflict with reason/science. .... S: The story is accepted as being historically true. My advice is not to be over-concerned about the historical aspects of the Teachings however. You can read more in 'Useful Posts' in the files section under "Councils", for example. ... >Not sure at all but would be grateful if I could learn more about these issues! ... S: The Angulimala Sutta, MN 86 is in one of the main books of the Sutta Pitaka itself. I don't think anyone doubts that the MN is authentic and the suttas recited by the Buddha (or his key disciples). I think you'll find there is plenty of historical evidence to support this. I look f/w to hearing more from you. Metta Sarah ===== 12) #115279 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 25, 2011 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma Dear Han, Thank you for your additional interesting comments. --- On Fri, 20/5/11, han tun wrote: >"The here and now (di.t.thadhamma) is one's immediately present existence; [kamma] that will be experienced by virtue of experience of its result during this [existence] is [kamma] to be experienced here and now." -And so on. >Sayadaw Ashin Janakaabhiva.msa's writings included all these points, although I did not mention all of them in my last post. Sayadaw also expanded on the definition itself, in particular the word "vedaniya", which means felt or experienced. He wrote that one can only experience the resultant vipaaka, and one cannot experience the causative kamma. Then why the word "vedaniya" is used here together with word "kamma" under the heading of kammas? It is used to show that this particular kamma produces the resultant vipaaka to be experienced in the time frame noted in each case [di.t.thadhamma-vedaniya-kamma: resulting in this life; upapajja-vedaniya-kamma: resulting in the next life; aparaapariya-vedaniya-kamma: resulting in later lives]. ... S: I understand about vedaniya and its meaning. What is the literal meaning of "di.t.thadhamma" here? ... >Sayadaw said that this kind of metaphorical writing is called "phaluupacaaya" method. [phaluupaccaya = phala + upacaara. A writing with a metaphor on phala or the result. Upacaara here means a metaphor.] ... S: I can understand why vedaniya is referring to phala or vipaka, but not sure why upacaara (upacaaya?) is a metaphor here? Metta Sarah p.s No need to reply if you'd prefer to leave it. ====== 8) #115280 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 25, 2011 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening Dear Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > >S: There are only namas and rupas in reality (see intro to first chapter in > >Abhidhammattha Sangaha). Some of these namas and rupas we refer to as "father", "mother" and so on. On kamma, as explained. ... > KO: Definitely there nama and rupa, there is also father and mother .... S: Which door-way are "father and mother" experienced through? Are they seen? Are they heard? Are they smelt? Are they tasted? Are they touched? Or are they only thought about? Metta Sarah ====== 64) #115281 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 25, 2011 5:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Enlightenment from the light side Hi, Lukas (and Kevin) - In a message dated 5/25/2011 3:34:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Hi Kevin, > Lukas: Theras taught that all (paramattha)dhammas are empty, devoid of Self, > devoid of any core, devoid of anything. But they have sabhava(distinct > characteristic), so that can be known. This sounds very similar to Nagarjuna, > don't u think? > > Kevin: No, absolutely not. Like most, you haven't studied the man but you want > to claim to know what he means, or whether he is right or wrong. The people of > this day have level development of the perfection of truthfulness. > > You should word your questions as question and less like statements. For > example, saying something like 'it appears that Nagarjuna's ideas sound similar > to those of the Theras. Do you agree?' Instead of of stating that they seem > similar This is misleading to unintelligent readers who gloss it and take it on > face value because someone said it. You have to keep these people in mind when > you write. You should also urge them to study more, and to think for > themselves. L: Thanks for pointing it out, but I can't change it. I just let it all to be, don't think much how I write, this is my nature. ------------------------------------------------------- Lukas, your "nature," as that of all sankaras and aggregates of sankharas, is conditioned, transitory, and modifiable. It is a mistake, IMO, to presume a fixed nature in anything and most especially in oneself. If such were the case, there would be no hope for liberation, and the Buddha would have been just a foolish man who wasted 45 years of his life. ------------------------------------------------------ Best wishes Lukas =============================== With metta, Howard Whatever is Conditioned is Fleeting /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible. "These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ (From the Sankhata Sutta) 32) #115282 From: han tun Date: Wed May 25, 2011 10:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma Dear Sarah, [Sarah]: I understand about vedaniya and its meaning. What is the literal meaning of "di.t.thadhamma" here? Han: It is a peculiar way of defining, called "thingyo" in Burmese. It is difficult for me to translate it correctly into English. Sayadaw said [di.t.tho dhammo di.t.thadhammo] di.t.tho = visible by sight dhammo = dhamma, the nature di.t.thadhammo = the dhamma or nature that is visible clearly by sight [in this present life]. It is a form of paccupanna atta. I do not know the meaning of "paccupanna atta". ----------------- [Han]: Sayadaw said that this kind of metaphorical writing is called "phaluupacaaya" method. [phaluupaccaya = phala + upacaara. A writing with a metaphor on phala or the result. Upacaara here means a metaphor.] [Sarah]: I can understand why vedaniya is referring to phala or vipaka, but not sure why upacaara (upacaaya?) is a metaphor here? Han: "Upacaara here means a metaphor" is inserted by me after referring to the Pali-Burmese dictionary. Sayadaw did not say exactly like that. Sayadaw just said it was a metaphor on phala. *I* wanted to know the meaning of upacaara myself. So I looked up the Pali-Burmese Dictionary. There is the usual meaning for "upa-caara" i.e., neighbourhood. Then there is meaning for "upa-cariya" which means a metaphor. There is a meaning for "upacaaravasena" which means by the strength of a metaphor. Kind regards, Han 8) #115283 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 25, 2011 6:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concep... Hi, Sarah (and Ken) - In a message dated 5/25/2011 6:14:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > >S: There are only namas and rupas in reality (see intro to first chapter in > >Abhidhammattha Sangaha). Some of these namas and rupas we refer to as "father", "mother" and so on. On kamma, as explained. ... > KO: Definitely there nama and rupa, there is also father and mother .... S: Which door-way are "father and mother" experienced through? Are they seen? Are they heard? Are they smelt? Are they tasted? Are they touched? Or are they only thought about? ------------------------------------------------------ H: My perspective: A parent is known by thought, through the mind-door only. What it is, is a stream of "fuzzy sets" (in the mathematical sense) of interrelated psychophysical phenomena called rupas and namas. A "parent" is conceptually separated off from the psychophysical flux, rather as a whirlpool is mentally separated off from the rest of the river. It is not nothing at all but is also not a separate reality and is only *conceived of* as a truly separate entity. Treating it as a "reality" is atta-view. Treating it as nothing at all is nihilism, and, according to the Buddha, BTW, wrong view. ------------------------------------------------------- Metta Sarah ================================= With metta, Howard Mundane Wrong View /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./ (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta) 10) #115284 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu May 26, 2011 2:59 am Subject: Re: Enlightenment from the light side Hi Howard, > L: Thanks for pointing it out, but I can't change it. I just let it all to > be, don't think much how I write, this is my nature. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Lukas, your "nature," as that of all sankaras and aggregates of > sankharas, is conditioned, transitory, and modifiable. It is a mistake, IMO, to > presume a fixed nature in anything and most especially in oneself. If such > were the case, there would be no hope for liberation, and the Buddha would > have been just a foolish man who wasted 45 years of his life. > ------------------------------------------------------ L: Well, I cant find any "nature" in myself. And looking for years, to find some "thing" that is permanent, that is under my control and it belong to me. Unfortunatelly, such thing doesn't exist. I mentioned my "nature" in a context of accumulations of akusala and taking that all for myself. Best wishes Lukas Best wishes Lukas 32) #115285 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu May 26, 2011 8:45 am Subject: Ti-lakkhana: The 3 Universal Characteristics... Friends: The Three Undeniable Universal Properties: Q: Is the body and all external form, lasting or transient? A: Transient Q: Is feeling, pleasant or not, lasting or transient? A: Transient! Q: Is experienced perceptions lasting or transient? A: Transient! Q: Is the mental constructions lasting or transient? A: Transient! Q: Is naked awareness = consciousness lasting or transient? A: Transient! Q: Is the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind, lasting or transient? Q: Is form, sound, smell, taste, touch and thought, lasting or transient? Q: Is solidity, fluidity, heat, motion, and space, lasting or transient? Answer: All these are Transient!, Impermanent!, Temporary!, Fleeting! Q: Is what is transient, happiness or suffering? A: Decay is Suffering! Q: Is what is transient, ever changing and therefore frustrating pain suitable to be regarded as: "This is Mine, This I Am, This is Me" "This I can Keep, This I can control, This I Posses, This is my Self" ... ??? Answer: No certainly Not ...!!!, since what is self must be keepable, same, constant, controllable, under one's own full power, and thus pleasant... As all these phenomena are none of this, they cannot ever be self! Seeing this, understanding this, comprehending this, the Noble Learner is disgusted by all form, disgusted by all sensing, by all physical, by all mental. Being thus disgusted, one experiences an opening disillusion... The veil is off. Without illusions, the mind is fully released and one immediately knows: This mental liberation is final and irreversible. This - exactly this state - is called Nibb�na , experienced is this very life ... <...> Life always involves Suffering and is inevitably Sorrowful! Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nik�ya II 244-5 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 Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> 1) #115286 From: "connie" Date: Thu May 26, 2011 10:02 am Subject: Re: Pali Canon Dear Revtriple, Sarah, S: As far as I know, there is nowhere where you can download "a complete copy of the Tipitaka in English." If you go to the "bookmarks" section of DSG, you'll find links to many of the most common sites where parts of the Tipitaka have been translated. I don't think any of the Abhidhamma is on line. I believe the Vinaya, "Book of Discipline" transl by Miss Horner can now be found on line. As for the Sutta Pitaka, I used to use the "metta" site, but don't know where this is anymore. The most commonly used site for the Sutta Pitaka (not complete) is accesstoinsight. Perhaps Chris, Connie, Alex or others can give you a more helpful answer. ==== A search for 'rhys davids' on the archive.org site will bring up quite a few titles that might interest you. As far as I know, it's the site where you can download the Dhammasangani translation: A Buddhist manual of psychological ethics of the fourth century BC. Also, yes, the Vinaya translation is there. :) Speaking of which, the UPS man just happened to drop off all six volumes at my door this afternoon – lol, must be my birthday for sure! :) thank you, connie 5) #115287 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 26, 2011 10:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: As soon as a conditioned dhamma arises, it falls away... ... I found all of these quotes and your discussion of them extremely interesting and helpful. Sometimes the detailed quotes answer these questions very well because they discuss in detail the way in which the quality of anatta or one of the other characteristics is really understood 'by the wise.' On the other hand, they also raise more questions, but questions that can be discussed with interest, because there is more information to base the discussion on. Anyway, if the above makes any sense, I hope you will see in it the 'nutrition' that is given by some of these descriptions. Very much appreciated. > Again, Ven S gave another very good quote: > > "When continuity is disrupted means when continuity is exposed by observation of the perpetual alteration of states as they go on occurring in succession. For it is not through the connectedness of states, that the characteristic of impermanence becomes apparent to one who rightly observes rise and fall, but rather the transience characteristic becomes properly evident through these states discrete disconnectedness, regarded as if each moment were iron darts hitting the screen of awareness. Or as single pearls on a string, but not continuous as the string itself..." > VismA. 824 I do have some questions about this description, and I like the metaphor very much. It seems to me that one must be cognisant not only of the nature of the beads, but also of the existence of what would represent the string. In other words, the individual nature of dhammas always seems to be emphasized, and the fact that they completely arise and fall away, as if they were independent, as beads would be if they were *not* on a string, but just jumping up and down in the air, ie, rising and then falling all by themselves, each one. But in fact it is acknowledged that each citta passes on its characteristics and qualities and knowledge to the next citta as it falls away, and so in fact there *is* a continuity between arising and falling dhammas. I do not quite understand why there is the polarized view that change should be seen as complete dissolution of each dhamma and thereby a process of complete destruction rather than seeing change as both falling away *and* the continuity of all that is passed on at each moment when the dhamma is falling away. It seems to me that change or anicca is *both* the rising/falling away action *and* the passing on/continuity aspect of what continues to go on from citta to citta. So to me it seems logical that both should be equally understood as aspects of anicca and not just the falling away. It also would be interesting to understand how, rather than completely falling away, the content of one citta changes to the new content of the next citta, which I assume are never exactly the same. I also assume that the difference between cittas, even though there is continuity through passing on of tendencies and qualities, is caused by different conditions which lead to different objects, understandings and cetasikas arising with the new citta - a combination of that which has been passed on and accumulated and that which is caused by new arising unique conditions. And that this difference between cittas brought about by new conditions also constitutes genuine "change," or anicca. > S: We take there to be a continuity of experiences, like the string, but only through the direct understanding and awareness of the rising and falling of dhammas will the characteristic of their impermanence become apparent and this is not until the third stage of insight. First there has to be the understanding of those dhammas as namas and rupas without any atta. ... > "When he sees the arising of aggregates with the arising of ignorance and the cessation of aggregates with the cessation of ignorance, this is his seeing of rise and fall according to condition. When he sees the rise and fall of aggregates by seeing the characteristic of generation and the characteristic of change, this is his seeing of rise and fall according to instant. For it is only at the instant of arising that there is the characteristic of generation, and only at the instant of dissolution that there is the characteristic of change." Vism. XX 99 > > " 'So, it seems, these states, not having been, are brought into being; having been, they vanish'." > > S: And what is impermanent is painful: > ... > "Those same five aggregates are painful because of the words, 'What is impermanent is painful' (S. iii, 22). Why? Because of continuous oppression. The mode of being continuously oppressed is the characteristic of pain. > > "Those same five aggregates are not-self because of the words, 'What is painful is not-self' (S. iii, 22). Why? Because there is no exercising of power over them. The mode of insusceptibility to the exercise of power is the characteristic of not-self." Vism. XX1, 5ff I also like these details, looking more closely at how dukkha and anatta are related, just as dukkha and anicca were related. So there is an understanding of how impermanence and the impossibility of holding onto an object, and here the inability to control it, are associated with not-self. > .... > >R: I also have a problem with sabhava - > .... > S: The sabhava is just the characteristic or nature of a dhamma. ... If they didn't have different 'sabhavas', then it would be impossible to ever directly know/be aware of any dhamma and there would be no reason to think in different ways about them or to like some and dislike others. There are realities, they have characteristics, but they are anatta - not in anyone's control and not anything other than just dhammas. I like your way of characterizing sabhava, as just the raw particularity of the dhamma, without any other significance. It seems to avoid the danger that I see in the more "meaningful" use of sabhava, as if "own-being" indicated a kind of meaningful world where the dhamma has a sort of importance through having particular possessions and characteristics. I wonder if your way of putting that is compatible with the way I have spoken of it, saying that the dhamma just "behaves in a particular way" and "doesn't actually have any content 'inside of it'" or anything that it really "owns" as it is not a being or entity, but just an arising form or action? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = 349) #115288 From: Vince Date: Thu May 26, 2011 5:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Dieter you wrote: > As you said before 'not the same of abiding in non-self' , which may mean > just taking the opposite view, however insight (perhaps a better fitting term) > of anatta is the experience of pure awareness with absence of kamma /cetana. yes, word insight is much better. You explain this better than me. I agree with the rest you says. > However detachment needs disentchantment , our feelings of passion are often > in conflict with reason..it is less the knowing of the map of attachment than > being able to letting go by insight (instead of suppression). I agree again.. Disenchantment is the key to explain the persistence of our attachments and the eventual incapacity to leave them, despite we can know them. As the live is enough hard in itself, it is difficult to leave attachments to those few good things the world can give us. That's not easy because many of these things are not managed by our reason. Some of these phenomena causes love for the world even development of metta, although at same time we must be aware of anicca. That's easier with those phenomena causing dhukkha. Many times we have complaints about our atachments and defilements causing dukkha but these can be quickly identified. A worse mess are the other ones. best, Vince, 188) #115289 From: Vince Date: Thu May 26, 2011 5:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Sarah you wrote: V:>> in that case the 7 lives would be impossible, because we cannot find in the V:>> Suttas any being who becomes a sotapanna in other realm than human or deva. > .... > S: "who becomes a sotapanna".... This doesn't mean that having become a > sotapanna, there cannot be subsequent rebirths in rupa and arupa brahma > realms, for example. Those who had attained various jhanas were usually reborn > in these realms and attaining higher stages of enlightenment in those realms > before parinibbana. The "7" is absolutely maximum, usually fewer rebirths. then some goes there, some goes here. Therefore it is not solved by the example of those who goes to higher realms. > S: For the sotapanna (or even the arahat), right understanding of realities > as anatta does not arise all the time. However, there are no more conditions > for any kind of wrong view to ever arise again. There can be no 'falling > back'. Yes, understanding still accumulates, but once wrong view of all kinds > has been eradicated, there is no more tendency for this at all. The anusayas > of wrong view and doubt (ditthi and vicikiccha) are completely eradicated by > the sotapatti-magga citta. I understand for sotapannas that's like a flash, and later they don't have a clear idea of how to be engaged in magga again. The end of wrong view and doubts in sotapannas are regarding Buddha and the attachment to precepts and rituals. This is what appears in the Suttas. No more things. I wonder if the sotapatti-magga citta was an established condition in sotapannas, in such case the person would evolve directly until arhanthood. "Sotapanna" would not be a description of a person but maybe of a short state appearing in a sudden access until arhanthood. Such access can exist but for sure it must be scarce and strange. It can be in example what shows the history of Ugassena; about somebody who goes directly to arhanthood: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=348 but precisely when he descend from the pole, he is already an arhant not a sotapanna. I don't know if there is a possibility of a constant succesion of sotapatti-magga cittas but I cannot conceive how such situation would not evolve by itself until nibbana and arhanthood in a quick way. I understand the sotapatti-magga citta can arises in sotapannas but it is not not an established situation. When sotapannas experience attachment there is no place for that citta, and it would be the common situation, not the inverse. best, Vince, 188) #115290 From: "Rev Triple" Date: Thu May 26, 2011 5:57 pm Subject: Buddh's last meal... Where is the exact type of meal that was used as his last meal mentioned? One of the commentaries? Do we know for sure that it was actually pork? I've heard the theory that it was a type of mushroom that pigs enjoyed eating. If I find a place to download the complete Pali Canon in English... I'll let everyone know. Thanks! #115291 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 26, 2011 8:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddh's last meal... Dear Revtriple, >RT: Where is the exact type of meal that was used as his last meal mentioned? One of the commentaries? Do we know for sure that it was actually pork? I've heard the theory that it was a type of mushroom that pigs enjoyed eating. ... S: Pork truffles. See the following - we've had plenty of discussion on this topic. Feel free to quote again from any of them and ask further qus/make comments: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25687 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25707 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25800 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25919 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/26020 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/75245 >If I find a place to download the complete Pali Canon in English... I'll let everyone know. ... S: It may take quite a while as it doesn't exist yet. Pls let us know which sources you find most helpful meanwhile for parts of the Tipitaka in English. Metta Sarah p.s Pls make it very clear who you are addressing with your posts, even if it's "All". Also, pls sign off with your name which we should address you by. ================ 2) #115292 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 26, 2011 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening Dear Ken O, --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Ken O wrote: >>KH: You are talking about moments of dana sila and samatha, but not about >>moments of vipassana. Only vipassana is the path; those other kusala moments are not. >.... >>S (in support of Ken H's comment): The "Atthasalinii" states (I, Book I, Part I, Ch I, Triplets in the Maatikaa, 44) that akusala dhamma as well as kusala dhamma which are not of the eightfold Path are leading to accumulation, to continuation of the cycle of birth and death. We read about akusala and kusala which are not of the Path: >>... "leading to accumulation" aacayagaamin) are "those states which go about severally, arranging (births and deaths in) a round of destiny like a bricklayer who arranges bricks, layer by layer, in a wall." ... >KO: this is quote out of context, this passage was meant to state the indication that supramundane wisdom is the one that eradicate accumulations (kamma). If kusala is not path, then we should ask ourselves, how could Buddha become Buddha if he is practising the way to Buddhahood. So all his accumulation of merit which is for Buddhahood is not counted? How do he from time to time teach sila of five precepts through his past lives? .... S: I don't believe the quote is out of context at all. Any kusala (or akusala) which is not the development of satipatthana, which is not the eightfold path, is leading to the continuation of the cycle. The commentaries indicate that even jhana is considered as wrong path. In MN140 we read about the conditioned nature of the immaterial jhanas. “MA: this is said in order to show the danger in the immaterial jhanas. By the one phrase, ‘This would be conditioned,’ he shows: ‘Even though the lifespan there is 20,000 aeons, that is conditioned, fashioned, built up. It is thus impermanent, unstable, not lasting, transient. It is subject to perishing, breaking up, and dissolution; it is involved with birth, ageing, and death, grounded upon suffering. It is not a shelter, a place of safety, a refuge. Having passed away there as a worldling, one can still be reborn in the four states of deprivation.” ... >KO: Okay I must stop arguing with you as I do not think it is helpful .... S: Again, it comes back to the present cittas as I keep suggesting. If we think we are arguing or are speaking/writing in annoyance/frustration or without kindness, then it may not be helpful as dosa never helps. However, you may be inclined to argue with this too:-) Think of it as a friendly exchange between friends, Ken! Btw, you may like to listen to the segments of discussion in KK with Phil that we've uploaded and to give your comments. I'd be glad to hear them. .... >Treatise of Paramis <...> S: All the paramis have to be developed with right understanding of the path, i.e right understanding of paramattha dhammas. Without this right understanding, they are not paramis. This is why those who have not heard the Buddha's Teachings cannot develop the paramis, however much metta, dana and so on is developed. Metta Sarah ======= 64) #115294 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 27, 2011 2:22 am Subject: Re: A Sotapanna Dear Vicent, nice to agree .. more the exception rather than the rule in my experience of list discussions ;-) you wrote: 'As the live is enough hard in itself, it is difficult to leave attachments to those few good things the world can give us. That's not easy because many of these things are not managed by our reason. Some of these phenomena causes love for the world even development of metta, although at same time we must be aware of anicca. That's easier with those phenomena causing dhukkha. Many times we have complaints about our atachments and defilements causing dukkha but these can be quickly identified. A worse mess are the other ones.' D: leaving attachments .. yes, quiet difficult. I think one may keep in mind , that we householders are very limited in this respect and Sotapanna realization being rather exceptional. Not having followed your discussion in detail , I like to mention the aspect of 'stream entering' , which I understand involves the opening of the path. That means right view -corresponding to the abolishment of the first three fetters - will indeed be the forerunner of right thinking/intention , right speech, right bodily action and right livehood , followed in consequent succession . Within this framework the Path links 2, 3,4 (and 5) are in line with the 10 kinds of wholesome actions (Kamma Pattha). The mundane path is still missing this golden thread.. with Metta Dieter 188) #115295 From: Shalini S Date: Fri May 27, 2011 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Abhidhammata Sangaha commentary mentions about "cula sotapanna" and Ledi Sayadaw's 'Requisites of Enlightenment' mentions "bon-sin-san" Sotapanna. Both of which I am not really able to understand of how this is achieved, what are its characteristics similar to what is mentioned about the Magga phala for a Sotapanna and the characteristics like 'a Sotapanna is free of the first three fetters among ten'. Has anybody read of these in any other commentaries and understood more about this? BTW, Sarah, I am from Bangalore. Thanks Shalini ________________________________ From: Vince you wrote: V:>> in that case the 7 lives would be impossible, because we cannot find in the V:>> Suttas any being who becomes a sotapanna in other realm than human or deva. > .... > S: "who becomes a sotapanna".... This doesn't mean that having become a > sotapanna, there cannot be subsequent rebirths in rupa and arupa brahma > realms, for example. Those who had attained various jhanas were usually reborn > in these realms and attaining higher stages of enlightenment in those realms > before parinibbana. The "7" is absolutely maximum, usually fewer rebirths. then some goes there, some goes here. Therefore it is not solved by the example of those who goes to higher realms. <...> 188) #115296 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 27, 2011 7:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening Hi Sarah, and Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: ...Any kusala (or akusala) which is not the development of satipatthana, which is not the eightfold path, is leading to the continuation of the cycle. The commentaries indicate that even jhana is considered as wrong path. ... > S: All the paramis have to be developed with right understanding of the path, i.e right understanding of paramattha dhammas. Without this right understanding, they are not paramis. This is why those who have not heard the Buddha's Teachings cannot develop the paramis, however much metta, dana and so on is developed. If non-path kusala is not part of the path, what is the function of non-path kusala and is it then totally worthless as regards the path? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - 64) #115297 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 27, 2011 12:38 pm Subject: Re: audio uploading Hi Lukas Thanks. I hope you have a chance to meet everyone and discuss with A. Sujin someday, very interesting. Sorry I haven't called you but once my dependency on internet/i-phone is overcome, I will be able to.In the meantime, I send you support for overcoming your need for alcohol. That has to come first. You can do it. Moments of satipatthana that condition moments of abstention, very encouraging. But the total overcoming of the addiction will not be accomplished by rare moments of satipatthana, in my opinion. Self will be involved, mana will be involved, consideration of and regret about harm to other people will be involved, fear will be involved, stubborness and pride will be involved. There will be a lot of akusala involved to help you get rid of that very harmful habit. That's ok! It's worth it. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > I like very much this new discussions. Nice to hear you on tape. > > Best wishes > Lukas > > > Thanks for your hard work to get these up. They were great discussions. However, I think I'll keep listening to the Saturday discussions at the foundation, which tend to be on more technical points, which I like. I was calm and conciliatory during the discussions because I wanted people to like me. But if I listen now, I will find things that only feed the peeves. I think they are not to be settled, but wisely put aside so that other things can be discussed. But unlikely to be able to put them aside now! > > > > But I do appreciate the thing that I really felt I understood during the discussions. Satipatthana can arise, and develop gradually, by listening and reflecting, and in daily life. I am more impressed by A. Sujin's explanation of satipatthana than by, for example, the Mahashi explanation/technique. Where we differ is the need for protection other than satipatthana, the protection of conventional morality whether there is understanding of dhammas or not. > > > > Thanks again, hope to be asking questions based on SPD and the Saturday session talks sooner or later... > 10) #115298 From: sīlānanda Date: Fri May 27, 2011 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pali Canon Hi You may try these links: *Tipitaka* - Guide to Tipitaka- U Ko Lay - Pali Tripitaka- Sri Lanka Tripitaka Project (SLTP) - Tipitaka- accesstoinsight.org (USA) - Tipitaka - metta.lk (Sri Lanka) metta silananda On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:02 AM, connie wrote: > > > Dear Revtriple, Sarah, > > S: As far as I know, there is nowhere where you can download "a complete > copy of the Tipitaka in English." <....> 5) #115299 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 27, 2011 1:57 pm Subject: Reg: Blaming the Mirror... ;-) Friends: Please note that when one points the accusing and blaming finger at another saying "you did this wrong": Then ONE 1 finger points to him/her - the alleged offender, BUT 3 -THREE - fingers points back at the accuser, the blamer! Why so? The blamer him/herself does 3 wrongs: 1: Blaming = not forgiving, 2: Not Understanding Cause = ignorance, 3: Wanting to Punish = Hate, cruelty and revengefulness! Blaming, accusing and condemning won't and cant ever help anybody with anything Why not? It simply does neither know, nor thus remove the cause of the problem Only understanding can and will remove the essential cause of the problem! Why so: It knows and sees the impersonal roots of the problem, which always are a mixed derivative of ignorance, greed and hate. This knowing and seeing enables elimination of this core cause and therefore the resulting problem: Thus is examining leading to understanding much better than blaming! Understanding is the Chief! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Understanding_is_the_Chief.htm Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net 1) #115300 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 27, 2011 9:49 am Subject: Imperturbable Equanimity! Friends: How to train and purify Imperturbable Equanimity! Sitting alone, in silence, each early morning, with closed eyes one wishes: May I radiate and meet only calm, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all the various beings on the 31 levels of existence develop and find only the composure and poise of calm, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all beings on the sense-desire, fine-material, and the formless plane develop and encounter this serene, calm, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all beings in the front, to the right, the back, the left and below as above develop and experience cool, calm, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all beings in this city, country, and universe always be fully aware and deeply mindful of this steady, calm, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all beings in this city, country, and universe examine all details and subtle aspects of this unstirred, placid, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all beings in this city, country, and universe put enthusiastic effort into their training of this solid, calm, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all beings in this city, country and universe find enraptured joy and jubilant gladness in this unmovable, calm, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all beings in this city, country, and universe cultivate the tranquillity of quiet, silent, stilled, and all smiling calm, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all beings in this city, country and universe attain concentrated and absorbed one-pointedness by stoic, deep, imperturbable, and even equanimity! May I and all beings in this city, country, and universe dwell in undisturbable and imperturbable equanimity of unexcitable and unreactive detachment... Yeah! Print this out, dwell in each state until pure, use ~ 25-45 minutes. Comment: Imperturbable Equanimity is the 4th infinite state (Appamaññā) This gradually reduces all desire, attraction, drift, tendency, bias, preference, favouritism, one-sided partiality and unhappiness related with all these states. Equanimity is the proximate cause of any knowing and seeing leading to Wisdom... Equanimity is an extremely subtle form of solid, calm and peaceful Happiness... Equanimity purifies all other advantageous states and brings them to Perfection... Equanimity is unresponsive indifference, unstirred, unaffected, and untroubled!!! There is Equanimity both regarding all live beings and all dead things! There is Equanimity both regarding all internal and all external states! There is Equanimity both regarding all past, all present and all future events! There is Equanimity both regarding all what is mental and all which is physical! There is Equanimity both regarding all what is material and all which is immaterial! There is Equanimity both regarding all formed and all formless phenomena! Cultivating such six-fold equanimity brings this supreme state to completion. <....> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> 1) #115301 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 27, 2011 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma Dear Han, --- On Wed, 25/5/11, han tun wrote: >[Sarah]: I understand about vedaniya and its meaning. What is the literal meaning of "di.t.thadhamma" here? >Han: It is a peculiar way of defining, called "thingyo" in Burmese. It is difficult for me to translate it correctly into English. >Sayadaw said [di.t.tho dhammo di.t.thadhammo] >di.t.tho = visible by sight >dhammo = dhamma, the nature >di.t.thadhammo = the dhamma or nature that is visible clearly by sight [in this present life]. It is a form of paccupanna atta. >I do not know the meaning of "paccupanna atta". .... S: paccupanna is present life and atta in this context, I'd assume means 'meaning', (as in the Patisambhidas), so I think it just means the dhamma which is visible in the present life (by way of result). A little good team-work here....:) .... >>[Han]: Sayadaw said that this kind of metaphorical writing is called "phaluupacaaya" method. [phaluupaccaya = phala + upacaara. A writing with a metaphor on phala or the result. Upacaara here means a metaphor.] >[Sarah]: I can understand why vedaniya is referring to phala or vipaka, but not sure why upacaara (upacaaya?) is a metaphor here? >Han: "Upacaara here means a metaphor" is inserted by me after referring to the Pali-Burmese dictionary. Sayadaw did not say exactly like that. Sayadaw just said it was a metaphor on phala. *I* wanted to know the meaning of upacaara myself. So I looked up the Pali-Burmese Dictionary. There is the usual meaning for "upa-caara" i.e., neighbourhood. Then there is meaning for "upa-cariya" which means a metaphor. There is a meaning for "upacaaravasena" which means by the strength of a metaphor. .... S: OK, I'll leave this one as it's beyond me! Metta Sarah ===== 8) #115302 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 27, 2011 7:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pali Canon Dear Connie, --- On Thu, 26/5/11, connie wrote: >A search for 'rhys davids' on the archive.org site will bring up quite a few titles that might interest you. As far as I know, it's the site where you can download the Dhammasangani translation: A Buddhist manual of psychological ethics of the fourth century BC. Also, yes, the Vinaya translation is there. :) Speaking of which, the UPS man just happened to drop off all six volumes at my door this afternoon – lol, must be my birthday for sure! :) .... S: ...v.quick - and on pretty much the same day, we rec'd our PTS freebie, vol 1 of Itivuttika comy. So now we have vol 1 here and vol 2 in Sydney. In our tiny space 'desert island' here (in Hong Kong) we both allowed ourselves to bring one book back each - Jon brought Vism and I brought back CMA (and expanded that to the comy), so now we have some variation... Enjoy your birthday every day, every moment:-) Metta Sarah ====== 5) #115303 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 27, 2011 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Vince, --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Vince wrote: >> S: "who becomes a sotapanna".... This doesn't mean that having become a > sotapanna, there cannot be subsequent rebirths in rupa and arupa brahma > realms, for example. Those who had attained various jhanas were usually reborn in these realms and attaining higher stages of enlightenment in those realms before parinibbana. The "7" is absolutely maximum, usually fewer rebirths. V:>then some goes there, some goes here. Therefore it is not solved by the example of those who goes to higher realms. ... S: Sorry, I can't understand the problem. For example, Anathapindika was a sotapanna who was reborn in the Tusita heaven. Having become a sotapanna, arahatship and the end of the cycle is guaranteed. .... >V: I understand for sotapannas that's like a flash, and later they don't have a clear idea of how to be engaged in magga again. The end of wrong view and doubts in sotapannas are regarding Buddha and the attachment to precepts and rituals. This is what appears in the Suttas. No more things. .... S: There is unwavering confidence in the Triple Gem - the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha - those who have followed the path and gained enlightenment. There is no doubt in how magga citta arises. No more wrong view or doubt about the path at all. .... >V: I wonder if the sotapatti-magga citta was an established condition in sotapannas, in such case the person would evolve directly until arhanthood. "Sotapanna" would not be a description of a person but maybe of a short state appearing in a sudden access until arhanthood. .... S: It is the sotapatti-magga citta that eradicates wrong view and doubt and directly experiences nibbana. The fruition follows immediately and then the reviewing consciousness. There is no falling back. ... >Such access can exist but for sure it must be scarce and strange. It can be in example what shows the history of Ugassena; about somebody who goes directly to arhanthood: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=348 .... S: In this case, there is the rapid passing through of all stages of enlightenment. After all, we are talking about momentary cittas. It all depends on conditions and accumulations. Metta SArah ====== but precisely when he descend from the pole, he is already an arhant not a sotapanna. I don't know if there is a possibility of a constant succesion of sotapatti-magga cittas but I cannot conceive how such situation would not evolve by itself until nibbana and arhanthood in a quick way. I understand the sotapatti-magga citta can arises in sotapannas but it is not not an established situation. When sotapannas experience attachment there is no place for that citta, and it would be the common situation, not the inverse. best, Vince, 188) #115304 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri May 27, 2011 8:21 pm Subject: Re: audio uploading Hi Philip I am eager to speak to you on phone. > Thanks. I hope you have a chance to meet everyone and discuss with A. Sujin someday, very interesting. L: Yes I hope so. > Sorry I haven't called you but once my dependency on internet/i-phone is overcome, I will be able to.In the meantime, I send you support for overcoming your need for alcohol. L: The worst thing of alcohol is that in such moments of abusing it there is no protection. Every strong deed can arise, so that's what overwhelm me. But I think that's good opportunity to know that's all akusalas and that they are conditioned, arising and falling away cause of conditions. Not wills. > That has to come first. You can do it. Moments of satipatthana that condition moments of abstention, very encouraging. But the total overcoming of the addiction will not be accomplished by rare moments of satipatthana, in my opinion. L: Not yet satipatthana, one moment of satipatthana and no drinking anymore. Really sati is so powerful, that even one true moment of it changes the whole life. That shows only that not yet satipatthana. >Self will be involved, mana will be involved, consideration of and >regret about harm to other people will be involved, fear will be >involved, stubborness and pride will be involved. There will be a lot >of akusala involved to help you get rid of that very harmful habit. >That's ok! It's worth it. L: Yeap, this is what it is. Usual normal life. I dont have much time now to read, but if I have then I can have this opportunity to read about kukucca or mana and this helps. This reminds me of realities. Even kukucca is a reality that needs to be known. And gradually the panna will develop, to the degree that all the realities will be known. Best wishes Lukas 10) #115305 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat May 28, 2011 7:56 am Subject: Alertness vs. Neglect! Friends: Neglect Looses All, while Careful Alertness Wins All! At Savatthi the Blessed One once said this: I will teach you, friends, about the one who lives negligent, and about the one who lives alert. Listen cautiously and pay full attention to it! How, friends, does one live Negligently? In him, friends, who lives with an uncontrolled ability to see, the mind is agitated and warped by the objects recognizable by the eye. In him whose mind is agitated and warped, there is no satisfaction! Without satisfaction, there is no joy! Where there is no joy, there is no contentment, no calm, no tranquillity, and no mental peace! Without this calm, one thus lives in sorrow, frustrated, urging, and searching! Such a sorrowful persons mind is neither composed, nor collected, nor confident. When the mind is not composed, one has neither any clarity, nor any certainty! By not having any clear thinking, one is reckoned as one, who lives negligently. One is regarded as confused... So also it is for one who lives without any control over the ability to hear, smell, taste, touch and without any control over the ability to think And how, friends, does one live Alertly? In him, who lives with a fully controlled ability to see, the mind is neither agitated, nor warped by any object recognizable by the eye. In one, whose mind is neither agitated, nor warped, satisfaction is born! In one satisfied, joy is born. When one is joyful, the body is calmed down. He, whose body is calmed, feels at ease. Composed is the mind of one, who is at ease. When mind is composed, ones ideas are clear. One gains certainty & assured confidence! By having clear ideas and thinking, one is reckoned as one who lives alertly, & as one, who is alert! So also it is for any one, who lives with full control over the ability to hear, smell, taste, touch or controlling the ability to think. Thus, friends, is one, who lives ready and aware in alertness. Comments: Not seduced by the mere glitter of sensation of any kind, not running after fancy dreams, driven by hopes or compelled by longing. By not yearning after pleasant sensations, satisfied by whatever there is, thus at ease, stilled, one remains just calm, cleared and cooled... Like a Smiling Mountain :-) <....> Source: Samyutta Nikya: On the 6 Senses. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> 1) #115306 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat May 28, 2011 11:56 am Subject: Re: wisdom and doing Hi Robert E, ----- <. . .> >> KH: That was my point about the two Buddhist teachings; one is in strict accordance with the entire Pali Canon, the other is anything anyone wants it to be. >> > RE: No that is what you are doing, making the suttas mean whatever you want them to mean. ----- KH: If that is what I am doing then I'll be glad if you could set me straight. If I have said anything that contradicts the ancient-commentary-interpretation of the Dhamma please show me where. If, however, I have been contradicting only the new interpretations, don't bother to tell me. I already know that. -------------------- >RE: When you make a general statement that "they all say that" that has the same status of truth as saying that all cotton is really made of rubber. You make no effort to prove that you are right, you just make the assertion based on your own bald belief. ------------------- KH: If the universe *is* just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas, then the suttas must be interpreted with that in mind, mustn't they? I think you expect me to ignore that, and interpret suttas in the same old way (i.e., in the way I would have interpreted them before learning about conditioned dhammas). ------------------------------ > RE: > If all the suttas say that, then quote one of them and show me how it says that. Otherwise what you say is worthless, and it's worse than worthless, because it means that you are making up your own Dhamma without the slightest interest in seeing whether you are really correct or not. > You have to do more than say that what you think is true must be true. You have to show it by an interpretation of the Buddha's words that you can justify. ------------------------------ KH: OK, but let's not pretend it is just me you are disagreeing with. Over the last ten years (on and off) at DSG you have seen thousands of careful explanations, complete with references. --------------------- <. . .> >>> RE: Do you think that "three lifetimes" occurs in a single citta? How exactly do you do the math on that? >>> >> KH: It's the same as walking (in the Satipatthana Sutta). When a monk is walking he knows the present paramattha dhamma. When a monk is thinking about three lifetimes he knows the present paramattha dhamma. >> >> That's all there is to know in satipatthana. >> > RE: That is not what the suttas say, so where are you getting your interpretation. --------------------- KH: I get it from the commentaries. I must admit, in the bad old days (before DSG) I used to practise formal walking meditation - foot goes up foot goes down. Now, however, I realise the Sattipatthana Sutta is actually about satipatthana - right understanding of a presently arisen conditioned dhamma. And I realise the monk "who is walking" actually knows the present moment of walking "as it really is." ----------------------------- > RE: Quote something in scripture that says what you are saying. Or are you just making it up because it's what you believe in? > > If so you are, again, making up your own Buddhism. If not, then show me where it is written. Don't just say things without any evidence. ---------------------------- KH: You get thousands of quotes at DSG; they don't do any good on their own. One of the few quotes I have given has been the one where the commentary talks about the "monk who is walking." It says the monk doesn't know walking in the way that is commonly known - even to dogs and jackals. The Satipatthana has nothing to do with feet, or with going forward and back, or with any other concepts. It is entirely about conditioned realities. ----------------- <. . .> > RE: Have a successful time away. I'll look forward to your reply when you return. ------------------ KH: Thanks. I didn't get around to the rest of your post as I said I would. The best laid plans of mice and men, dogs and jackals, go awry. :-) Ken H 349) #115307 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 28, 2011 1:15 pm Subject: Re: wisdom and doing Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > ----- > <. . .> > >> KH: That was my point about the two Buddhist teachings; one is in strict accordance with the entire Pali Canon, the other is anything anyone wants it to be. > >> > > > RE: No that is what you are doing, making the suttas mean whatever you want them to mean. > ----- > > KH: If that is what I am doing then I'll be glad if you could set me straight. If I have said anything that contradicts the ancient-commentary-interpretation of the Dhamma please show me where. > > If, however, I have been contradicting only the new interpretations, don't bother to tell me. I already know that. I don't consider the plain meaning of the suttas themselves as Buddha spoke them to be a "new interpretation." They are the actual suttas, the words of the Buddha. The "ancient" commentaries are the new interpretation compared to the original suttas. > -------------------- > >RE: When you make a general statement that "they all say that" that has the same status of truth as saying that all cotton is really made of rubber. You make no effort to prove that you are right, you just make the assertion based on your own bald belief. > ------------------- > > KH: If the universe *is* just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas, then the suttas must be interpreted with that in mind, mustn't they? One should not contradict what the Buddha had to say by insisting that presently arisen dhammas is all he had to talk about. If he talks about other things, or in other ways, that should be accepted as well. > I think you expect me to ignore that, and interpret suttas in the same old way (i.e., in the way I would have interpreted them before learning about conditioned dhammas). I expect you to refrain from substituting any interpretation for the actual content that the Buddha expressed. I'm sure you can understand how the commentaries deepen your understanding without throwing the Buddha's own chosen words under the bus. > ------------------------------ > > RE: > If all the suttas say that, then quote one of them and show me how it says that. > Otherwise what you say is worthless, and it's worse than worthless, because it means that you are making up your own Dhamma without the slightest interest in seeing whether you are really correct or not. > > > You have to do more than say that what you think is true must be true. You have to show it by an interpretation of the Buddha's words that you can justify. > ------------------------------ > > KH: OK, but let's not pretend it is just me you are disagreeing with. Over the last ten years (on and off) at DSG you have seen thousands of careful explanations, complete with references. I have seen many interpretations of sutta that have made that case, but in many cases they have involved reconstructing the suttas. Sometimes not. But for our purposes what is important is how the suttas can or cannot be interpreted. For instance, the 'crossing the flood' sutta we have discussed has nothing in it about the eternalism and annihilationism, yet the commentary says that is what it is really about. In this type of case it seems to me that the original point of the Buddha - not to follow the path through effort and yet not to be passive either - is supplanted by a new point that the commentator wants to make. Rather than swallowing the commentaries whole, I'm interested in their relationship to the suttas, and my point of focus is on the suttas and the Buddha's words. > --------------------- > <. . .> > >>> RE: Do you think that "three lifetimes" occurs in a single citta? How exactly do you do the math on that? > >>> > > >> KH: It's the same as walking (in the Satipatthana Sutta). When a monk is walking he knows the present paramattha dhamma. When a monk is thinking about three lifetimes he knows the present paramattha dhamma. > >> > >> That's all there is to know in satipatthana. > >> > > > RE: That is not what the suttas say, so where are you getting your interpretation. > --------------------- > > KH: I get it from the commentaries. I must admit, in the bad old days (before DSG) I used to practise formal walking meditation - foot goes up foot goes down. Now, however, I realise the Sattipatthana Sutta is actually about satipatthana - right understanding of a presently arisen conditioned dhamma. And I realise the monk "who is walking" actually knows the present moment of walking "as it really is." Nothing wrong with knowing the present moment as it is, that is the point of all meditation and study. But it makes a difference whether the Buddha actually spoke about something or not and not to dismiss what he actually said or recommended. One can do walking meditation with an understanding that there is no self, no control and that the understanding of the present moment arises when and if and in the form that it does, also with no control. But the practice is there. > ----------------------------- > > RE: Quote something in scripture that says what you are saying. Or are you just making it up because it's what you believe in? > > > > If so you are, again, making up your own Buddhism. If not, then show me where it is written. Don't just say things without any evidence. > ---------------------------- > > KH: You get thousands of quotes at DSG; they don't do any good on their own. > > One of the few quotes I have given has been the one where the commentary talks about the "monk who is walking." It says the monk doesn't know walking in the way that is commonly known - even to dogs and jackals. The Satipatthana has nothing to do with feet, or with going forward and back, or with any other concepts. It is entirely about conditioned realities. I like that quote very much. I think it's a mistake to say the quotes don't mean anything without the cloistering assured meaning of the accompanying commentaries. To me that statement about walking is suggestive of the insight that develops when walking is examined in terms of direct experience instead of concept, but it does not take the place of walking, it is a way of seeing walking correctly. > ----------------- > <. . .> > > RE: Have a successful time away. I'll look forward to your reply when you return. > ------------------ > > KH: Thanks. I didn't get around to the rest of your post as I said I would. The best laid plans of mice and men, dogs and jackals, go awry. :-) It's not too late! The rest of the post is still there waiting for you, lurking if you like... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = 349) #115308 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 28, 2011 9:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Shalini, (Han & all) --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Shalini S wrote: > Abhidhammata Sangaha commentary mentions about "cula sotapanna" and Ledi Sayadaw's 'Requisites of Enlightenment' mentions "bon-sin-san" Sotapanna. Both of which I am not really able to understand of how this is achieved, what are its characteristics similar to what is mentioned about the Magga phala for a Sotapanna and the characteristics like 'a Sotapanna is free of the first three fetters among ten'. Has anybody read of these in any other commentaries and understood more about this? .... Sarah: A cula sotapanna is a "lesser sotapanna". This refers to the second stage of insight, Paccayapariggahanana, knowledge of conditions, when doubt no longer arises. There is a reference in Visuddhimagga XIX, 26f: "...Understanding of discernment of conditions thus 'Ignorance is a condition, formations are conditionally arisen, and both these states are conditionally arisen is knowledge of the causal relationship of states' ...When a man practising insight has become possessed of this knowledge, he has found comfort in the Buddha's dispensation, he has found a foothold, he is certain of his destiny, he is called a 'Lesser Stream enterer'." There are no magga or phala cittas arising, however. As I understand, the cula-sotapanna is destined to become a sotapanna and will not be reborn in lower realms again, but this is controversial. I haven't heard the expression "bon-sin-san". Han or others may be familiar with this. ... >BTW, Sarah, I am from Bangalore. ... S: Thx for letting us know! Metta Sarah ====== 188) #115309 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 28, 2011 9:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concep... Hi Howard (& Ken O), --- On Wed, 25/5/11, upasaka@... wrote: >>KO: Definitely there nama and rupa, there is also father and mother >>S: Which door-way are "father and mother" experienced through? Are they seen? Are they heard? Are they smelt? Are they tasted? Are they touched? Or are they only thought about? ------------------------------------------------------ >H: My perspective: A parent is known by thought, through the mind-door only. ... S: Yes, my perspective only. In other words, it's a concept only. I'm interested to hear Ken O's response. ... >H: Treating it as a "reality" is atta-view. Treating it as nothing at all is nihilism, and, according to the Buddha, BTW, wrong view. .... S: A concept is just a concept - that which is thought about. Metta Sarah ====== 10) #115310 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 28, 2011 10:24 pm Subject: Dhammas as object of insight development Hi KenO (114468) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Jon > ... > > [J:] As regards the commentarial assertion that only dhammas can be object of > >satipatthana, I think Sarah has already quoted a passage from the commentary to > >the Satipatthana Sutta that illustrates this. > > > >There's also the section in the Vism (at the beginning of Part III 'Panna') that > >explains how the khandhas are the field for the development of insight. > > KO: Nope, Sarah quotes basically did not cover the early part of the pointed by the commnetary and the Visud. There is even a speculation about pre-satipatthana > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html > =============== J: I can't remember the exact passage from the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta that was quoted by Sarah, but here's something from the commentary to the final section (on Dhammas) that addresses the question we've been discussing: ***************************** - in the contemplation on the body the laying hold of the aggregate of corporeality or materiality was spoken of by the Master; - in the contemplation on feeling, the laying hold of the aggregate of feeling; - in the contemplation on mind, the laying hold of the aggregate of consciousness; - and now in order to speak of even the laying hold of the aggregates of perception and formations, he said "And, how, o bhikkhus," and so forth. ***************************** J: Note the reference to each of the 5 khandhas. No mention of concepts/conventional objects. > =============== > I let the commentary explains itself since it clearly states about breathing and body parts > =============== J: Looking forward to seeing the exact passage you have in mind. > =============== whereas, I am waiting for the commentary quotes that clearly said > satipatthana is just nama and rupa. > =============== J: OK, I've now had a chance to dig out the Vism reference I mentioned in an earlier post. From the beginning of the section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): ****************** [7] 'What are its characteristic, function etc.? Understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]. Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of states.' ****************** Note the words, "characteristic of penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]". And later: ****************** [32] 'How is it developed? Now the things classed as aggregates [khandhas], bases [ayatanas], elements [dhatus], faculties [indriyas], truths [sacca], dependent origination [paticca-samuppada], etc., are the soil of this understanding...' XIV, 32 ****************** These things that are the soil of understanding are dhammas, not concepts. Jon 64) #115311 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 28, 2011 6:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 5/27/2011 9:56:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: One of the few quotes I have given has been the one where the commentary talks about the "monk who is walking." It says the monk doesn't know walking in the way that is commonly known - even to dogs and jackals. The Satipatthana has nothing to do with feet, or with going forward and back, or with any other concepts. It is entirely about conditioned realities. ================================ Ken, do you also have a sutta reference pertaining to this? I'd appreciate it. BTW, I agree that so long as it seems to be "walking" that one observes, one is still engaged in thinking and not yet meditation-proper, not yet direct awareness. (An "observing of walking" is merely a directing and restricting of attention (by thinking) to a specific conceptual category of sensations.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 349) #115312 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 28, 2011 10:47 pm Subject: [dsg] What Would Be Revising 2? Re: Revising 1: Arising of Mundane Paññaa Hi KenO (114473) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Jon >... > KO: Oh I thought all intentional activities are wrong, > =============== J: Nope, never been said. In fact, positively denied many times. A real straw man, that one! It is intentional activities that are done *as the practice of* the development of kusala that I've mentioned, i.e., the idea that by the doing of X there will be more kusala or more chance of kusula arising. > =============== None of this can be achieved by the doing of any particular > activity then I wonder why would disciples would have to go to do routine > activities like circle three times the holy place or shrine etc before they set > up for alms like > =============== J: I'm not aware that circumambulation of the stupa was ever said to be a requirement for anything. What is the basis for that idea? As far as I know, it's simply a customary way of showing respect. > =============== or recitation of body parts and many of the disciples > gain enlightement doing this as described in Dispeller of Delusion. > =============== J: It's true that there are descriptions in the suttas of disciples who gained enlightenment while developing reflection on the foulness of the body (samatha bhavana), as with many other of the subjects of samatha contemplation. But the question is whether the Buddha is saying that insight is being developed *by virtue of* the samatha development, or that insight being developed *in addition to* the samatha development. On my reading of the texts, it's the latter. > =============== Or rather > it is not the particular activity that matters, it is the dhamma that arise with > the activity that matters. > =============== J: Yes, I think clearly so. It's never a matter of the activity that's being done, but of the mental state arising. > =============== Why there is a disagreement in doing any particular > activity is largely due to the interpretaton of clinging to rites and rituals. > Let us look at the definition from the texts: > > > Buddhist Pyschological Ethics, page 239 > [1005] What is perversion as to rule and ritual? > The theory, held by recluses and Brahmins outside our doctrine, that holiness is > got by rules of moral conduct , that holiness is got by rites, that holiness is > got by rules of moral conduct and by rites - this kind of opinion, this walking > in mere opinion, this jungle of opinion, this wilderness of opinion, this > disorder of opinion, scuffing of opinion, Fetter of opinion, the grip and > tenacity of it, the inclination towards it, the being infected by it, this > by-path, wrong road, wrongness, this sectarianism, this inverted grasp, this is > called the perversion as to rules and rituals > =============== J: The passage you've quoted here states that it's a description of clinging to rites and rituals *outside* the dispensation. > =============== > Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma and Commentary page 260 > < achieved by conduct, such as that of a cow etc or by vows or by both > > Grasping of precepts and vows is holding to precepts and vows thinking that > purification of samsara will be achieved by means of those precepts and vows.>> > =============== J: I take this also to be a reference to followers of other teachings. > =============== > If particular activity which consider rituals or rites are all clinging then, > how did so many of particular activities of meditations appear in the text in > Visud and other texts. > =============== J: Not sure what you mean by the "activities of meditation". If you're referring to things such as being in a quiet place, sitting cross-legged, how do you reconcile these with your observation above that "it is not the particular activity that matters, it is the dhamma that arise with the activity that matters"? > =============== Or the clinging of these rituals refer to those outside > of the Buddhist dispensation > =============== J: In the passages you've quoted, yes, I think they are references to persons outside the dispensation. > =============== > KO: Whether one learn this is nama or this is panna etc, this is seeing, they are just > conventional understanding, Seeing sees is only at conventional level and our > seeing sees are just nimitta of the characteristics of the dhamma and not the direct experience of the characteristics. > =============== J: Nevertheless, the development of the path involves the direct experience of the characteristics of dhammas, and there is a beginning level of this. Jon 2) #115313 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 28, 2011 10:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Part 2 on Intentional development, simplified Hi KenO (114474) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Jon > ... > KO: I have to keep asking this question, can panna arise with concepts? > =============== J: Yes, as explained many times already ;-)), the panna associated with samatha bhavana arises with concepts, and the panna associated with pariyatti (intellectual understanding of dhammas, the precursor to direct understanding of dhammas) arises with concept as object. > =============== [KO:] Can > these mental factors condition the arising of panna or it must necessary arise > with panna. > =============== J: To my understanding, the mental factors of chandha and viriya do not condition the arising of panna. However, chandha and viriya that accompanied previous moments of panna can be said to be a condition for the chandha and viriya arising with subsequent moments of panna. > =============== > KO: Your understanding is flawed because the text always have supported the > development of concentration as the basis of insight or together with insight to > achieve enlightment (we are not here saying there is no dry insightors). the > meditiation subjects are mostly concepts and these lead to the development of > concentration. There is no concern whether the understanding should be nama > and rupa, that only happen after one is out of the jhanas as decribe in the > text. > =============== J: You seem to be saying, on the one hand, that there can be enlightenment without the prior attainment of mundane jhana and, on the other hand, that mundane jhana is a prerequisite for enlightenment. It would help if you could state clearly what you understand the connection between mundane jhana and insight to be. Thanks. > =============== > [KO:] Again what is factor of the path, is factor of the path exclusive nama and > rupa. If it is, how do one first understand, even Ven Sariputta had to start > from learning in conventional object many eons ago. Direct understanding cannot > arise suddenly but must be developed from inferential learning or conventional > learning again and again > =============== J: To my understanding, the arising of direct understanding is conditioned by hearing and reflecting on the teachings and their application to the present moment. Jon 568) #115314 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 28, 2011 11:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] awareness of 4 elements within one's body Hi KenO (114475) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Jon > ... > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel021.html > > When there is greed for inanimate things like bowls and robes it is cast out > through reflection of two kinds of bringing about detachment for inanimate > things, namely those on ownerlessness and temporariness, taught in the section > of the enlightenment factors (bojjhanga) in the commentary to the Satipatthana > Sutta. Therefore the thinking on the object (which produces greed), by way of > the reflection of impermanence is the different object. > Reflection... on ownerlessness and temporariness; this bowl gradually ends up as > broken pieces, having changed color, became old, developed cracks and holes or > having smashed up; this robe, having faded, worn out will have to be thrown away > with the end of a stick, after it is used as a rag to wipe the feet with. If > these had an owner, he would prevent them from being destroyed. In this manner > should the reflection on ownerlessness be done. And the reflection on > temporariness should be done with the thought that these cannot last long, that > these are of brief duration. > =============== J: Thanks for this extract from the commentary to the `Removal of Distracting Thoughts' sutta. The sutta begins with the words: "Five things should be reflected on from time to time, by the bhikkhu who is intent on the higher consciousness." and the commentary explains that "higher consciousness" here means the 8 absorptions (jhana) become a basis for the development of insight. To my reading, the passage you've quoted deals with the development of samatha the stage of jhana (this being the significance of the need for the removal of the `distracting thoughts'), and is not describing the development of insight with conventional items as object. When the jhanas are the basis for the development of insight, it is the (just fallen away) jhana citta, a dhamma, that is the object of insight consciousness. > =============== > KO: Let me quote the Visud on XIV > > <<7. (iii) What are its characteristics, function, manifestation and > proximate cause? Understanding has the charactersitics of penetrating the > individual essences of states. Its function is to abolish the darkenss of > delusion, which conceals the individual essences of states. It is manifested as > non-delusion. Because of the words one who is concentrated knows and sees > correctly (A V 3) its proximate cause is concentration>> > > a. Concentration here is jhana and this definitely is about concepts. You > will say concentration here is concentration cetasikas, that is not correct > because concentration in the texts are always jhanas, as jhanas is the basis of > insight. Because it is jhanas that suppressed the hindrances > =============== J: I disagree. Concentration in the texts is sometimes a reference to jhana, and sometimes to the cetasika ekaggata. In the context of the Vism passage you quote, mundane jhana is not the only possible interpretation. > =============== > KO: > b. Also penetration of the characteristics of the dhamma leads to the the > path is the direct understanding of nama and rupa. > > pg 141, The All Embracing Net of Views, The commentary > > < dhammas (paramathadhamma); (1) the charcteristic of specific nature > (sabhavalakkhana); and (2) the general characteristics (samannalakkhana). The > comprehension of the characteristics of the specific nature is direct > experiential knowledge (paccakkanana); the comprehension of the general > characteristic is inferential knowledge (anumananana). Scripture, as a means > for is acquiring wisdom born of learning (sutamayi panna), issues only in > inferential knowledge. But by considering the things learned, one becomes > established in reflective acquiescence, give rise to the wisdom born of > reflection (cintamayi panna), and by meditative development (bhavana), gradually > achieves direct experiential knowledge.>> > =============== J: Yes, I agree that this passage supports the proposition that penetration of the characteristics of the dhamma leads to the path; the path is the direct understanding of nama and rupa. (I disagree however, with the translation of `bhavana' as `meditative development', since I see bhavana here (in the context of cintamaya panna, bhavana and direct experiential knowledge) as referring to the development of awareness/insight.) Jon PS BTW, in recent posts I've mentioned several times the significance of the fact that when the 3 characteristics appear in the suttas it is (almost) invariably in the context of talk about dhammas, as in the example of the sutta passages cited in Nyanatiloka's Dictionary in the entry on 'Ti-lakkhana' (see below). What's your take on this? >*********************************** >A. >"Whether Perfect Ones appear in the world, or whether Perfect Ones do not appear > >in the world, it still remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed >law: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to >suffering, that everything is without a self'' (A. III, 134). > >B. >"What do you think, o monks: Is corporeality (rūpa) permanent or >impermanent? - Impermanent, o Venerable One. - Are feeling (vedanā), >perception (saā), mental formations (sankhāra) and consciousness >(viāna), permanent or impermanent? - Impermanent, o Venerable One. > >"But that which is impermanent, is it something pleasant or painful? - It is >painful, o Venerable One. > >"But, of what is impermanent, painful and subject to change, could it be rightly > >said, 'This belongs to me, this am I, this is my ego'? - No, Venerable One. > >"Therefore, whatever there is of corporeality, feeling, perception, mental >formations and consciousness, whether past, present or future, one's own or >external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, of all these things one >should understand, according to reality and true wisdom: 'This does not belong >to me, this am I not, this is not my ego' " (S. XXII, 59). > >C. >"In one who understands eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and all the remaining >formations as impermanent, painful and not-self, in him the fetters (samyojana) > >are dissolved" (S. XXXV, 53). > >http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/ti_lakkhana.htm 68) #115315 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 28, 2011 7:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concep... Hi, Sarah (and Ken) - In a message dated 5/28/2011 7:53:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (& Ken O), --- On Wed, 25/5/11, upasaka@... wrote: >>KO: Definitely there nama and rupa, there is also father and mother >>S: Which door-way are "father and mother" experienced through? Are they seen? Are they heard? Are they smelt? Are they tasted? Are they touched? Or are they only thought about? ------------------------------------------------------ >H: My perspective: A parent is known by thought, through the mind-door only. ... S: Yes, my perspective only. In other words, it's a concept only. I'm interested to hear Ken O's response. ... >H: Treating it as a "reality" is atta-view. Treating it as nothing at all is nihilism, and, according to the Buddha, BTW, wrong view. .... S: A concept is just a concept - that which is thought about. ----------------------------------------------- H: There is baseless conceptualization, and there are concepts that have basis. The Buddha didn't spend 45 years of wandering in order to teach Dhamma to concepts/illusions! There are trans-temporal groups of interrelated mental and physical phenomena that are mentally distinguishable because of these interrelationships. For worldlings, the only means of grasping these interrelationships and the complexes of interrelated phenomena is by thinking, but that does not make them fictions. Considering such complexes to be single entities (or individual realities) is conceptual error, faulty thinking, but so is considering them to be nothing at all. Existence is held together by relationships. It is an integrated whole, a system, and not a dustbin of separate particles. Analysis calls for a balancing synthesis. -------------------------------------------- Metta Sarah ================================== With metta, Howard Mundane Wrong View /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./ (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta) 10) #115316 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun May 29, 2011 1:24 am Subject: Re: A Sotapanna- Bon-sin-san Hi Sarah , Han and others, Han may provide more details, esp. the literal translation.. useful perhaps following footnote from 'Requisites..' Ven.L.S. : http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/uni/u-37bd/37bd-e03.htm [7] Bon-sin-san is a term in the Burmese language, signifying a type of Stream-Winner (sotpanna) that will reach final deliverance in Arahatship after numerous rebirths in successively higher stages of existences. This term has no equivalent in the Sutta texts where only those are called Sotpannas who have, at the utmost, seven rebirths before them, among men and deities. Bon-sin-san is a concept familiar in Burmese doctrinal tradition, for which reference is made to the following commentarial passages which are said to imply the sense of the term: - Comy. to Indriya-Samyutta, Chalindriya Vagga, Ekabiji Sutta, commenting on the word sattakkhattuparamo. - Comy. to Dgha Nikya, Sakkapanha Sutta (at the end), commenting on the words so nivso bhavissati. - Comy. to Puggala-pannatti (Pancappakarana Atthakatha), Ekaka-niddesa, commenting on the word ekabiji. For these references, and the following comments, the Editor is obliged to the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, Agga-Maha-Pandita, of Rangoon. "It may be noted that a Bon-sin-san is of two kinds: 1) One becomes a Sotpanna in the Kmabhmi (Sense-sphere) and achieves the higher three stages (Sakadgmi etc.) in Sddhvsa (five planes) of Rpa-loka (fine material world), after sojourn in the higher realms of Kmaloka and Rpaloka. 2) One becomes a Sotpanna, Sakadgmi and Angmi in Kmabhmi, and a Arahant in Suddhvsa (five planes). "Hence the word Bon-sin-san, which means that one goes up the stages of existence one after another. with Metta Dieter 22) #115317 From: han tun Date: Sun May 29, 2011 8:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna- Bon-sin-san Dear Dieter, Sarah , and others, Dieter, you know more than me (by your elaborate quotes). In the Manuals of Buddhism by Ledi Sayadaw, under Bodhipakkhiya Dipanii, we the following text only. 'Bon-sin-san'[7] Sotapannas, like Visakha and Anathapindika, who are infinitely numerous among humans, devas, and Brahmas, are beings who have obtained release from the state of sinking and drifting in the great whirlpool of samsara (round of rebirths) from the moment sakkaya-ditthi was uprooted. They are beings who have attained the first stage of Nibbana called sa-upadisesa-nibbana (Nibbana with the five constituent groups of existence remaining). Although they are liable to wander in the round of rebirths for many more lives and many more world-cycles, they are no longer worldly beings. Having become 'bon-sin-san' ariyas (noble ones), they are beings of the lokuttara (supramundane sphere). [Note 7] Beings who are bound to attain higher and higher stages of sanctity. Kind regards, Han 22) #115318 From: Kevin F Date: Sun May 29, 2011 9:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Hi Sarah, all! Sarah: As I understand, the cula-sotapanna is destined to become a sotapanna and will not be reborn in lower realms again, but this is controversial. Kevin: Why is this controversial, Sarah? Is there controversy about the idea that of cuula sotapanna won't be reborn in the lower realms and will definitely attain the paths and fruits? What do the Commentaries actually say about this, I wonder. Thanks, ___________ With metta Kevin Sarah:"The citta itself (for example, rooted in ignorance, or, for example, rooted in >wisdom), plus all the other accompanying cetasikas which arise with those javana >cittas also accumulate by way of upanissaya paccaya. So, wisdom itself >accumulates when ever it arises." ________________________________ 188) #115319 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 29, 2011 9:51 am Subject: Re: audio uploading Hi Lukas > > That has to come first. You can do it. Moments of satipatthana that condition moments of abstention, very encouraging. But the total overcoming of the addiction will not be accomplished by rare moments of satipatthana, in my opinion. > > L: Not yet satipatthana, one moment of satipatthana and no drinking anymore. Really sati is so powerful, that even one true moment of it changes the whole life. That shows only that not yet satipatthana. Ph: Are you sure about this "one true moment of satiapatthana changes the whole life?" This is something we hear in talks with A. Sujin, and at DSG, but I'm not sure it's true, to be honest. I think there is something called "vipassana-nana" or something like that which are moments of insight, the first one is knowing nama from rupa, perhaps there we can say it changes the whole life, but thinking that one moment of satipattha changes the whole life *might* be something that comes from A. Sujin rather than the Buddha. I say *might* because I have never heard it anywhere else, but I really don't know. I think what will change your life is stopping drinking, once and for all, no matter how you do it. What will change your life for sure is some really horrible action done under the power of alcohol. In my opinion, rare moments of satiapatthana will not prevent that. Thinking that a moment of satipatthana will end drinking forever is questionable, in my opinion. Stopping drinking forever will stop drinking forever. It has to be done, plain and simple. Thinking about conditioned dhammas while you are still drinking is like the emperor Nero playing the violin while Rome burned! It is pleasant to thking about conditioned dhammas, so deep! You can do it! And I can overcome my big temptation about sexual misconduct too! I find, yes, often when stepping back from it, there is reflection on the kilesas that are pushing me as conditioned, not me. That's true! But there is also reflection that behaving in bad ways that the Buddha said are bad is bad, It is disrespectful to the Buddha, and it indicates that I don't really care about his teaching if I can't even give up that gross pleasure. And yes, if there is failure and there is sexual misconduct, there will be reflection that there were powerful conditions that caused it, and there will therefore be less remorse. But such reflections won't come before the deed in a way that will permit it or make me more relaxed about doing it. THanks Lukas. Writing in this way to encourae you also helps encourage me. Metta, Phil > > >Self will be involved, mana will be involved, consideration of and >regret about harm to other people will be involved, fear will be >involved, stubborness and pride will be involved. There will be a lot >of akusala involved to help you get rid of that very harmful habit. >That's ok! It's worth it. > > L: Yeap, this is what it is. Usual normal life. I dont have much time now to read, but if I have then I can have this opportunity to read about kukucca or mana and this helps. This reminds me of realities. Even kukucca is a reality that needs to be known. And gradually the panna will develop, to the degree that all the realities will be known. > > Best wishes > Lukas > 10) #115320 From: Kevin F Date: Sun May 29, 2011 1:55 pm Subject: The Train Morality Dilema Hello all, A person sent this on another list. I did not share my answer there because I simply did not feel that most people there could understand it (especially since most there do not study Abhidhamma). Here I think some people may (though others will not). The original question was about an old philosophy delima that goes something like this: The Train morality problem / philosophical dilemma / (First Precept issues) A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing? (If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die) What would you do? What would Buddha do? /// My answer (that i didn't post there) was/is: Honestly, and a lot of people really might dislike me for this answer, simply because they misunderstand how lobha and dosa work. I would not flip the switch. Why wouldn't I? The mad philosopher who tied those people to the tracks is responsible for their death's (whether it goes down the track with 1 person or with 5). I am not responsible. By not having equinimity and putting one persons life over the other five, or five over 1, I would be engaging in unwholesome kamma-pattha of the body. Who I am to judge who will die and who will not die? After all the 5 might be serial rapists and the one might be the Buddha. Should I choose to kill the Buddha and let the five serial rapists live? Who knows the situation. I did not initiate this course of events nor do I own it. If I flip the switch I kill the single man. If I don't, five die but I didn't kill them-- the mad philosopher did. That being said, I would do everything in my power to stop the train altogether if I could, and to bring the mad philosopher initiator of this sequence to justice if I could, and of course, to stop the philosopher in the first place if I could. If you flip the switch you personally sentence a being to death, if you don't the death of 5 that they were meant to meet are met, because of the actions of the philosopher (as well as their kamma). Equinimity is the key here. When the Buddha died the Arahants did not weep, they understood that death is inevitable and cannot be avoided. It is our defilements that think otherwise. Our defilements that will make us kill one man to "save" five, even though we didn't plan to kill any in the first place. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin Sarah:"The citta itself (for example, rooted in ignorance, or, for example, rooted in >wisdom), plus all the other accompanying cetasikas which arise with those javana >cittas also accumulate by way of upanissaya paccaya. So, wisdom itself >accumulates when ever it arises." 35) #115321 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 29, 2011 9:05 am Subject: What is Mind? Friends: What is Mind and Consciousness? A friend asked: What is Mind? Mind (Mano) is an ever changing collection of these 5 phenomena: 1: Contact, 2: Feeling, 3: Perception, 4: Intention and 5: Attention! Regarding Consciousness itself: Consciousness is NOT created by the brain, but RESIDES WITHIN the brain! Just like the beer is inside the bottle, but is not created by the bottle... To identify Mind only with Brain is a (false) view, which actually is a philosophical (often dogmatic) standpoint, and NOT a scientifically & experimentally verified fact. This tantalizing yet too simple IDEA is called physicalism or materialism! On this common, yet wrong assumption named Mind-Brain Identity Theory see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Type_physicalism http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/mind-identity/ http://www.philosophyofmin d.info/mindbrainidentity.html Consciousness is information. Information is definitely real, but not material... Luminous is the Mind said the Buddha: Interestingly: When one person sees light in a dark room, another distant person's brain emits low level light, if they are magnetically identically pulsed: Full text here: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/Brain.Photon.Entanglement.pdf Furthermore: So do cell cultures also! When one receives light, the other shines! >What is going from this life to the next? In brief: Causal Conditioning! Please see: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/III/What_passes_on_by_Rebirth-Linking.htm Regarding Buddhist Theory of Rebirth-Linking (patisandhi) see also: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/n_r/patisandhi.htm For an Orthodox Buddhist explanation of the transmigration of consciousness: Rebirth Explained: V. F. Gunaratna, BPS, Kandy, Wheel Publication No. 167-69 http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh_167_169.html http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh_167_168_169.pdf <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #115322 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 29, 2011 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Train Morality Dilema Dear Kevin, Op 29-mei-2011, om 5:55 heeft Kevin F het volgende geschreven: > Equinimity is the key here. When the Buddha died the Arahants > did not weep, they understood that death is inevitable and cannot > be avoided. > It is our defilements that think otherwise. Our defilements that > will make us > kill one man to "save" five, even though we didn't plan to kill any > in the first > place. ------- N: You are right to stress equanimity here. Sometimes people are beyond help and instead of having aversion it is good to have equanimity. Kamma and vipaaka take their course. The whole dilemma seems to involve so much thinking, doesn't it? We may plan to do such or such but it all depends on the citta at a given moment what action it will motivate. One may be inclined to take kusala kamma and akusala kamma for mine, but they are only conditioned realities. It may be difficult to explain that to people on the other list you mentioned, but perhaps it is worth giving it a try? I just heard on a recording that people think that "higher dhamma" is too difficult and that one should just observe the five precepts. Kh Sujin said that without right understanding it is very difficult to observe the five precepts perfectly. When people listen to the Dhamma they may have more interest to develop more understanding. I think you can help people to take an interest in citta and cetasikas (without mentioning the Pali) so that they can learn that it is citta not self that will be able to observe the precepts. More understanding about different cittas will certainly help. Nina. 35) #115323 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 29, 2011 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: audio uploading Dear Phil, Op 29-mei-2011, om 1:51 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > But there is also reflection that behaving in bad ways that the > Buddha said are bad is bad, It is disrespectful to the Buddha, and > it indicates that I don't really care about his teaching if I can't > even give up that gross pleasure. ------- N: Quit right: bad is bad. Akusala is akusala. Whenever I hear a recording about siila I always think of you and I make a note: Phil. That is by conditions. I heard: < The value of developing understanding of different kammas: if we know what akusala kamma is, we shall abstain from it and if we know what kusala kamma is, we shall develop it more. The volition that kills is akusala. When we understand this there are conditions to abstain from it. But this is not a person or self. When there is kusala kamma it is a cause and when vipaakacitta arises that is result. > Nina. 10) #115324 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun May 29, 2011 7:10 pm Subject: Re: The Train Morality Dilema --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Kevin, > Op 29-mei-2011, om 5:55 heeft Kevin F het volgende geschreven: Dear Nina and Kevin The question was: There is nowehere any Self that decides. Whatever decision would be make it's gone now, and it's conditioned. Each thought process is conditioned. each decision. So no matter what choice will be there, all decisions will be good, no matter 1st option or second. Goenka often stresses that "if we leave our life to Dhamma, then all choices will be good no matter what we do. leave the Dhamma to flow, let the Dhamma to choose". > > Equinimity is the key here. When the Buddha died the Arahants > > did not weep, they understood that death is inevitable and cannot > > be avoided. > > It is our defilements that think otherwise. Our defilements that > > will make us > > kill one man to "save" five, even though we didn't plan to kill any > > in the first > > place. > ------- > N: You are right to stress equanimity here. Sometimes people are > beyond help and instead of having aversion it is good to have > equanimity. Kamma and vipaaka take their course. L: Yes only upekka.For example, Acharn Sujin is upekkha-guy, whether there are also metta-guys with accumulations to metta. Upekkha-guy knows all is conditioned, no one can be helped, and that is only conditioned moments of helping. I like this upekkha approach. > The whole dilemma seems to involve so much thinking, doesn't it? We > may plan to do such or such but it all depends on the citta at a > given moment what action it will motivate. One may be inclined to > take kusala kamma and akusala kamma for mine, but they are only > conditioned realities. It may be difficult to explain that to people > on the other list you mentioned, but perhaps it is worth giving it a > try? > I just heard on a recording that people think that "higher dhamma" is > too difficult and that one should just observe the five precepts. Kh > Sujin said that without right understanding it is very difficult to > observe the five precepts perfectly. When people listen to the Dhamma > they may have more interest to develop more understanding. > I think you can help people to take an interest in citta and > cetasikas (without mentioning the Pali) so that they can learn that > it is citta not self that will be able to observe the precepts. More > understanding about different cittas will certainly help. L: The citta is actually consciousness. But that is not a good word too. This word consciousness makes people to think in a very philosofical way. Better is to said that element that experiences. And then there can be mentioned pali if someone wishes. Best wishes Lukas 35) #115325 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 29, 2011 7:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Train Morality Dilema Dear Lukas, Op 29-mei-2011, om 11:10 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > L: Yes only upekka.For example, Acharn Sujin is upekkha-guy, > whether there are also metta-guys with accumulations to metta. > Upekkha-guy knows all is conditioned, no one can be helped, and > that is only conditioned moments of helping. I like this upekkha > approach. ------ N: Actually it depends on conditions. Sometimes it is the right time for mettaa, when 'we' can help others. Sometimes for upekkhaa as in Kevin's example. Mettaa and Upekkhaa, if accompanied by pa~n~naa are paramis. As you stress, no self involved. From Kh Sujin's Perfections: < The perfection of equanimity is evenmindedness, it is non- disturbance by controversial conduct of people, by trying events or by the vicissitudes of life, no matter whether they are desirable or undesirable, such as gain and loss, praise and blame. At present we suffer because of being easily disturbed and unstable, but someone who has firm understanding of kamma can become unaffected by the vicissitudes of life. If one develops the perfection of equanimity, one does not pay attention to the wrongs of others, as the Commentary to the Basket of Conduct explains. One can be impartial and evenminded, undisturbed by the wrongs of others, because one understands that people will receive the result of their own kamma. Some people may think, when others receive unpleasant results, that it serves them right, but if someone has developed the perfection of equanimity, he will not think in that way. He is able to understand paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities, dhammas which are anatt and beyond control.> About Mettaa: < For someone who is firmly established in the development of kusala with the aim to eradicate defilements and who has accumulated the perfection of determination, it is natural to practise loving- kindness. We can verify for ourselves whether we are firmly established in the development of kusala and whether we develop loving-kindness time and again. When someone is not inclined to anger and when he often practises mett, it shows that he sees the benefit of non-anger and of the development of the perfections leading to the eradication of the defilements. Someone may believe that life belongs to him, but in reality there are only different dhammas that arise and fall away very rapidly. He should develop more understanding of his life, of his kusala cittas and akusala cittas... When sati arises we can know what type of akusala is the reason for being disinclined to assist someone else. It may be because of selfishness, or because of conceit, or because we believe that we waste our time, that it is not useful to help others. Some people think that they have done many good deeds already and therefore, they do not want to associate with others. One should ask oneself whether such a thought is kusala or akusala. If we associate with others in order to assist them, the citta is kusala. Thus, we should associate with others so that we can support them to a greater extent. When we are able to have friendliness to all people we shall not be neglectful of the perfection of mett, loving-kindness. There should be no limits to mett; and if we restrict it there may not be mett but lobha, attachment, which is akusala, not kusala. > ------------- Nina. 35) #115326 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 29, 2011 7:11 pm Subject: Radiant non-local Consciousness vs. Anesthesia argument... Postulate regarding Consciousness itself: Consciousness is NOT created by the brain, but RESIDES WITHIN the brain! Just like the beer is inside the bottle, but is not created or produced by this bottle... Good Objection by friend: Bhante, when anesthesiologists inject chemicals into the body to influence the brain to make the patient loose consciousness, are these chemicals then interacting with consciousness itself and not the physical brain? Answer: Anesthetic chemicals interact with the brain cells, which then interact with the element of consciousness. Like if you smash the bottle of a beer, then the beer runs out of the bottle, consciousness is affected if the nerve cell membrane is made unstable and thus leaking by anesthetic agents. Neither logically proves the false assumption that the bottle actually produces the beer..., nor that the brain produces the consciousness..., just that they both are 'containers' of another element... PS: Consciousness is not completely 'gone' during anesthesia, since there is unconscious perception and memory formation even during surgical anesthesia: Full text here: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/Memory_of_Unconsciously_Perceived_E vents.1996.pdf Luminous is the Mind said the Buddha! And Non-Local may we today add: Interestingly: When one person sees light in a dark room, another distant person's brain emits low level light, if they are magnetically identically pulsed: Full text here: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/Brain.Photon.Entanglement.pdf Furthermore: So do cell cultures also! When one receives light, the other shines! Furthermore: Brain function is a correlated set and not independent events: 2 persons sitting in different buildings and rooms have correlated EEGs. Friends vs. strangers have specific correlation patterns: Full text here: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/Correlated.EEG.pdf Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net 1) #115327 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 29, 2011 6:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Train Morality Dilema Hi, Kevin (and all) - In a message dated 5/28/2011 11:56:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Hello all, A person sent this on another list. I did not share my answer there because I simply did not feel that most people there could understand it (especially since most there do not study Abhidhamma). Here I think some people may (though others will not). The original question was about an old philosophy delima that goes something like this: The Train morality problem / philosophical dilemma / (First Precept issues) A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing? (If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die) What would you do? What would Buddha do? /// My answer (that i didn't post there) was/is: Honestly, and a lot of people really might dislike me for this answer, simply because they misunderstand how lobha and dosa work. I would not flip the switch. Why wouldn't I? The mad philosopher who tied those people to the tracks is responsible for their death's (whether it goes down the track with 1 person or with 5). I am not responsible. By not having equinimity and putting one persons life over the other five, or five over 1, I would be engaging in unwholesome kamma-pattha of the body. Who I am to judge who will die and who will not die? After all the 5 might be serial rapists and the one might be the Buddha. Should I choose to kill the Buddha and let the five serial rapists live? Who knows the situation. I did not initiate this course of events nor do I own it. If I flip the switch I kill the single man. If I don't, five die but I didn't kill them-- the mad philosopher did. That being said, I would do everything in my power to stop the train altogether if I could, and to bring the mad philosopher initiator of this sequence to justice if I could, and of course, to stop the philosopher in the first place if I could. If you flip the switch you personally sentence a being to death, if you don't the death of 5 that they were meant to meet are met, because of the actions of the philosopher (as well as their kamma). Equinimity is the key here. When the Buddha died the Arahants did not weep, they understood that death is inevitable and cannot be avoided. It is our defilements that think otherwise. Our defilements that will make us kill one man to "save" five, even though we didn't plan to kill any in the first place. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin ==================================== It would make a difference to me, embarrassing as that is, who the people were, if I knew, but I shall assume that I do not. I also assume that I cannot stop the train or do anything else to alter the conditions except, as the problem is stated, choose to flip the switch or not. Also, I wouldn't know for a fact what I would do until and unless the event actually occurred. All that having been said, I believe: I would flip the switch. (Bad upasaka! Not an Abhidhammika! Shame on me! ;-) With metta, Howard P. S. There are much harder problems, far more torturous, along the lines of Sophie's choice. Such choices cause suffering even to merely imagine them. Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 35) #115328 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 29, 2011 10:45 pm Subject: audio with Phil. Thanks. Dear Sarah, Jon and Phil, I really appreciate this. Anumodana for your efforts. It is helpful you posted this, even if it is only a part. I quote: I remember Phil saying that he found this "not enough" very good. I thins that it is an inspiration to develop understanding further. Thanks very much. Nina. 1) #115329 From: "Dieter" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 12:10 am Subject: Re: The Train Morality Dilema Hi Kevin , just a feedback.. ;-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > > Hello all, > > A person sent this on another list. I did not share my answer there because I > simply did not feel that most people there could understand it (especially since > most there do not study Abhidhamma). Here I think some people may (though > others will not). > > > The original question was about an old philosophy delima that goes something > like this: > > > The Train morality problem / philosophical dilemma / (First Precept issues) > > A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people > who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could > flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. > Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the > switch or do nothing? > > (If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that > person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die) > > What would you do? > > What would Buddha do? > /// D: likely not responding at all to such question ( because the story makes no sense to say the very least) Or do you understand what kind of association is behind 'five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher'? You mention in your answer: ' Who knows the situation. I did not initiate this course of events nor do I own it' D: you are the owner/the heir of your acts , i.e. the situation one is facing means previous (accumulated ) kamma. I wonder what make people think that they will ever come into a situation to judge over other people's life ( leaving e.g.judges or soldiers aside ) Isn't the thinking about such unlikely (and most horrible ) event unwholesome in several ways ? with Metta Dieter 35) #115330 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 2:01 am Subject: Morality Dilema Hello Dieter, Kevin, all, >D: likely not responding at all to such question ( because the >story makes no sense to say the very least) Here is much more relevant question: 1) Lets say that a crazy person wants to kill you, and you have no way out. The only way is to seriously hurt or kill that person. What will you do and why? 2) That person wants to kill your wife, children or parents. What will you do and why? 3) You are in a busy restaurant/marketplace/etc and see a suicide bomber about to detonate himself killing dozens of people, and possibly killing/maiming you. You have a loaded gun. What will you do and why? With metta, Alex 35) #115331 From: Kevin F Date: Mon May 30, 2011 2:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Train Morality Dilema Dearest Nina, Nina: You are right to stress equanimity here. Sometimes people are beyond help and instead of having aversion it is good to have equanimity. Kamma and vipaaka take their course. The whole dilemma seems to involve so much thinking, doesn't it? We may plan to do such or such but it all depends on the citta at a given moment what action it will motivate. One may be inclined to take kusala kamma and akusala kamma for mine, but they are only conditioned realities. It may be difficult to explain that to people on the other list you mentioned, but perhaps it is worth giving it a try? I just heard on a recording that people think that "higher dhamma" is too difficult and that one should just observe the five precepts. Kh Sujin said that without right understanding it is very difficult to observe the five precepts perfectly. When people listen to the Dhamma they may have more interest to develop more understanding. I think you can help people to take an interest in citta and cetasikas (without mentioning the Pali) so that they can learn that it is citta not self that will be able to observe the precepts. More understanding about different cittas will certainly help. Kevin: Thanks for your wise advice. Kevin 35) #115332 From: Kevin F Date: Mon May 30, 2011 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality Dilema Hi Alex, all, Alex: Lets say that a crazy person wants to kill you, and you have no way out. The only way is to seriously hurt or kill that person. What will you do and why? Kevin: I would probably hit or hurt the person to some degree if I had to in order to get away, but I doubt I would injure him or her seriously, and I would definitely not kill the person. If I had to just accept the fact that I must die because I wont injure them worse, then so be it. Alex: That person wants to kill your wife, children or parents. Kevin: Same as above. Equanimity. However, I am sure there would be a lot more energy to try and detain the person and prevent him from killing others. Alex: You are in a busy restaurant/marketplace/etc and see a suicide bomber about to detonate himself killing dozens of people, and possibly killing/maiming you. You have a loaded gun. What will you do and why? Kevin: In this situation the bomber would likely kill many people, and leave many others traumatized and in fear for the rest of their lives, so I would shoot the man (you said I have a loaded gun) to try and incapacitate him temporarily. I would not shoot for the head or chest, and would not shoot with intent to kill. I would aim for his shoulder maybe. Then try to jump on him and somehow hold him down so that he could not detonate the bombs, until some more help showed up. In the event that I missed... oh well. You must have equanimity. Death is not the great evil. Attachment to your life and the life of those you hold dear, aversion at it's possible loss, and the delusion that thinks each is a being, is what causes suffering. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin Sarah:"The citta itself (for example, rooted in ignorance, or, for example, rooted in >wisdom), plus all the other accompanying cetasikas which arise with those javana >cittas also accumulate by way of upanissaya paccaya. So, wisdom itself >accumulates when ever it arises." ________________________________ 35) #115333 From: "Dieter" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 3:18 am Subject: Re: Morality Dilema Hello Alex, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Dieter, Kevin, all, > > > >D: likely not responding at all to such question ( because the >story makes no sense to say the very least) > > > Here is much more relevant question: > > > 1) Lets say that a crazy person wants to kill you, and you have no way out. The only way is to seriously hurt or kill that person. > > What will you do and why? > > > 2) That person wants to kill your wife, children or parents. > > What will you do and why? > > > 3) You are in a busy restaurant/marketplace/etc and see a suicide bomber about to detonate himself killing dozens of people, and possibly killing/maiming you. You have a loaded gun. > > What will you do and why? > > > > With metta, > > Alex > D: all these situations you describe are of no relevance to me. Why bother about something unlikely ever to happen? In my understanding akusala mental activity.. with Metta Dieter 35) #115334 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 29, 2011 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality Dilema Hi, Alex (Dieter, and Kevin, and all) - In a message dated 5/29/2011 12:01:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Here is much more relevant question: 1) Lets say that a crazy person wants to kill you, and you have no way out. The only way is to seriously hurt or kill that person. What will you do and why? ------------------------------------------------------ H: I would shoot, attempting to stop but not kill. To save an innocent, namely me. ------------------------------------------------------ 2) That person wants to kill your wife, children or parents. What will you do and why? --------------------------------------------------- H: The same, and for the same reason, plus my love for them and, to be honest, also my attachment to them. ------------------------------------------------- 3) You are in a busy restaurant/marketplace/etc and see a suicide bomber about to detonate himself killing dozens of people, and possibly killing/maiming you. You have a loaded gun. -------------------------------------------------- H: Same answer as my first. The bottom line: I'm not a pacifist, and I don't consider precepts against hurting or even killing to be absolutes. So, whoever is so inclined may consider me a heretic! ;-) ------------------------------------------------ What will you do and why? With metta, ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 35) #115335 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 30, 2011 4:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality Dilema Dear Kevin, Op 29-mei-2011, om 18:44 heeft Kevin F het volgende geschreven: > Death is not the great evil. Attachment to your life and the life > of those you hold dear, aversion at it's possible loss, and the > delusion that > thinks each is a being, is what causes suffering. ------ N: You have put this very well, and I feel I should really consider this. Very good reminder. I cling so much to beings, to people I hold dear. Nina. 35) #115336 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 30, 2011 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality Dilema Hi, Nina (and Kevin) - In a message dated 5/29/2011 2:48:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Kevin, Op 29-mei-2011, om 18:44 heeft Kevin F het volgende geschreven: > Death is not the great evil. Attachment to your life and the life > of those you hold dear, aversion at it's possible loss, and the > delusion that > thinks each is a being, is what causes suffering. ------ N: You have put this very well, and I feel I should really consider this. Very good reminder. I cling so much to beings, to people I hold dear. -------------------------------------------- H: Kevin does put it well, and he is correct. But, Nina, we cannot just "decide" for it to be otherwise. As worldlings (and even for lesser ariyans), attachment to others and the resultant suffering is the price, the trade-off, we pay for love. Until I reach a stage beyond, it is a price I'm willing to pay. --------------------------------------------- Nina. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 35) #115337 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 8:03 am Subject: Re: The Train Morality Dilema Hi Kevin (and Nina), --------- <. . .> > K: (If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die) > > What would you do? > > What would Buddha do? --------- KH: I agree with Nina's answer. Kusala kamma and akusala kamma are functions performed by namas (conditioned dhammas) not by people (concepts). There is no control over the functions of dhammas, and the control exercised by concepts is just an illusion - "a magician's trick." Ken H > N: The whole dilemma seems to involve so much thinking, doesn't it? We > may plan to do such or such but it all depends on the citta at a > given moment what action it will motivate. One may be inclined to > take kusala kamma and akusala kamma for mine, but they are only > conditioned realities. It may be difficult to explain that to people > on the other list you mentioned, but perhaps it is worth giving it a > try? > I just heard on a recording that people think that "higher dhamma" is > too difficult and that one should just observe the five precepts. Kh > Sujin said that without right understanding it is very difficult to > observe the five precepts perfectly. When people listen to the Dhamma > they may have more interest to develop more understanding. > I think you can help people to take an interest in citta and > cetasikas (without mentioning the Pali) so that they can learn that > it is citta not self that will be able to observe the precepts. More > understanding about different cittas will certainly help. > > Nina. > 35) #115338 From: Kevin F Date: Mon May 30, 2011 8:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality Dilema Dear Nina, all, N: You have put this very well, and I feel I should really consider this. Very good reminder. I cling so much to beings, to people I hold dear. K: Thank you for the kind words. Kevin __________ With metta Kevin Sarah:"The citta itself (for example, rooted in ignorance, or, for example, rooted in >wisdom), plus all the other accompanying cetasikas which arise with those javana >cittas also accumulate by way of upanissaya paccaya. So, wisdom itself >accumulates when ever it arises." ________________________________ 35) #115339 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 9:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concep... Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ...There are trans-temporal groups of interrelated > mental and physical phenomena that are mentally distinguishable because of > these interrelationships. I like this description. Can you clarify what you mean by trans-temporal? Do you mean that they continue to exist/relate from moment to moment, rather than in a single moment? Or do you mean that they are not part of the flow of linear time? > For worldlings, the only means of grasping these interrelationships > and the complexes of interrelated phenomena is by thinking, but that does not > make them fictions. Considering such complexes to be single entities (or > individual realities) is conceptual error, faulty thinking, but so is > considering them to be nothing at all. Existence is held together by > relationships. It is an integrated whole, a system, and not a dustbin of separate > particles. Analysis calls for a balancing synthesis. I agree with you. What you say exists as integrated and related systems is at odds with single-citta/single-moment theory, but I guess that is okay with you. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = 10) #115340 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 10:58 am Subject: Re: wisdom and doing Hi Robert E, --------- <. . .> > RE: I don't consider the plain meaning of the suttas themselves as Buddha spoke them to be a "new interpretation." They are the actual suttas, the words of the Buddha --------- KH: I think you have put your finger on it - "the plain meaning." Did the Buddha teach anything plain - of ordinary meaning - straightforward, easy to understand? Or did he teach something profound, deep in meaning, understandable only to the wise? --------------------- <. . .> . > RE: The "ancient" commentaries are the new interpretation compared to the original suttas. --------------------- KH: They are essentially the same commentaries that people received in the Buddha's day. Generally speaking, people attended the Buddha's lectures after having heard the Dhamma from other monks. They didn't just roll up without knowing what to expect. Afterwards, they would have attended countless tutorials on the discourse they had attended. (Probably for the rest of their lives!) Wouldn't you? I know I would! ------------------------------ > RE: One should not contradict what the Buddha had to say by insisting that presently arisen dhammas is all he had to talk about. ----------------------------- KH: Dhammas are all that really exist, so what else would he have talked about? ---------------------- > RE: If he talks about other things, or in other ways, that should be accepted as well. ----------------------- KH: Yes, there are different degrees of understanding, and some people will not know exactly what the Dhamma is all about. But they can still benefit from it to a degree. ------------------------------ <. . .> >> KH: Over the last ten years (on and off) at DSG you have seen thousands of careful explanations, complete with references. >> > RE: I have seen many interpretations of sutta that have made that case, but in many cases they have involved reconstructing the suttas. Sometimes not. But for our purposes what is important is how the suttas can or cannot be interpreted. For instance, the 'crossing the flood' sutta we have discussed has nothing in it about the eternalism and annihilationism, yet the commentary says that is what it is really about. In this type of case it seems to me that the original point of the Buddha - not to follow the path through effort and yet not to be passive either - is supplanted by a new point that the commentator wants to make. ----------------------------- KH: Every sutta is profound, deep in meaning and difficult to understand. None of them is saying anything conventional, such as "Don't do too much, and don't do too little!" That would be the Goldilocks Dhamma. :-) ----------------------------------- > RE: Rather than swallowing the commentaries whole, I'm interested in their relationship to the suttas, and my point of focus is on the suttas and the Buddha's words. --------------------------------- KH: You are going your own way. Good luck with that! :-) Ken H 349) #115341 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 30, 2011 8:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concep... Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/29/2011 7:09:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ...There are trans-temporal groups of interrelated > mental and physical phenomena that are mentally distinguishable because of > these interrelationships. I like this description. Can you clarify what you mean by trans-temporal? Do you mean that they continue to exist/relate from moment to moment, rather than in a single moment? Or do you mean that they are not part of the flow of linear time? ------------------------------------------------ I simply mean that the interrelated phenomena do not all occur at the same moment. I don't mean that there are phenomena that continue. Actually, more radically, I think that all entities are such only in our thinking, for change is continual, and thus there are no identifiable entities at all except as a matter of convention. Whatever changes is not an existent with identity except as one conceives of it as such, and all conditioned dhammas are of this sort: not only arising and ceasing, but also changing while standing. Impermanence in this radical sense implies no self at all in anything. ---------------------------------------------- > For worldlings, the only means of grasping these interrelationships > and the complexes of interrelated phenomena is by thinking, but that does not > make them fictions. Considering such complexes to be single entities (or > individual realities) is conceptual error, faulty thinking, but so is > considering them to be nothing at all. Existence is held together by > relationships. It is an integrated whole, a system, and not a dustbin of separate > particles. Analysis calls for a balancing synthesis. I agree with you. What you say exists as integrated and related systems is at odds with single-citta/single-moment theory, but I guess that is okay with you. ------------------------------------------------- Uh, ..., yep! LOL! ----------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. ============================= With metta, Howard Whatever is Conditioned is Fleeting /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible. "These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ (From the Sankhata Sutta) 10) #115342 From: Ken O Date: Mon May 30, 2011 12:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening Dear Sarah >.... >S: Again, it comes back to the present cittas as I keep suggesting. If we think >we are arguing or are speaking/writing in annoyance/frustration or without >kindness, then it may not be helpful as dosa never helps. However, you may be >inclined to argue with this too:-) Think of it as a friendly exchange between >friends, Ken! > >Btw, you may like to listen to the segments of discussion in KK with Phil that >we've uploaded and to give your comments. I'd be glad to hear them. >.... > >>Treatise of Paramis ><...> >S: All the paramis have to be developed with right understanding of the path, >i.e right understanding of paramattha dhammas. Without this right understanding, > >they are not paramis. This is why those who have not heard the Buddha's >Teachings cannot develop the paramis, however much metta, dana and so on is >developed. > KO: you forgotten something, only Buddhas can teach not self and paramattha dhamma and not others :-) . In times when Buddha or paccekabuddha not around, one learn the five precepts or those ascetics who believe in kamma as in the treatise. Please read the commentary to right view also on panna. Ken O 64) #115343 From: Ken O Date: Mon May 30, 2011 12:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhammas as object of insight development Dear Jon >> >> KO: Nope, Sarah quotes basically did not cover the early part of the pointed by >> >>the commnetary and the Visud. There is even a speculation about >>pre-satipatthana >> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html >> =============== > >J: I can't remember the exact passage from the commentary to the Satipatthana >Sutta that was quoted by Sarah, but here's something from the commentary to the >final section (on Dhammas) that addresses the question we've been discussing: > >***************************** >- in the contemplation on the body the laying hold of the aggregate of >corporeality or materiality was spoken of by the Master; > >- in the contemplation on feeling, the laying hold of the aggregate of feeling; >- in the contemplation on mind, the laying hold of the aggregate of >consciousness; >- and now in order to speak of even the laying hold of the aggregates of >perception and formations, he said "And, how, o bhikkhus," and so forth. >***************************** > >J: Note the reference to each of the 5 khandhas. No mention of >concepts/conventional objects. > >> =============== >> I let the commentary explains itself since it clearly states about breathing >>and body parts >> >> =============== > >J: Looking forward to seeing the exact passage you have in mind. > KO - There are four foundations to satipatthana, the holding on to materiality is only when the body parts meditation becomes access or absorption and one used it as a basiss of jhanas. There is no need for me to put in the exact passage, you should read yourself as it is online and come to your own conclusion. You have Visud and Dispeller of Delusion they also have this meditational practise on body parts. >> =============== >whereas, I am waiting for the commentary quotes that clearly said >> satipatthana is just nama and rupa. >> =============== > >J: OK, I've now had a chance to dig out the Vism reference I mentioned in an >earlier post. > > >From the beginning of the section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): > >****************** >[7] 'What are its characteristic, function etc.? >Understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences >[sabhava] of states [dhammas]. Its function is to abolish the darkness of >delusion, which conceals the individual essences of states.' >****************** > >Note the words, "characteristic of penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] > >of states [dhammas]". > >And later: > >****************** >[32] 'How is it developed? >Now the things classed as aggregates [khandhas], bases [ayatanas], elements >[dhatus], faculties [indriyas], truths [sacca], dependent origination >[paticca-samuppada], etc., are the soil of this understanding...' XIV, 32 >****************** > >These things that are the soil of understanding are dhammas, not concepts. > > KO: That is the section of panna, how about the section on concentration and benefits of concentration as describe in Visud. As I said earlier, concepts can be used as a basis of insight unless you could prove otherwise that is contrary to what the ancient commentators said. After a while, I decided it is not helpful to keep arguing with you or Sarah or Ken H, just like I keep arguing with those only believe in concentration as the way to develop Buddhism. Buddhism is about virture, concentration and panna and not panna alone because those with sharp intelligence like Devaddatta or the king who the father committed weighty kamma acts. Buddha dont develop panna all the time because not self and the delimitation of nama and rupa is only possible when Buddha arise. Ken O 64) #115344 From: Ken O Date: Mon May 30, 2011 1:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening Dear Sarah the mind doorway :-) only mind can experience concepts Ken O > >From: sarah >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2011 18:14:42 >Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: >concepts can lead to awakening > > >Dear Ken O, > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > >> >S: There are only namas and rupas in reality (see intro to first chapter in >> >Abhidhammattha Sangaha). Some of these namas and rupas we refer to as >>"father", "mother" and so on. On kamma, as explained. >> >... >> KO: Definitely there nama and rupa, there is also father and mother >.... >S: Which door-way are "father and mother" experienced through? Are they seen? >Are they heard? Are they smelt? Are they tasted? Are they touched? Or are they >only thought about? > >Metta > >Sarah >====== > > > 64) #115345 From: Ken O Date: Mon May 30, 2011 1:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality Dilema Dear Alex > > >Hello Dieter, Kevin, all, > >>D: likely not responding at all to such question ( because the >story makes no >>sense to say the very least) >> > >Here is much more relevant question: > >1) Lets say that a crazy person wants to kill you, and you have no way out. The >only way is to seriously hurt or kill that person. KO: you should read the parable of the saw The Parable of the Saw "Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves. > >2) That person wants to kill your wife, children or parents. >3) You are in a busy restaurant/marketplace/etc and see a suicide bomber about >to detonate himself killing dozens of people, and possibly killing/maiming you. >You have a loaded gun. KO: if you can stop the person without hurting yourself by what Buddha does, please go ahead. If not, it is not you that create the kamma. If you kill the person, you are the one who create the kamma and not the person since he has yet killed. the person could committed kamma in ill will but may not in killing if the act does not succeed. Ken O 35) #115346 From: Ken O Date: Mon May 30, 2011 1:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] view Dear Azita Yes we have different views for different khandhas in separate mind continuum. Please read the commentary to The Discourse on the Root Of Existence which deal with your these four types of views (sakkaya ditthi) thoroughly. if you dont have the book and wish to have the book, please tell me (if you wish to give your address off list) I send you the book tranlsated by B Bodhi Ken O > >hallo azita, > >a: I have a question about view such as "khandha as self, self as possessing >khandha, khandha as in self or self as in khandha" > >These are various aspects of wrong view. Could we have all these views or not? I > >know they refer to all the 5 khandhas and I'm guessing that we could have >different views for the different khandhas - yes/no??? > >c: wouldn't there be different views at different times? so, my vote's Yes. It >reminds me of asking 'which character type am I?' - as in 'what meditation >subject suits ME?’ > >best wishes, >connie > 10) #115347 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 2:36 pm Subject: Re: wisdom and doing Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > --------- > <. . .> > > RE: I don't consider the plain meaning of the suttas themselves as Buddha spoke them to be a "new interpretation." They are the actual suttas, the words of the Buddha > --------- > > KH: I think you have put your finger on it - "the plain meaning." Did the Buddha teach anything plain - of ordinary meaning - straightforward, easy to understand? Or did he teach something profound, deep in meaning, understandable only to the wise? Some of things he says are deep and complex, and some are simple and straightforward. He did not have one level of teaching, he had many. Your one-dimensional view, based on the false logic that "Buddha must have only taught the complex and therefore couldn't have actually meant anything he said" is nonsensical and constitutes a form of self-induced blindness to his teachings, an excuse for adhering to your preferred dogma that stays within your "one-citta-dhammas-only" interpretation of everything the Buddha said, via commentary. I trust the Buddha and take him at his word, not at yours, and not at the commentators when they veer off from the Buddha on a sharp angle. They had their own agenda and may have been perfectly sincere in their interpretations, but I will never substitute their divergent explanations for the Buddha's own. Your idea that they know better than you and therefore you don't have to read the original with an open mind is just wrong-headed. > --------------------- > <. . .> . > > RE: The "ancient" commentaries are the new interpretation compared to the original suttas. > --------------------- > > KH: They are essentially the same commentaries that people received in the Buddha's day. I would like to see your historical evidence of that and run it down for me. I don't think that there were commentators following after each of the Buddha's lectures and saying "Okay folks now let's sit down and I'll tell you what he really meant - it's nothing like what you think it sounded like." > Generally speaking, people attended the Buddha's lectures after having heard the Dhamma from other monks. They didn't just roll up without knowing what to expect. That's not the same thing as substituting a totally different explanation for what he said. I doubt they went away from his talks thinking of it as a metaphor for some dhammas-only point that he didn't make. > Afterwards, they would have attended countless tutorials on the discourse they had attended. (Probably for the rest of their lives!) Wouldn't you? I know I would! Yes, as long as they had some relation to what he said. > ------------------------------ > > RE: One should not contradict what the Buddha had to say by insisting that presently arisen dhammas is all he had to talk about. > ----------------------------- > > KH: Dhammas are all that really exist, so what else would he have talked about? That's another phoney piece of logic. What he said defined what there was to say, not your reductionist view of what it must have meant based on your own limited understanding. > ---------------------- > > RE: If he talks about other things, or in other ways, that should be accepted as well. > ----------------------- > > KH: Yes, there are different degrees of understanding, and some people will not know exactly what the Dhamma is all about. But they can still benefit from it to a degree. You do not benefit from the Buddha's teaching by substituting a mantra of "dhammas only dhammas only" for the detailed content of the suttas. > ------------------------------ > <. . .> > >> KH: Over the last ten years (on and off) at DSG you have seen thousands of careful explanations, complete with references. > >> > > > RE: I have seen many interpretations of sutta that have made that case, but in many cases they have involved reconstructing the suttas. Sometimes not. But for our purposes what is important is how the suttas can or cannot be interpreted. For instance, the 'crossing the flood' sutta we have discussed has nothing in it > about the eternalism and annihilationism, yet the commentary says that is what it is really about. In this type of case it seems to me that the original point of the Buddha - not to follow the path through effort and yet not to be passive either - is supplanted by a new point that the commentator wants to make. > ----------------------------- > > KH: Every sutta is profound, deep in meaning and difficult to understand. Prove it. > None of them is saying anything conventional, such as "Don't do too much, and don't do too little!" Prove it. > That would be the Goldilocks Dhamma. :-) That's your opinion and I think it is arrogant and ridiculous. Sometimes the simplest things are the most profound. If you think talking about how to avoid both effort and quietism and follow the path the correct way is "Goldilocks" then you are merely addicted to the so-called profundity of your own mantra. All you say most of the time is "dhammas only dhammas only" without much detail. I don't see what is so profound about what you have learned. There's an impression around here that the Buddha's actual teachings can't be taken that way because they are not profound enough, so go read a complex convoluted sub-commentary instead, written by super-intellectuals who dissected everything down to a shadow of its original self. Well too bad for everyone if the Buddha thought it was important to tell people those simple things that they were too distracted or deluded to take in to their heart or mind with clarity. That is what he did many times, and for you to ignore it or turn away from those simple understandings which you may not actually have understood because they are "too simple for you" is just a shame. > ----------------------------------- > > RE: Rather than swallowing the commentaries whole, I'm interested in their relationship to the suttas, and my point of focus is on the suttas and the Buddha's words. > --------------------------------- > > KH: You are going your own way. Good luck with that! :-) Oh that is hysterically funny. *I* am going my own way by listening to the *Buddha,* while *you* are right on track by listening to a bunch of other people and saying the Buddha was "too simple." Ken, go take a good look at your point of view towards sutta. You may need some correction. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = 349) #115348 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 2:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concep... Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 5/29/2011 7:09:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Hi Howard. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > ...There are trans-temporal groups of interrelated > > mental and physical phenomena that are mentally distinguishable because > of > > these interrelationships. > > I like this description. Can you clarify what you mean by trans-temporal? > Do you mean that they continue to exist/relate from moment to moment, > rather than in a single moment? Or do you mean that they are not part of the > flow of linear time? > ------------------------------------------------ > I simply mean that the interrelated phenomena do not all occur at the > same moment. I don't mean that there are phenomena that continue. Cool. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - 10) #115349 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 8:30 am Subject: Craving Causes Pain! Friends: Craving for Sense Pleasure causes Pain! The Blessed Buddha once said: Truly, due to craving for sense pleasure, conditioned by sensuous craving, compelled by craving for sense pleasure, entirely pushed by craving for sense pleasure, kings fight with kings, princes fight with princes, priests with priests, citizens with citizens; mother quarrels with son, son with mother; father with son, son with father; brother with brother, brother with sister, sister with brother, friend fights even with his friend. Thus, lost in conflict, quarreling, and hostilities, they attack one another with fists, sticks or weapons. And thereby they suffer death or deadly pain. And further, due to this craving for sense pleasure, people break into houses, rob, plunder, pillage whole villages, commit highway robbery, & seduce the wives of others. Then the rulers have such people caught and inflict on them various forms of punishment. And thereby they meet death or deadly pain! This is the misery of sensuous craving: The accumulation of pain in this present life, due to craving for short and trivial sense pleasure... Furthermore, one accepts evil modes of action, speech, and thought! Thus, at the break-up of the body after death, one fall into a bad state of existence, a state of suffering, into perdition, even into the inferno of hell. All this misery results from sensuous craving... Such is the heaping up of future suffering caused by craving for this short-lived simple sense pleasure... All Craving causes Suffering! Blissful is being without passions in this world, Blissful is the overcoming of all sense-desires! Udana II, 1 <....> Source: The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Majjhima Nik�ya MN 13 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> 1) #115350 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 30, 2011 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality Dilema Dear kevin, all, Op 30-mei-2011, om 0:07 heeft Kevin F het volgende geschreven: > Very good reminder. I cling so much to beings, to people I hold > dear. -------- N: After consideration I could add something in order to remind myself. Kh Sujin always stresses: what about the reality at this moment? There is seeing, and this is not a person, there is visible object and this is not a person. Whatever happens, whatever circumstance we shall be in, we can learn very gradually that in truth there are only conditioned phenomena, naama and ruupa. Also clinging and aversion are arising because of their own conditions. Nina. 35) #115351 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 30, 2011 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality Dilema Hi Howard, Op 29-mei-2011, om 21:35 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > H: > Kevin does put it well, and he is correct. But, Nina, we cannot just > "decide" for it to be otherwise. As worldlings (and even for lesser > ariyans), attachment to others and the resultant suffering is the > price, the > trade-off, we pay for love. Until I reach a stage beyond, it is a > price I'm > willing to pay. ------- N: I like the way you put this, Howard. We cannot decide for it to be otherwise. I am glad you bring this up. In other words, it is not forbidden to cling. We have to be sincere. Rob K used to cite the case of an ariyan who suffered so much that she had a broken heart. We also have to know clinging when it arises as a conditioned dhamma and not flee from it. Thus, not forcing ourselves not to have clinging, but very, very gradually learn to understand it as not self. Not my clinging. This is difficult because we take realities for self. ***** Nina. #115352 From: "Christine" Date: Mon May 30, 2011 5:53 pm Subject: Arhatship, devas and brahmas, non-returners,and the place of virtue? Hello all, A Dhamma friend has asked the following questions, which I haven't been able to find answers to in the Tipitaka - can any one provide assistance? He/she asked: ''Can you help me with these few questions and state from what part of the Tipitaka it is from?: 1. Can devas and brahmas attain arahatship? 2. Why strive for arhatship when non-returnership and other lower attainments lead us to unbinding as well? 3. What sutta number is it from that says that if Nibbana is not attained by virtue then we should let go of it even but the fact is virtue leads us to Nibbana so we should hold on to it?'' with hopeful metta, Chris ---the trouble is that you think you have time--- 8) #115353 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon May 30, 2011 6:09 pm Subject: Kaeng Kracan with Phil, no 2. Dear friends, Kh S: Usually there is thinking, more often than understanding. We listen to one word like carita, conduct, and then we think a lot. As to carita, is there no carita right now? Just understand whatever it is. We may be thinking about how many kinds of carita there are and that we have to understand them all, but actually, is there no carita right now? Is there at the moment of kusala citta not one of the caritas? Ph: I have very strong lobha and we have to understand our defilements. Dont we have to avoid akusala kamma patha? Kh S: Dont we avoid understanding realities? Ph: We can be attracted to the idea of understanding realities. Kh S: There are realities that can be known, now. If we keep on thinking that this is better than that, there will be no time to know them. Realities are not easy to discern. For example, we hear about the nature of citta and everyone has that reality which experiences an object. But is that theoretical understanding or does one relaly discern the nature of citta that now experiences an object? If we keep on thinking about other things there is no condition to come closer to understanding this moment, to understand the reality which now experiences an object. Phil: Human birth is rare. I like the simile of the blind turtle who has to put its head through the yoke in order to come to the surface. Kh S: If you really see the danger of the blind turtle it is time now to understand reality. It means that one then really sees the danger. There is not much opportunity to hear about realities appearing right now. When some people hear about the teachings they think of themselves all the time, about I, I, I. There are people who read with understanding and do not mind (about themselves), because there are only elements. Elements keep on going by conditions. Sarah: Some people who are reading suttas have more concern about their own kusala, they have more and more attachment. Kh S: What is the point of the teachings? To understand reality appearing right now. ------ Additional remark Nina: A very good reminder that the true sense of urgency is understanding reality right now, and that there is no time to lose. That the opportunity to hear about reality right now is rare. ------ Nina. 1) #115354 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 30, 2011 6:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening Hi Rob E, (Ken O & all), --- On Fri, 27/5/11, Robert E wrote: >>S: ...Any kusala (or akusala) which is not the development of satipatthana, which is not the eightfold path, is leading to the continuation of the cycle. The commentaries indicate that even jhana is considered as wrong path. ... R:> If non-path kusala is not part of the path, what is the function of non-path kusala and is it then totally worthless as regards the path? .... S: All kinds of kusala are worthy and bring their own results accordingly. However, as you suggest, as far as the path is concerned, "non-path kusala" assemble, rather than disassemble, more bricks in samsara. As I wrote: >>S: The "Atthasalinii" states (I, Book I, Part I, Ch I, Triplets in the Maatikaa, 44) that akusala dhamma as well as kusala dhamma which are not of the eightfold Path are leading to accumulation, to continuation of the cycle of birth and death. We read about akusala and kusala which are not of the Path: >>S:... "leading to accumulation" aacayagaamin) are "those states which go about severally, arranging (births and deaths in) a round of destiny like a bricklayer who arranges bricks, layer by layer, in a wall." >>S:In MN140 we read about the conditioned nature of the immaterial jhanas. “MA: this is said in order to show the danger in the immaterial jhanas. By the one phrase, ‘This would be conditioned,’ he shows: ‘Even though the lifespan there is 20,000 aeons, that is conditioned, fashioned, built up. It is thus impermanent, unstable, not lasting, transient. It is subject to perishing, breaking up, and dissolution; it is involved with birth, ageing, and death, grounded upon suffering. It is not a shelter, a place of safety, a refuge. Having passed away there as a worldling, one can still be reborn in the four states of deprivation.” .... S: The Buddha refers to the right and wrong practice or way(pa.tipadaa) in which satipatthana is developed. For example: SN, Nidaanasa.nyutta, 12:3(Bodhi transl): "The Two Ways" [Sutta] "At Saavatthi. 'Bhikkhus, I will teach you the wrong way and the right way. .....And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations [come to be]; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness....Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way. "And what, bhikkhus, is the right way? With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations......Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the right way." ***** Here, the Buddha is comparing the micchaa-pa.tipadaa with the samma-pa.tipadaa. Can any kusala be included in the wrong way? The commentary* makes it clear that any states which do not lead out of samsara are included here in the wrong way of practice (micchaapa.tipada). These include meritorious deeds (pu~n~naabhisankhaara), even jhana states, the 5 mundane abhinnas (pa~ncaabhi~n~naa) and the 8 attainments of jhana (atthi aane~njaabhisa'nkhaara). This wrong path prolongs the cycle of rebirth (va.t.tapakkiya etc). The right path is that of satipatthana, the development of insights, leading to the eradication of ignorance and craving and the cycle of rebirth. Nina also quoted from the Vism before and wrote the following notes: >>More quotes from Vis. Ch XVII: Text Vis. 62: Herein, it might be [asked]: How can it be known that these formations have ignorance as their condition? By the fact that they exist when ignorance exists. ------- >>N: So long as ignorance has not been eradicated, kusala kamma, akusala kamma and imperturbable kamma are committed through body, speech and mind. -------- >>Text Vis.: For when unknowing--in other words, ignorance--of suffering, etc., is unabandoned in a man, owing firstly to his unknowing about suffering and about the past, etc., then he believes the suffering of the round of rebirths to be pleasant ---------- >>All kinds of practice that do not lead out of the cycle of birth and death are wrong practice: micchaa pa.tipadaa. Kusala kamma without any understanding of realities does not lead to the end of defilements and is thus wrong practice. As the Tiika states about puñña: Because of his desire for happiness he performs kusala, and thus fulfills this desire; he performs what is honourable and that is merit. And as it also states: Puñña, merit, in the sense of preparing or forming up fruit for oneself, is abhisa”nkhaara, and this is puññaabhisa”nkhaara. One may perform kaamaavacara kusala, ruupaavacaara kusala or aruupaavacaara kusala with the desire to have rebirth in happy planes. Then one is still attached to the cycle. -------- >>As we read in the Vis. text: Metta Sarah *(Commentary to 12:3): Tatiye micchaapa.tipadanti aya'm taava aniyyaanikapa.tipadaa. Nanu ca avijjaapaccayaa pu~n~naabhisa'nkhaaropi atthi aane~njaabhisa'nkhaaropi, so kathaṃ micchaapa.tipadaa hotiiti. Va.t.tasiisattaa. Ya~nhi ki~nci bhavattayasa'nkhaataṃ va.t.taṃ patthetvaa pavattitaṃ, antamaso pa~ncaabhi~n~naa a.t.tha vaa pana samaapattiyo, sabbaṃ taṃ va.t.tapakkhiya.m va.t.tasiisanti va.t.tasiisattaa micchaapa.tipadaava hoti. ======== 64) #115355 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 30, 2011 5:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Morality Dilema Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/30/2011 2:37:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 29-mei-2011, om 21:35 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > H: > Kevin does put it well, and he is correct. But, Nina, we cannot just > "decide" for it to be otherwise. As worldlings (and even for lesser > ariyans), attachment to others and the resultant suffering is the > price, the > trade-off, we pay for love. Until I reach a stage beyond, it is a > price I'm > willing to pay. ------- N: I like the way you put this, Howard. We cannot decide for it to be otherwise. I am glad you bring this up. In other words, it is not forbidden to cling. ------------------------------------------- H: :-) It would be pointless, it seems to me. There *are* conditions that lead to weakening clinging, but "Just say 'no' " is not among them. ;-) ----------------------------------------- We have to be sincere. Rob K used to cite the case of an ariyan who suffered so much that she had a broken heart. ------------------------------------------- H: This is certainly believable!! -------------------------------------------- We also have to know clinging when it arises as a conditioned dhamma and not flee from it. Thus, not forcing ourselves not to have clinging, but very, very gradually learn to understand it as not self. Not my clinging. ---------------------------------------------- H: Yes! We need to be clearly aware of it and its painful effect, not blinding ourselves to it. The Dhamma calls for a courageous practice of confronting things as they are, and not substituting thoughts of things as we would like them to be. --------------------------------------------- This is difficult because we take realities for self. ***** Nina. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 35) #115356 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 12:12 am Subject: Re: Arhatship, devas and brahmas, non-returners,and the place of virtue? Hello Christine, >1. Can devas and brahmas attain arahatship? In short, an Aryan can be reborn in rupa ex: AN 4.123 (Except as mindless beings). Aryan disciple can be reborn arupa loka in base of nothingness AN3.117 and in 8th Jhana plane AN4.172 (or 171, vibhatti sutta). From there one will achieve Arhatship. Devas can achieve stream, and maybe even some Brahmas. But, if worldling is in Aruppa plane, one can't hear the Dhamma and thus cannot become an Aryan (remember Buddha's two teachers? MN26). But an Aryan, being independent of others, can. >2. Why strive for arhatship when non-returnership and other lower >attainments lead us to unbinding as well? To quicken the end of ALL dukkha? Rather than be stuck for 7 lives, why no work harder to be only for one life (as an Arhant)? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.123.than.html With metta, Alex 8) #115357 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:04 am Subject: What unwholesome quality is this? Hello all, Lets say that a person wants to do something (ex: read a Dhamma book) but has to do various household chores, and is irritated at having to do them. What defilement, what character trait is that? From one perspective, irritation is dosa. But there is also craving (lobha) for things to be a certain way. So it seems to involve opposite qualities depending on how you look at it. What is the answer? With best wishes, Alex 14) #115358 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: The Buddha refers to the right and wrong practice or way(pa.tipadaa) in which satipatthana is developed. For example: > > SN, Nidaanasa.nyutta, 12:3(Bodhi transl): > > "The Two Ways" [Sutta] > > "At Saavatthi. 'Bhikkhus, I will teach you the wrong way and the right > way. .....And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? With ignorance as > condition, volitional formations [come to be]; with volitional formations > as condition, consciousness....Such is the origin of this whole mass of > suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way. > > "And what, bhikkhus, is the right way? With the remainderless fading away > and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional > formations......Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. > This, bhikkhus, is called the right way." > ***** > Here, the Buddha is comparing the micchaa-pa.tipadaa with the > samma-pa.tipadaa. Can any kusala be included in the wrong way? > > The commentary* makes it clear that any states which > do not lead out of samsara are included here in the wrong way of practice > (micchaapa.tipada). These include meritorious deeds > (pu~n~naabhisankhaara), even jhana states, the 5 mundane abhinnas > (pa~ncaabhi~n~naa) and the 8 attainments of jhana (atthi > aane~njaabhisa'nkhaara). This wrong path prolongs the cycle of > rebirth (va.t.tapakkiya etc). Hm. Thank you. I think this makes perfectly clear that the desire for kusala states and to do kusala deeds, etc., is part of attachment to samsara. This is rather crushing if one contemplates it. There is no way "out" of samsara but "out." When we want to make samsara better and happier, even to the level of jhana, we are still attached to existence. Got it. Even being attached to the path is a form of being attached to existence. If we are looking forward to the higher and better and happier stages of the path, rather than seeing them as just "passing through on the way out," that is nothing but expression of attachment. It really is rather crushing to realize this. Ouch. > The right path is that of satipatthana, the development of insights, > leading to the eradication of ignorance and craving and the cycle of > rebirth. Got it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = 64) #115359 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 31, 2011 2:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What unwholesome quality is this? Hi, Alex - In a message dated 5/30/2011 3:05:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, Lets say that a person wants to do something (ex: read a Dhamma book) but has to do various household chores, and is irritated at having to do them. What defilement, what character trait is that? From one perspective, irritation is dosa. But there is also craving (lobha) for things to be a certain way. So it seems to involve opposite qualities depending on how you look at it. What is the answer? ---------------------------------------------- I would suppose it is desire (tanha) for things being a certain way (i.e., reading), aversion for the tasks and associated anger (also a form of aversion) at having to do them and at one's craving being thwarted, and one more thing: sloth & torpor. So, yes, a variety of hindrances, and thus I'd say the person you are imagining sounds like a normal human being! ;-)) BTW, aversion is, IMO, an instance of tanha: It is a craving for the absence of something, but it is still craving. ---------------------------------------------- With best wishes, Alex ==================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 14) #115360 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 7:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What unwholesome quality is this? Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > BTW, aversion is, IMO, an instance of tanha: It is a craving for the > absence of something, but it is still craving. > ---------------------------------------------- That is a great point, which I like to remind myself as well. Both craving and aversion are two sides of the same coin - both are equally the opposite of acceptance/detachment/equanimity/letting go. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - 14) #115361 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 7:56 am Subject: Great is Compassion! Friends: Feel Pity for all those Falling: It is a great pity for all those thinking like this: Pleasure is the only good; by that they fall! Terror is a necessary way; by that they fall! Sensuality is innocent; by that they fall! Violence is allowable; by that they fall! Money makes happiness; by that they fall! Power is progress; by that they fall! Falsehood is acceptable; by that they fall! Stealing gives wealth; by that they fall! Conceit can conceal; by that they fall! Science knows all; by that they fall! Killing can be good; by that they fall! Hunting is only fun; by that they fall! Adultery is mature; by that they fall! Paedophilia is harmless; by that they fall! Drugs are fantastic; by that they fall! Booze is medicine; by that they fall! Giving does not help; by that they fall! After death is nothing!; by that they fall! The Hells do not exist; by that they fall! Intentional Action has no effect; by that they fall! I am the better than...; by that they fall! Making merit cannot elevate; by that they fall! It is a great pity with all those worthy yet poor beings: Who are veiled by wrong view; by that they fall! Who are fooled by own opinion; by that they fall! Who are gripped by greed and lust; by that they fall! Who are stirred by hate and anger; by that they fall! Who are clinging to all worldly things; by that they fall! Who are confused by not knowing; by that they fall! Who prostitute themselves; by that they fall! Who cheat and deceive; by that they fall! Who pretend what is not; by that they fall! Who hide what is actual fact; by that they fall! Who destroy beings or things; by that they fall! Who pollute the milieu and society; by that they fall! Who deliberately do evil willing it; by that they fall! Who fail their duties and obligations; by that they fall! Who miss the obvious opportunities; by that they fall! It is a great pity with all those blinded by ignorance, bound and dragged by desire, while pushed by aversion: By that they surely fall into states of pain, agony and despair! As if gripped by the arms of two strong men and hurled into a big fire... <....> Enjoy a noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> 1) #115362 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 9:13 am Subject: Re: What unwholesome quality is this? Hi Alex and Howard, --------- <. . .> A: Lets say that a person wants to do something (ex: read a Dhamma book) but > has to do various household chores, and is irritated at having to do them. > > What defilement, what character trait is that? > > From one perspective, irritation is dosa. But there is also craving > (lobha) for things to be a certain way. So it seems to involve opposite qualities > depending on how you look at it. --------- KH: Which character trait are you asking about? Irritation is irritation and craving is craving; they are two entirely different emotions. Or are you asking about a person's overall tendency - to want something and to then get angry when he can't have it? I would say everyone - other than an anagami or an arahant - had that tendency to some degree. ---------------------------------------------- > H: I would suppose it is desire (tanha) for things being a certain way (i.e., reading), aversion for the tasks and associated anger (also a form of aversion) at having to do them and at one's craving being thwarted, and one more thing: sloth & torpor. So, yes, a variety of hindrances, and thus I'd say the person you are imagining sounds like a normal human being! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- KH: Yes, it is different akusala dhammas arising in separate cittas. ------------------------------ > H: BTW, aversion is, IMO, an instance of tanha: It is a craving for the absence of something, but it is still craving. ------------------------------ KH: That is your opinion, of course, and entirely contrary to the Abhidhamma. As you well know! :-) Ken H 14) #115363 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What unwholesome quality is this? Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/30/2011 7:13:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: ------------------------------ > H: BTW, aversion is, IMO, an instance of tanha: It is a craving for the absence of something, but it is still craving. ------------------------------ KH: That is your opinion, of course, -------------------------------------------------- Mmmm. That's what "IMO," which I wrote, means. ------------------------------------------------- and entirely contrary to the Abhidhamma. As you well know! :-) --------------------------------------------------- Omigod! =================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 14) #115364 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 10:11 am Subject: Re: wisdom and doing Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and Robert) - > > In a message dated 5/27/2011 9:56:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > One of the few quotes I have given has been the one where the commentary > talks about the "monk who is walking." It says the monk doesn't know walking > in the way that is commonly known - even to dogs and jackals. The > Satipatthana has nothing to do with feet, or with going forward and back, or with > any other concepts. It is entirely about conditioned realities. > ================================ > Ken, do you also have a sutta reference pertaining to this? I'd > appreciate it. ---------------------- KH: I think you are asking if I have a sutta quote that says the same as the commentary quote. (I.e., that satipatthana is about conditioned dhammas, not concepts.) Yes, and no. Yes, I believe all suttas are saying that: and no, I can't think of one that says it in those words. Take the very first sutta, for example. It says, "In short, the five khandhas are dukkha." The five khandhas are conditioned dhammas they are not concepts. And "dukkha" is the first ariyan truth, which is basically what the Dhamma is *all about*. ----------------------- > H: BTW, I agree that so long as it seems to be "walking" that one observes, one is still engaged in thinking and not yet meditation-proper, not yet direct awareness. ----------------------- KH: I'm glad we can agree on that. -------------------------- > H: (An "observing of walking" is merely a directing and restricting of attention (by thinking) to a specific conceptual category of sensations.) -------------------------- KH: Yes, it is a concept a story about what is happening. It bears no relation to ultimate reality. Ken H 349) #115365 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 31, 2011 6:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/30/2011 8:11:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and Robert) - > > In a message dated 5/27/2011 9:56:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > One of the few quotes I have given has been the one where the commentary > talks about the "monk who is walking." It says the monk doesn't know walking > in the way that is commonly known - even to dogs and jackals. The > Satipatthana has nothing to do with feet, or with going forward and back, or with > any other concepts. It is entirely about conditioned realities. > ================================ > Ken, do you also have a sutta reference pertaining to this? I'd > appreciate it. ---------------------- KH: I think you are asking if I have a sutta quote that says the same as the commentary quote. (I.e., that satipatthana is about conditioned dhammas, not concepts.) Yes, and no. Yes, I believe all suttas are saying that: and no, I can't think of one that says it in those words. ----------------------------------------------------- H: It had been my impression that there IS a sutta to that effect (and mentioning dogs and jackals), and I would have been interested in reading it. -------------------------------------------------- Take the very first sutta, for example. It says, "In short, the five khandhas are dukkha." The five khandhas are conditioned dhammas – they are not concepts. And "dukkha" is the first ariyan truth, which is basically what the Dhamma is *all about*. ----------------------- > H: BTW, I agree that so long as it seems to be "walking" that one observes, one is still engaged in thinking and not yet meditation-proper, not yet direct awareness. ----------------------- KH: I'm glad we can agree on that. ---------------------------------------------------- H: Yes. :-) ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- > H: (An "observing of walking" is merely a directing and restricting of attention (by thinking) to a specific conceptual category of sensations.) -------------------------- KH: Yes, it is a concept – a story about what is happening. It bears no relation to ultimate reality. --------------------------------------------------- H: It bears a relation, I'd say, but I'd say no more. ------------------------------------------------- Ken H ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 349) #115366 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 10:46 am Subject: Re: What unwholesome quality is this? Hi KenH, All, >KH: Which character trait are you asking about? Irritation is >irritation and craving is craving; they are two entirely different >emotions. Or are you asking about a person's overall tendency - to >want something and to then get angry when he can't have it? > >I would say everyone - other than an anagami or an arahant - had >that >tendency to some degree. I am asking more about over tendency, an overall temperament (carita) of a person. ex: "there are six kinds of temperament, that is, greedy temperament, hating temperament, deluded temperament, faithful temperament, intelligent temperament, and speculative temperament." - VsM III,74 There is also some talk on them in netti, where it divides them in 2 (tanha or avijja), 3 (greedy, angry, deluded), or 4 (lusting, hating, view-dull, view-intelligent). With best wishes, Alex 14) #115367 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 1:06 pm Subject: Re: What unwholesome quality is this? Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > ------------------------------ > > H: BTW, aversion is, IMO, an instance of tanha: It is a craving for the absence of something, but it is still craving. > ------------------------------ > > KH: That is your opinion, of course, and entirely contrary to the Abhidhamma. As you well know! :-) Well aversion is certainly a desire to get away from something, is it not? What do you think aversion is? Something kusala? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - 14) #115368 From: "philip" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 3:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: audio uploading Hi Nina (and Lukas) THank you for this: >>>>< The value of developing understanding of different kammas: if we > know what akusala kamma is, we shall abstain from it and if we know > what kusala kamma is, we shall develop it more. The volition that > kills is akusala. When we understand this there are conditions to > abstain from it. But this is not a person or self. When there is > kusala kamma it is a cause and when vipaakacitta arises that is > result. > Yes, the best abstention from akusala is conditioned by understanding dhammas, I agree. That is best. But sometimes, as in the strong desire to drink or do sexual misconduct, a kind of brute force is necessary. When we are face to face with powerful forces that push us towards transgression, there is sometimes not the possibility of moments of understanding such as above. But there must still be abstention at such times. I sometimes worry that Lukas will be led to believe that there should never be painful struggle to avoid transgression, that if there is painful struggle, it is about self trying to be good and therefore not helpful. But painful struggle rooted in akusala is at times part of overcoming powerful defilements. I very much like this pasage from AN IV,5. "OF what nature is one who goes against the stream? It is one who does not indulge sensual desire and commit wrong deeds. He lives the holy life, though in painful struggle, with difficulty, sighing and in tears." I don't think there is possibility of kusala "painful struggle, with difficulty, sighing, in tears." This cannot be kusala at the level of momentary dhammas as defined by Abhidhamma. But this painfil struggle is necessary at times. Sometimes I have heard A. Sujin say that there should be not trying hard, no difficulty, but I think that is incorrect when it comes to powerful, transgression level defilements. But I agree when it comes to satipatthana. I do appreciate hearing her, and thank you in passing for the transcriptions you are providing from the K.K discussions! Now I will *try* with painful struggle to step away from using the internet too much. Not as clear cut an issue as trying not to drink alcohol or trying not to do sexual misconduct, because the Buddha, alas, did not tell us not to fritter away valuable time on the internet! (Of course I don't mean DHamma, but my cursed baseball!) The Buddha's strong and clear warning against drinking alcohol will ring loud and clear in Lukas' ears, I am sure! And when he struggles painfully to avoid drinking, he will also remember that he is one who goes against the stream, and that is GREAT!!!! Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Phil, > Op 29-mei-2011, om 1:51 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > But there is also reflection that behaving in bad ways that the > > Buddha said are bad is bad, It is disrespectful to the Buddha, and > > it indicates that I don't really care about his teaching if I can't > > even give up that gross pleasure. > ------- > N: Quit right: bad is bad. Akusala is akusala. > Whenever I hear a recording about siila I always think of you and I > make a note: Phil. That is by conditions. I heard: > < The value of developing understanding of different kammas: if we > know what akusala kamma is, we shall abstain from it and if we know > what kusala kamma is, we shall develop it more. The volition that > kills is akusala. When we understand this there are conditions to > abstain from it. But this is not a person or self. When there is > kusala kamma it is a cause and when vipaakacitta arises that is > result. > > > Nina. > > > > > 10) #115369 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:28 pm Subject: "how he is to rid himself of lust...." Dear Friends, Perhaps the following suttas (and commentary notes) from the Itivuttaka are relevant to the discussions about addictions and other harmful behaviour: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-028§ 40. {Iti 2.13; Iti 34} 1) § 39. {Iti 2.12; Iti 33} "This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "The Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has two Dhamma discourses given in sequence. Which two? 'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse. 'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there, released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse. These are the two Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has given in sequence." >See the two statements, declared in sequence, by the Tathagata, awakened, sympathetic to all beings. The first: Be dispassionate there toward evil. Then, with a mind dispassionate, you will put an end to suffering & stress." .... S: From the commentary by Peter Masefield (p.380): "...You should become averse thereto (tattha nibbindatha): upon beholding with right insight the divers perils associated with that evil state after the method of "'It is evil in the sense of despicable, on account of its being absolutely inferior, unskilled in the sense of being generated through a lack of skilfulness, corrupting on account of its destroying the shining nauture and so on of the heart that is naturally shining and clear, productive of again-becoming on account of its repeatedly bringing into being that dukkha associated with becoming, stressful on account of its occurring by way of fevers that are accompanied by such same [types of] stress, has dukkha as its ripening on account of its ripening solely as kuddha, leads to birth, old age and dying in the future on account of its bringing birth, old age and dying into being in times yet to come for an unlimited amount of time, [and] capable of shattering all well-being and happiness' "and so on, and the advantages in its abandonment, you should become averse [thereto], enter upon aversion, [with respect thereto]; and, as you are developing vipassanaa upon becoming [so] averse, you should both rid yourselves of lust [therefor], and become liberated from that evil, via attainment of the ariyan path -...." S: In other words, the development of vipassanaa is understood throughout the teachings, even when the suttas seem to be just stressing the great harm of akusala and the urgency to 'stop' or 'abandon' such courses of action. to be contd. Metta Sarah ====== 3) #115370 From: han tun Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma: Correction Dear Sarah, In the definition of Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma, I had written that ------------ Sayadaw said [di.t.tho dhammo di.t.thadhammo] di.t.tho = visible by sight dhammo = dhamma, the nature di.t.thadhammo = the dhamma or nature that is visible clearly by sight [in this present life]. It is a form of paccupanna atta. ------------ And I said that, that way of definition is called "thingyo" in Burmese. I was wrong! That way of defining is called "vigyo" in Burmese. Three Pali alphabets are involved: (Vi) (Gy) and (Ha). Now, from which original Pali word the Burmese word "vigyo" was condensed? I looked at the Pali-Burmese Dictionary. There was no clue. Then I looked at the PTS Dictionary. The nearest Pali word I could find is vigayha = vigaahati = to plunge into, to enter. It does not make sense. Or does it? Respectfully, Han 3) #115371 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "how he is to rid himself of lust...." Dear Friends, This is the following sutta on the same topic, stressing "clear knowing" as the way out: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-028§ 40. {Iti 2.13; Iti 34} "This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Ignorance[1] precedes the arrival of unskillful qualities; lack of conscience & lack of concern[2] follow after. Clear knowing precedes the arrival of skillful qualities; conscience & concern follow after." "Any bad destinations in this world, in the next, are rooted in ignorance — all — accumulations of desire & greed. And when a person of evil desires lacks conscience & respect, evil comes from that, and by that he goes to deprivation. So cleansing away ignorance, desire, & greed, a monk giving rise to clear knowing would abandon all bad destinations. "Notes 1.Ignorance (avijja) means ignorance of stress, its origination, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation. 2.Conscience (hiri) means a healthy sense of shame — derived from self-esteem — at the idea of doing evil. Concern (ottappa) means fear of the consequences of doing evil." **** S: From the commentary to this sutta, translated by Peter Masefield (p.384): "Therefore (tasmaa): since this ignorance and so on thus constitute the root of all misconduct, and constitute the root-cause of all the disasters associated with the miserable destinies, therefore, in ridding himself lust for, in abandoning by way of extirpating, wanting, greed and ignorance - and, as a result of the [additional] ca (and), [also] his lack of a sense of shame and fear of reproach. "Lest it should be asked how he is to rid himself of lust, he said, 'In giving rise to knowledge' - in giving rise (uppaadaya.m) in his own continuity to the knowledge associated with the arahant-path (arahattamaggavijjaa) following eager practice of the succession of vipassanaas and the succession of paths. All miserable destinies (sabbaa duggatiyo): renounces, abandons, completely transcends, all polluted courses [of action] (duggatiyo) reckoned as misconduct or, alternatively, all five destinies (gatiyo) that are dukkha (dukkhaa) on account of their being the substratum of that dukkha belonging to the cycle. For, by simply abandoning the cycle of defilement, the cycle of karma and the cycle of ripening are [themselves] abandoned." S: "Lest it should be asked how he is to rid himself of lust, he said, 'In giving rise to knowledge'...." Just as ignorance is the forerunner of misconduct, right understanding is the forerunner of good conduct. Metta Sarah ===== 3) #115372 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Kevin & all, (a long and detailed reply) --- On Sun, 29/5/11, Kevin F wrote: >>Sarah: As I understand, the cula-sotapanna is destined to become a sotapanna and will not be reborn in lower realms again, but this is controversial. ... >Kevin: Why is this controversial, Sarah? Is there controversy about the idea that of cuula sotapanna won't be reborn in the lower realms and will definitely attain the paths and fruits? What do the Commentaries actually say about this, I wonder. ..... S: The following are some (slightly revised) comments I wrote before in a discussion with Ven Dhammanando and other friends here on the topic of prior attainments and stages of insight of the bodhisatta and chief disciples in previous lives. Whether the cula-sotapanna is destined to become a sotapanna and the question of rebirth in lower realms is significant in this regard. In particular, we had discussed whether the bodhisatta had previously attained the 11th stage of sankharupekha nana [sa"nkaarupekkhaa-~naa.na - knowledge of equanimity about conditioned dhammas], the last stage of insight before anuloma nana (adaptation knowledge), which is followed by gotrabhu nana (change of lineage) and then magga and phala nana (path and fruition knowledge) in succession in the same mind door process.* There had been quotes from the Pali texts and discussion which seemed to support both the Bodhisatta and chief disciples having formerly reached the stage of sankarupekkha nana. This was based on the comments in various texts about insight being developed up to the stage of anuloma.** I considered other aspects of the teachings and other texts and my conclusion was that no prior attainments of insight had been reached prior to the last life of the bodhisatta/Buddha, in particular, not even the second stage, that of the cula-sotapanna. I referred to Jatakas which refer to rebirths of the Bodhisatta in hell. These are relevant because we read in the Visuddhimagga that having attained the 2nd stage of insight (paccaya-pariggaha ~naa.na), one is referred to as a cula-sotapanna with a fixed destiny in heavenly planes. In other words, even on the attainment of the second stage, there will be no rebirth in hell planes as I understand. This second stage is the comprehension of the causal conditions of namas and rupas*. It is also called 'purification by crossing over doubt' when panna understands the dependency on conditions of nama and rupa when they arise and how they are devoid of self. In the Vism X1X, 26, it says: *** "When a man practicing insight has become possessed of this knowledge (paccaya-pariggaha ~naa.na), he has found comfort in the Buddhas' Dispensation, he has found a foothold, he is certain of his destiny, he is called a 'lesser stream-enterer'. 'So would a bhikkhu overcome His doubts, then ever minfully Let him discern conditions both Of mind and matter thoroughly.'" *** Also, in the Alagadduupama sutta (Snake Simile), transl by Nyanaponika, it says: "Monks, in this Teaching that was so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those who have simply faith in me, simply love for me, are 'all destined for heaven'." The commentary note to this passage as given by Nyanaponika adds: "'Those who have simply faith in me': This refers to persons devoted to the practice of Insight-meditation (Vipassaka-puggalaa). When monks are seated after having got a firm footing in Insight–meditation, there arises in them a unique and fully absorbing faith in, and love for, the Master of the Ten Powers (i.e the Buddha), (Sub-Cy: because in pursuance of their Insight-meditation they have received proof that 'The Dhamma is well-proclaimed'). "Through that faith and love they are as if taken by the hand and transported to heaven. They are said to be of 'assured-destiny (niyatagatika)' i.e. of the final attainment of ...Nibbana. The Elder Monks of old say that such Bhikkhus are Lesser Stream-enterers (cuu.la or baala-sotaapanna; Vism 703)." *** So from these commentary passages, it would suggest that a cula-sotapanna, is of 'assured destiny'(niyatagatika), is assured of higher rebirths and will not be reborn in hell realms. For the sotapanna-to-be, there will be conditions to attain the higher stages and, as I understand, there will never be a return to woeful planes. In other words, the bodhisatta could not have reached the second stage of insight prior to any of his lives in woeful planes. In addition, a key point is that if the bodhisatta and key disciples had attained high stages of insight from listening to a previous Buddha, I believe they would have become savakas or disciples of that Buddha rather than the self-proclaimed Samma-sambuddha and disciples of Gotama Buddha. For example, if the bodhisatta had become a cula sotapanna whilst listening to Buddha Kassapa, it would have been impossible for him to become a samma-sambuddha. When we read in the other Pali extracts about the 'prior factor' or effort referring to the higher stages to become a Buddha, and developing satipatthana up to anuloma nana and being ready to attain insights, this doesn’t necessarily mean at that time. It may mean 'become established', so that the conditions are ready in order to attain the stages of insight up to sankharupekkha, anuloma and gotrabhu in the last life when they have to be fully developed. Otherwise, surely the savakas would surely have become arahants in that life as sankharupekkha nana would surely lead to gotrabhu and magga. That person has almost become enlightened and it would seem highly unlikely to have reached that level of vipassana nana and not become enlightened in that life because the insight would be so great, greater even than the insight which clearly sees the characteristics of all conditioned dhammas. In fact, it is the degree of panna which conditions the departure from the state of being a worldling when there is nothing left to desire in the world. There has already been nibbida nana (dispassion) when the futility of all namas and rupas has been clearly seen too. In other words, there is already the 'turning away' from conditioned dhammas ready for nibbana to be experienced. There is nothing left to desire in the world. We also need to question what is meant by the development of all the paramis, with the attainement of the last one, dana, as told in the Vessantara Jataka. It seems unlikely that before this last life the bodhisatta was already a cula-sotapanna. He had to develop all the virtues, ready to be enlightened by himself. So, while he had developed all the paramis and a lot of satipatthana over countless lifetimes, these 'ingredients' were all being prepared ready for all the vipassana nanas to arise in his final life as I understand. For other disciples like Sariputta or Bahiya, it would be similar. The ingredients were all ready so that when they heard the Truths, all the stages of insight could be realized in rapid succession. Just like a chef prepares all the ingredients, so the paramis are perfectly prepared, ready for the bodhisatta become the samma-sambuddha. Just as the bigger the feast, the more ingredients the chef needs to prepare, so is the case in the preparation of the paramis for the main disciples of the Buddha and of course, greatest of all for the Buddha himself. If you look at past discussions, you'll see that others understood the bodhisatta to have attained most stages of insight at least. A common understanding is also that a cula-sotapanna is only spared from an unhappy rebirth in the life following this attainment and that is the meaning of 'fixed destiny', but that would mean that 'insight' could be 'lost' and that being a cula-sotapanna was not so special, because like anyone else who was reborn in a 'happy' realm, they could then be reborn in a woeful plane without any insight. I hope this clarifies. I'll look forward to hearing any of your reflections. Metta, Sarah *1.knowledge of the difference between naama and ruupa, naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na 2.discerning conditions for naama and ruupa, paccaya-pariggaha- ~naa.na 3.comprehension by groups, sammasana ~naa.na knowledge of arising and falling away 4. udayabbaya ~naa.na knowledge of dissolution 5.bhanga ~naa.na knowledge of terror 6.bhaya ~naa.na knowledge of danger 7.aadiinava ~naa.na knowledge of dispassion, 8.nibbidaa ~naa.na knowledge of desire for deliverance 9.mucitukamyataa ~naa.na knowledge of reflexion 10.pa.tisankhaa ~naa.na knowledge of equanimity about conditioned dhammas 11.sa"nkhaarupekkhaa ~naa.na adaptation or conformity knowledge 12.anuloma ~naa.na change-of-lineage knowledge 13.gotrabhuu ~naa.na path knowledge 14.magga ~naa.na fruition knowledge 15.phala ~naa.na reviewing knowledge 16.paccavekkha.na ~naa.na ***** **Bhikkhu Dhammanando’s posts with translations from the Pali textual sources http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/42544 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/42544 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/42602 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/42575 ============================================================== 188) #115373 From: Vince Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Arhatship, devas and brahmas, non-returners,and the place of virtue? Dear Alex you wrote: >>1. Can devas and brahmas attain arahatship? > Devas can achieve stream, and maybe even some Brahmas. But, if worldling is > in Aruppa plane, one can't hear the Dhamma and thus cannot become an Aryan > (remember Buddha's two teachers? MN26). But an Aryan, being independent of others, can. I I'm not wrong there is one Buddha of the list who was a deva; not remember the name... I think it appears in the second volume of "The Great Cronicle of Buddhas" of Mingun Sayadaw. All PDF books are available here: http://dhammadownload.com/MinGunSayaDaw-eBookInEnglish.htm best, Vince. 8) #115374 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma: Correction Dear Han (& any other Burmese friends), --- On Tue, 31/5/11, han tun wrote: >In the definition of Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma, I had written that ------------ Sayadaw said [di.t.tho dhammo di.t.thadhammo] di.t.tho = visible by sight dhammo = dhamma, the nature di.t.thadhammo = the dhamma or nature that is visible clearly by sight [in this present life]. It is a form of paccupanna atta. ------------ And I said that, that way of definition is called "thingyo" in Burmese. I was wrong! That way of defining is called "vigyo" in Burmese. Three Pali alphabets are involved: (Vi) (Gy) and (Ha). Now, from which original Pali word the Burmese word "vigyo" was condensed? I looked at the Pali-Burmese Dictionary. There was no clue. Then I looked at the PTS Dictionary. The nearest Pali word I could find is vigayha = vigaahati = to plunge into, to enter. It does not make sense. Or does it? ... S: :-) I just understand Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma to refer to the kamma which brings a result that can be experienced/seen in this present life. I also don't understand what a "vigyo" is. Perhaps you have a Burmese Pali scholar friend who can tell us whether it comes from vigayha? You'll be able to correct me, but I understand that some Burmese Pali terms that appear in Burmese commentaries have developed later. I wonder if Kevin or Suan are still reading - perhaps they have some ideas? Metta Sarah ======= 3) #115375 From: Vince Date: Tue May 31, 2011 6:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Dear Sarah you wrote: V:>>then some goes there, some goes here. Therefore it is not solved by the V:>>example of those who goes to higher realms. > ... > S: Sorry, I can't understand the problem. For example, Anathapindika was a > sotapanna who was reborn in the Tusita heaven. Having become a sotapanna, > arahatship and the end of the cycle is guaranteed. to repeat the problem: if sotapannas can reborn in a human state, it would mean they can break precepts in a following rebirth. Therefore, the idea of a perfect sila for all sotapannas doesn't seem to have a real foundation. And "not for the following lives" also it means "not for the following hours". It doesn't mean they are unmoral but it means they should make an effort to preserve sila. This effort would mean sila is not established. Problem was to know if sila can be perfect when wisdom still is not. > S: There is unwavering confidence in the Triple Gem - the Buddha, the Dhamma > and the Sangha - those who have followed the path and gained enlightenment. > There is no doubt in how magga citta arises. No more wrong view or doubt about > the path at all. they ignore magga on progress, so they are a new doubts-machine perhaps stronger than before, although in other sense. There are different types of magga citta. We read: "A. There are eight types of lokuttara citta. There are four types of magga-citta, because there is a magga-citta for each of the four stages of enlightenment" "Abhidhamma in daily life" this is also checked in the dialogues of Buddha with his monks, many of them were stream-enterers. Adn they make questions to Buddha because they don't know. > S: It is the sotapatti-magga citta that eradicates wrong view and doubt and > directly experiences nibbana. The fruition follows immediately and then the > reviewing consciousness. There is no falling back. Can you define the "falling back"? According teaching there is not a falling-back regarding the three eradicated fetters. For the rest there is a need of some falling-back because still they have attachment. Buddha didn't say nothing about an eradicated fetter regarding sila, except the "six great wrongs " and the "end of attachment to precepts". It should mean they can understand sila arising in a natural way. However, it doesn't mean themselves are possessing a perfect sila. So they need an effort to preserve morality. If the natural source of morality is wisdom, while they lack of a perfect wisdom also they should lack of a perfect sila and they need an effort. I'm quite confident about this relation of wisdom/sila but not sure on details. From here I see the utility of this discussion, because the details of sotapannas can confirm this point, and it is useful for everybody. However, it seem there is a good amount of different opinions around this :( > S: In this case, there is the rapid passing through of all stages of > enlightenment. After all, we are talking about momentary cittas. It all > depends on conditions and accumulations. I think you are right here. best, Vince. 188) #115376 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 31, 2011 6:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening Dear Ken O (& Howard), --- On Mon, 30/5/11, Ken O wrote: >the mind doorway :-) only mind can experience concepts ... S: OK!! So we have: 1]>> >S: There are only namas and rupas in reality....Some of these namas and rupas we refer to as "father", "mother" and so on... .... 2] >> KO: Definitely there nama and rupa, there is also father and mother >.... 3] >S: Which door-way are "father and mother" experienced through?... ... 4]>KO: the mind doorway :-) only mind can experience concepts S: In other words, you agree with my first statement that "There are only namas and rupas in reality". When you said in 2]: "Definitely there nama and rupa, there is also father and mother", I now take it that you meant that "there are only namas and rupas in reality, but there are also concepts of father and mother";-) In other words, we could say "there are only namas and rupas in reality. Concepts, such as father, mother, table, chair, flying purple elephant are ideas conceived of through the mind-door only!" As we know, there are many different kinds of concepts and these have all enumerated many times on DSG and to be found under "Concepts" in "U.P". Yes, some are based on fact and some are based on fiction. Regardless, the statement "there are only namas and rupas in reality" is correct. "Father and mother" are concepts experienced through the mind-door as you have said. What is experienced through the eye-door is visible object, through the ear-door, sound, through the nose-door, odour, through the tongue-door, taste, through the body-door, tangible object. Metta Sarah ====== 64) #115377 From: han tun Date: Tue May 31, 2011 6:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma: Correction Dear Sarah, I have just asked the SanghaOnLine. I will let you know if I get the answer. Respectfully, Han --- On Tue, 5/31/11, sarah abbott wrote: ... S: :-) I just understand Di.t.thadhammavedaniya-kamma to refer to the kamma which brings a result that can be experienced/seen in this present life. I also don't understand what a "vigyo" is. Perhaps you have a Burmese Pali scholar friend who can tell us whether it comes from vigayha? You'll be able to correct me, but I understand that some Burmese Pali terms that appear in Burmese commentaries have developed later. I wonder if Kevin or Suan are still reading - perhaps they have some ideas? Metta Sarah ======= 3) #115378 From: Vince Date: Tue May 31, 2011 6:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna- Bon-sin-san Dear Han you wrote: > In the Manuals of Buddhism by Ledi Sayadaw, under Bodhipakkhiya Dipanii, we > the following text only. > 'Bon-sin-san'[7] Sotapannas, like Visakha and Anathapindika, who are > infinitely numerous among humans, devas, and Brahmas, are beings who have > obtained release... Do you know of some burmese master exposing a summary of different sotapanna types?. I'm looking across some books but only I find disperse comments depending of the theme. lot of thanks! best, Vince. 22) #115379 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 6:38 pm Subject: Re: The Train Morality Dilema Dear Nina, > > L: Yes only upekka.For example, Acharn Sujin is upekkha-guy, > > whether there are also metta-guys with accumulations to metta. > > Upekkha-guy knows all is conditioned, no one can be helped, and > > that is only conditioned moments of helping. I like this upekkha > > approach. > ------ > N: Actually it depends on conditions. Sometimes it is the right time > for mettaa, when 'we' can help others. Sometimes for upekkhaa as in > Kevin's example. Mettaa and Upekkhaa, if accompanied by pa~n~naa are > paramis. As you stress, no self involved. L: Acually I observe my strong akusalas many years. i've learned that is out of control and because of anysayas. I can have a lot of metta to the people, that are involved in a strong akusala conduct. Best wishes Lukas 35) #115380 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 31, 2011 7:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's story, was: Morality Dilema Hi Howard, Op 30-mei-2011, om 13:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Yes! We need to be clearly aware of it and its painful effect, not > blinding ourselves to it. The Dhamma calls for a courageous > practice of > confronting things as they are, and not substituting thoughts of > things as we > would like them to be. ----- N: Well said, we have to be courageous. We talked so much about clinging and love, and I am glad to write to you, since you are always concerned about Lodewijk. Do not worry, the ending of this story was not too bad. We just had a wonderful two days trekking with rucksack and walking from the hotel some more days. On return Lodewijk just went to our doctor for a check since his heart was too fast. This had nothing to do with our walking, but he had to go to hospital very quickly. I thought: we never know what will happen, here we are landed in hospital for more than five hours. He had to have an electric shock under narcosis for this heart rhytmus disturbance and after that medicines for life, with weekly blood checks. They asked whether in case of heart infarct they should reanimate him and I said, yes, it is worth while. Lodewijk inquired after you, whether you also have a heart condition, but I said, no, lungs (bronchitis) is his problem. I hope you are O.K. It seems that you have trouble every year. Now the Dhamma part. We had some Dhamma talks, the hospital is a good place. I talked about Phil's remark on the tortoise who had to put its head through the yoke. He said: that makes him so afraid. But I answered that the real sense of urgency is developing understanding of the reality at this moment. Lodewijk became impatient because of this long waiting in the hospital, and we talked about khanti, patience. We need patience to study and consider the Dhamma and to be aware of realities. We talked about what you wrote about love, that you are willing to pay the price for it. But then, love is a difficult word, we mostly think of attachment. There is selfishness connected with attachment. When we mourn the loss of a dear person, it is actually motivated by selfishness. We miss his company, we think of ourselves. Nevertheless I was a bit trembling when I went to the hospital's restaurant to get something to eat. As you said, we need a courageous practice of confronting things as they are. We also talked about it that mettaa is quite different from attachment and that it is good when there is also mettaa in a relationship, this is not selfish and does not lead to sorrow. I had to go away for a while when they started treating him, and he said: just elements. He slept for more than an hour afterwards. He feels fine now. Nina. 35) #115381 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 31, 2011 7:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Arhatship, devas and brahmas, non-returners,and the place of virtue? Dear Alex, Christine, I just want to add that a non-ariyan cannot become a sotaapanna in an aruupa plane, because he should be aware of naama and ruupa and know their different characteristics. Nina. Op 30-mei-2011, om 16:12 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > In short, an Aryan can be reborn in rupa ex: AN 4.123 (Except as > mindless beings). > > Aryan disciple can be reborn arupa loka in base of nothingness > AN3.117 and in 8th Jhana plane AN4.172 (or 171, vibhatti sutta). > From there one will achieve Arhatship. #115382 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 31, 2011 7:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What unwholesome quality is this? Dear Alex, Op 30-mei-2011, om 21:04 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Lets say that a person wants to do something (ex: read a Dhamma > book) but has to do various household chores, and is irritated at > having to do them. > > What defilement, what character trait is that? > > From one perspective, irritation is dosa. But there is also craving > (lobha) for things to be a certain way. So it seems to involve > opposite qualities depending on how you look at it. ----- N: Lobha and dosa arise at different moments. The clinging conditions the aversion. One should follow the stream of life as Kh Sujin says. It depends on conditions what circumstance one is in. But make the best of it, also when doing household chores or being forced to stay in hospital without books, there are naama and ruupa. We were in different rooms, the scenery changed, but visible object is always visible object. Let us study it, there is not much time to study realities. Our life is too short and we never know what will happen the next day, the next moment. Nina. 14) #115383 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 31, 2011 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] part 1 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concep... Hi Howard & all, --- On Sat, 28/5/11, upasaka@... wrote: >H: My perspective: A parent is known by thought, through the mind-door only. ... >H: Treating it as a "reality" is atta-view. Treating it as nothing at all is nihilism, and, according to the Buddha, BTW, wrong view. .... >S: A concept is just a concept - that which is thought about. ----------------------------------------------- >H:There is baseless conceptualization, and there are concepts that have basis. -------------------------------------------- S: Yes, I agree with this comment. The rest of this post is an extract from a message Jon wrote in the early DSG days on the different kinds of concepts: #3494 ***** J:> An analysis of concepts. >Ch. VIII of the Adhidhammattha Sangaha - in translation as "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" (CMA) - contains a detailed analysis of concepts. Concepts are twofold (CMA #29 and Guide to #29): Concept as "that which is made known"; these are called "meaning concepts" or "concepts-as-meanings" (attha-pannatti), and Concept as "that which makes known": these are called "name concepts" or "concepts-as-names" (nama-pannatti). Meaning concepts "Meaning-concept" refers to the meaning conveyed by a concept. For example, the notion of a four-legged, furry domestic animal is the meaning-concept of the term "dog". [CMA Guide to #29] Name-concepts "Name-concept" is a name or designation that conveys a meaning. For example, the designation and idea "dog" is the name-concept which corresponds to the meaning-concept given in the previous example. [CMA Guide to #29] Each of these 2 kinds of concepts can be further classified as follows There are 6 kinds of meaning concepts (CMA Guide to #30) - 1. Concepts which correspond to the form of things (eg, land, mountain) 2. Concepts which correspond to a collection or group of things (house, chariot, village) 3. Concepts which correspond to a locality or direction (east, west etc) 4, Concepts which correspond to periods or units of time (morning, noon, week etc) 5. Concepts which correspond to spatial regions void of perceptible matter (well, cave etc) 6. Concepts which correspond to the mental sign gained by meditative development (called nimitta-pannati) CMA #30 says: "All such different things, though they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. They are called concepts because they are thought of and expressed on account of this or that mode. This kind of concept is so called because it is made known." There are also 6 kinds of name-concepts (CMA #31 & Guide to #31) - 1. A (direct) concept of the real. This refers to a concept that designates a reality, eg. "rupa", "feeling". 2. A (direct) concept of the unreal. This refers to a term that conveys the meaning of a thing that is a conventional entity, not an ultimate reality, eg. "land" and "mountain". 3. A concept of the unreal by means of the real. In the term "possessor of the sixfold direct knowledge", the direct knowledge are ultimately real but the "possessor" is a mental construction. 4. A concept of the real by means of the unreal. In the term "woman's voice", the sound of the voice ultimately exists but not the woman. 5. A concept of the real by means of the real. In the term "eye consciousness", both the eye-sensitivity and the consciousness dependent on it exist in an ultimate sense. 6. A concept of the unreal by means of the unreal. In the term "king's son", neither the king nor the son ultimately exist. Concepts are the means by which meaning is understood. In the Summary section (CMA #32) it is explained: "By following the sound of speech through the process of ear-consciousness, and then by means of the concept conceived by (the process in the) mind-door that subsequently arises, meanings are understood. These concepts should be understood as fashioned by worldly convention." To summarise: Although concepts are not real and cannot be the object of satipatthana, it is helpful to know more about them, so that they are not taken for realities.< ***** Metta Sarah ======== 10) #115384 From: han tun Date: Tue May 31, 2011 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's story, was: Morality Dilema Dear Nina, I am also concerned about Lodewijk. I fervently pray for his health. I and my wife also have heart problems. My wife almost died of atrial fibrillation (when the heart was just quivering instead of a coordinated contraction) in April 2008. She was hospitalized, put in intensive care unit for three days. She has recovered but has to take a plethora of medicines for heart. The CTA (computed tomography angiography) of the coronary arteries was done in September 2009. Moderately severe, diffuse atherosclerotic changes and narrowing of all major coronary arteries were detected. The Cardiologist advised her to have Coronary angioplasty with insertion of stents. But she did not do it because she was afraid to do it. I had infarct (complete blockage, and not just narrowing) in two coronary arteries since 1980s. I did not even know when I had that infarct. That was the time when I was living dangerously and heedlessly, not caring if I died the next day. Now, when I was operated for gall bladder in August 2010, the Cardiologist advised me to do the CTA (computed tomography angiography) and follow-up treatment depending on the findings. I did not do it. Maybe, both I and my wife are stupid. But we feel that we are old enough to die of one disease or the other. So why bother with all these tests? Although we do not care for ourselves, my concern for Lodewijk comes right from my heart, and I radiate my metta and karuna towards him and I most sincerely pray for his health. Respectfully, Han 35) #115385 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 31, 2011 9:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's story, was: Morality Dilema Dear Han, You are very kind. Thank you for your good wishes, Nina. Op 31-mei-2011, om 12:15 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Although we do not care for ourselves, my concern for Lodewijk > comes right from my heart, and I radiate my metta and karuna > towards him and I most sincerely pray for his health. 35) #115386 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 31, 2011 9:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's story, was: Morality Dilema Dear Nina & Lodewijk, I'm sorry to hear of your scare and am so glad to hear that Lodewijk feels fine now. As he wisely said, 'just elements', but never easy to accept, I know. --- On Tue, 31/5/11, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >We talked about what you wrote about love, that you are willing to pay the price for it. But then, love is a difficult word, we mostly think of attachment. There is selfishness connected with attachment. When we mourn the loss of a dear person, it is actually motivated by selfishness. We miss his company, we think of ourselves. ... S: Yes, I was thinking of suggesting the same. The kindness, metta and generosity we show to others doesn't hurt or bring any grief at all. As you say, it is the attachment, the selfishness, the clinging to our own feelings that brings the unhappiness and grief, which we all experience, of course. I do think, however, the reminders and understanding about this moment, about the realities now, and the real truth about our problems in life helps us a lot to be courageous and face the inevitable difficulties and losses in life. .... >N:Nevertheless I was a bit trembling when I went to the hospital's restaurant to get something to eat. As you said, we need a courageous practice of confronting things as they are. We also talked about it that mettaa is quite different from attachment and that it is good when there is also mettaa in a relationship, this is not selfish and does not lead to sorrow. .... S: It's wonderful to be able to discuss the Dhamma and assist each other with helpful reminders as you do. Of course there is bound to be a lot of attachment and selfishness, but the confidence in the Dhamma will give us the strength to face up to whatever life brings and this understanding and metta are what will be the best medicine for our dear ones in the meantime. ... >I had to go away for a while when they started treating him, and he said: just elements. He slept for more than an hour afterwards. He feels fine now. ... S: Lovely that you can both still go for nice trips and walks. I'm glad Lodewijk can have a good rest now. Patience, courage and good cheer! Metta Sarah ======= 35) #115387 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 31, 2011 5:58 pm Subject: Anger Hi, all - I find anger to be an interesting defilement. It does seem to be a form of aversion, but a form quite different from others. Instead of anger being just a desire for the absence of something or someone, or a "getting away from" something or someone, it seems to be more of an energetic desire to strike out at something or someone. Just consider how it is often expressed by yelling, by hitting, or by revengeful action. It carries with it a great deal of energy directed towards inflicting harm. By far, I consider it the worst of the emotional defilements. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 6) #115388 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 31, 2011 6:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's story, was: Morality Dilema Dear, Nina (and Lodewijk) - In a message dated 5/31/2011 5:17:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 30-mei-2011, om 13:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Yes! We need to be clearly aware of it and its painful effect, not > blinding ourselves to it. The Dhamma calls for a courageous > practice of > confronting things as they are, and not substituting thoughts of > things as we > would like them to be. ----- N: Well said, we have to be courageous. We talked so much about clinging and love, and I am glad to write to you, since you are always concerned about Lodewijk. Do not worry, the ending of this story was not too bad. ----------------------------------------------- H: This is encouraging, though it also creates concern. ----------------------------------------------- We just had a wonderful two days trekking with rucksack and walking from the hotel some more days. On return Lodewijk just went to our doctor for a check since his heart was too fast. This had nothing to do with our walking, but he had to go to hospital very quickly. I thought: we never know what will happen, here we are landed in hospital for more than five hours. He had to have an electric shock under narcosis for this heart rhytmus disturbance and after that medicines for life, with weekly blood checks. They asked whether in case of heart infarct they should reanimate him and I said, yes, it is worth while. ------------------------------------------------ H: Oh, my! (I presume that Lodewijk has - or will have - either a pacemaker or medication like Cardizem, or both.) What is Lodewijk's status now?? ------------------------------------------------ Lodewijk inquired after you, whether you also have a heart condition, but I said, no, lungs (bronchitis) is his problem. I hope you are O.K. It seems that you have trouble every year. ---------------------------------------------- H: Please thank Lodewijk! He is such a sweet person. (Yes, I typically get an asthmatic bronchitis twice a year, but, so far at least, it is not really serious. I'm fine right now, BTW.) ----------------------------------------------- Now the Dhamma part. We had some Dhamma talks, the hospital is a good place. I talked about Phil's remark on the tortoise who had to put its head through the yoke. He said: that makes him so afraid. But I answered that the real sense of urgency is developing understanding of the reality at this moment. Lodewijk became impatient because of this long waiting in the hospital, and we talked about khanti, patience. We need patience to study and consider the Dhamma and to be aware of realities. --------------------------------------------- H: All good discussion! --------------------------------------------- We talked about what you wrote about love, that you are willing to pay the price for it. But then, love is a difficult word, we mostly think of attachment. There is selfishness connected with attachment. When we mourn the loss of a dear person, it is actually motivated by selfishness. We miss his company, we think of ourselves. -------------------------------------------- H: Yes, for most of us, and most of the time, attachment comes in tow to love. Still, the love is there, and what would we not do for one whom we love! -------------------------------------------- Nevertheless I was a bit trembling when I went to the hospital's restaurant to get something to eat. -------------------------------------------- H: Certainly not surprising. -------------------------------------------- As you said, we need a courageous practice of confronting things as they are. We also talked about it that mettaa is quite different from attachment and that it is good when there is also mettaa in a relationship, this is not selfish and does not lead to sorrow. --------------------------------------------- H: Yes, quite different. But, as you correctly point out from time to time, mind changes quickly, and metta can be quickly followed by upadana, so that they might falsely seem to occur simultaneously and even be confused. ------------------------------------------------ I had to go away for a while when they started treating him, and he said: just elements. He slept for more than an hour afterwards. He feels fine now. ------------------------------------------------- H: I certainly am pleased to read this last sentence of yours! :-) ------------------------------------------------- Nina. ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) 35) #115389 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 31, 2011 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's story, was: Morality Dilema Dear Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina wrote: > >N:Nevertheless I was a bit trembling when I went to the hospital's restaurant to get something to eat. As you said, we need a courageous practice of confronting things as they are. We also talked about it that mettaa is quite different from attachment and that it is good when there is also mettaa in a relationship, this is not selfish and does not lead to sorrow. ... > >I had to go away for a while when they started treating him, and he said: just elements. He slept for more than an hour afterwards. He feels fine now. I just wanted to wish you and Lodewijk my best. I am also very glad that he is alright now. I think all that you said is true - that there is a lot of attachment in our closest relationships, but also there can be support for our path and real metta too. I think it is good to embrace our lives and recognize all the good that is there, even though there is also attachment that causes pain. I wish you both health and happiness. Be well, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - 35) #115390 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 31, 2011 11:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's story, was: Morality Dilema Dear Sarah, Op 31-mei-2011, om 13:56 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > I do think, however, the reminders and understanding about this > moment, about the realities now, and the real truth about our > problems in life helps us a lot to be courageous and face the > inevitable difficulties and losses in life. ------- N: Thanks for your kind letter. I also felt the discussions we lately had and my transcribes of them really helped a lot to face our problems. A condition for sa~n~naa to remember. Usually we remember superficial things in a day, but there can be conditions for remembering Dhamma. We had to go so quickly to the hospital that I had no time to pack any books. And I thought we would be back after an hour. One never knows! I had to laugh when remembering that the scenery changes all the time, but that visible object is just visible object. Nina. 35) #115391 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 31, 2011 11:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's story, was: Morality Dilema Hi Howard, Thank you for your letter. You see how useful our previous discussion was. It helped. Op 31-mei-2011, om 14:21 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Oh, my! (I presume that Lodewijk has - or will have - either a > pacemaker or medication like Cardizem, or both.) What is Lodewijk's > status now?? ------- N: Some medicines to make the blood thinner. His status is fine, but like Han he at first was rebellious towards the medicines and future checks by someone who has to check you regularly. But I said that he would need a lot of khanti. It is very necessary in life. ------ Nina. 35) #115392 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 31, 2011 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lodewijk's story, was: Morality Dilema Dear Rob E, Op 31-mei-2011, om 14:54 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I just wanted to wish you and Lodewijk my best. I am also very glad > that he is alright now. I think all that you said is true - that > there is a lot of attachment in our closest relationships, but also > there can be support for our path and real metta too. I think it is > good to embrace our lives and recognize all the good that is there, > even though there is also attachment that causes pain. > > I wish you both health and happiness. ------ N: Thank you very much for your encouraging words, Nina. 35) #115393 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 31, 2011 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna- Bon-sin-san Dear Vince, Op 31-mei-2011, om 10:32 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > Do you know of some burmese master exposing a summary of different > sotapanna > types? ------ N: I translated a Thai treatise: < Issue of Analysis: Will the streamwinner, sotpanna, not be reborn more than seven times, or more than that? Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue: The Sotpanna will not be reborn more than seven times. The sources which support this conclusion: 1. The Saddhammappaksin, Commentary to the Path of Discrimination, Paisambhidmagga, Commentary to Treatise II, on Views, 706. 2. The Dispeller of Delusion, Commentary to the Book of Analysis, Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge, Decads, 2162. 3. The Pacappakaraatthakath, Commentary to the fourth Book of the Abhidhamma, the Puggalapaatti, Human Types, Ch I, by One, 39, single-seeded, ekabjin. 4.The Sumangalavilsin, Commentary to the Dialogues of the Buddha, Commentary to the Questions of Sakka (II, no 21). The explanation of the reason for this conclusion: Several texts of the Commentaries explain about the kinds of rebirth of the sotpanna. 1. We read in the Saddhammappaksin, Commentary to the Path of Discrimination about three types of sotpanna: 1. The sotpanna who is reborn seven times at most, sattakkhattuparama. 2. The sotpanna who goes from clan to clan, kolankola. 3. The sotpanna with a single seed, ekabjin. We read: As to the words, of the person who is reborn seven times at most (sattakkhattuparamassa), this means that seven times is the most, and that he will not assume an eighth rebirth after he became this person. Thus he is a sotpanna who is reborn seven times at most, sattakkhattuparama. As to the words, of the goer from clan to clan (kolankolassa), this means that he is not born in a lower clan, but only in a wealthy family so that he can realize the fruition of the sotpanna. This is the sotpanna who goes from clan to clan, kolakola. As to the words, with a single seed, ekabjin, it is said that seed means the seed of the khandhas. This sotpanna germinates the khandhas only once more . He has to assume only one more existence and thus he is called single seeded. The Buddha created these different names for these sotpannas. The person who is called seven times at most, sattakkhattuparama, has reached just this status. The person who is called who goes from clan to clan, kolankola, has reached just this status. The person who is called with a single seed, ekabjin, has reached just this status. These are the names the Buddha gave to those persons. Truly, the Buddha knew what status such and such people would reach and thus he created the appropriate names for them. It is true that the sotpanna whose understanding is weak will be reborn seven times, and he is called, who will be reborn seven times at most. The sotapanna whose understanding is of medium degree will not be reborn after the sixth existence, and he is called who goes from clan to clan. The sotpanna who has strong understanding will only be reborn once, and he is called single seeded. The fact that sotpannas have different degrees of understanding, weak, medium and strong, is determined by conditions stemming from the past. These three kinds of sotpanna have been referred to as having rebirth in the sensuous planes. However, many of them were reborn also in the planes of rpa brahmas and arpa brahmas . It can be concluded that the sotpanna does not have an eighth rebirth. He will not be reborn more than seven times, no matter whether he is reborn in the sense planes, in the planes of the rpa brahmas or arpa brahmas. 2. The Dispeller of Delusion, Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge, Decads, 2162, explains about the remaining rebirths of each class of sotpannas, and in particular about the sotpanna who is attached to life in the process of existence (vaa, the cycle of birth and death). We read: For the Master, after judging with the Buddhas judgement, after defining with omniscient knowledge that: This person has the greatest understanding of all and keen insight and he will grasp Arahatship after producing one existence more only, created the name One with a single seed (ekabjin); [knowing] that: This person will grasp Arahatship after producing a second, a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth existence, he created the name One who goes from clan to clan (kolakola); [knowing] that: This person will grasp Arahatship after producing the seventh existence, he created the name seven times at most (sattakkhattuparama). But there is no person who is certain of seven existences. But the Noble Disciple attains complete extinction before the eight existence in whatever way his understanding is slow. He only goes to a seventh existence, even if he enjoys the process [of existence] as much as Sakka. In the seventh existence, even if he lives in all negligence, his insight knowledge comes to ripen. Feeling revulsion for even the smallest object, he arrives at peace. 3. The Pacappakaraatthakath, Commentary to the Puggalapaatti, Human Types, Ch I, by One, 39, single-seeded, ekabjin, explains about the sotpanna who enjoys the cycle of birth and death: Some sotpannas are inclined to life in the cycle, they enjoy the process of existence and they traverse different lives. The following people had this inclination: Anthapiika the layfollower Viskh Claratha deva Mahratha deva Anekavaa deva Sakka, King of the devas Ngadatta deva All these people had attachment to life in the cycle of birth and death. They were born in the six classes of deva worlds, beginning with the lowest class, and they purified their minds in those deva worlds. They were established in the plane of akaniha 4 and then attained parinibbna. ... The sotpannas who were reborn in the human world and were there reborn again, were reborn not more than seven times and then attained arahatship. The sotpannas who were reborn in the deva worlds were there reborn again, but they were reborn not more than seven times and then attained arahatship. ...... The Sumagalavilsini, Commentary to the Dialogues of the Buddha, Commentary to the Questions of Sakka (II, no 21), gives an additional explanation about the rebirth of Sakka, the King of Devas: It is said that after departing from this existence as Sakka, he will go upwards in the stream of life to the plane of akaniha, because of his attainment to the stage of angm. After his birth in the Aviha plane and so on he will finally be born as a brahma of the akaniha plane. [5] We see from the texts that even the sotpanna who was attached to life in the cycle, such as King Sakka, would only be reborn seven times. Therefore, sotpannas will not be reborn more than seven times, no matter whether they are reborn only in the human world, or only in the deva planes, or in both kinds of planes. Or even if they are reborn in the devaplane until they attain the stage of the angm and are then reborn in five classes of the Pure Abodes and attain arahatship in the akaniha plane, they will not be reborn more than seven times. > Nina. 22) #115394 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jun 1, 2011 2:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna Hi Sarah, all, Sarah: The following are some (slightly revised) comments I wrote before in a discussion with Ven Dhammanando and other friends here on the topic of prior attainments and stages of insight of the bodhisatta and chief disciples in previous lives. Whether the cula-sotapanna is destined to become a sotapanna and the question of rebirth in lower realms is significant in this regard... K: Oh, I see. Thank you very much for that Sarah. From what you say, it seems clear. But I have to say that I find such dedication to truthfulness truly amazing. Honest with yourself, investigating Dhammas, going right into the root of things, objective, and a seeker only of truth. Who could not respect such a qualities? Surely, this must make the wise smile. Whether your assumptions are right or wrong (and I am convinced they are right), I could see a large group of Noble Ones hearing you say such a thing and rejoicing in your merit, and in the merit of the world for having such people around to explain such matters. Hard is it to find any truth in this wallowy pit of samsara, things being based on condition as they are. The fog is so deep. Surely, when someone is so dedicated to investigation and truthfulness, it is like a shining light parting the fog for living creatures. Nothing outshines truth, for all insight is based on seeing the truth of things. Surely, your words would not be censured by the wise. After many lifetimes of suffering all types of sufferings, I have found Good Friends, dedicated to the Master's bidding. Seeing such a bright mind, I am happy and honored and delighted. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin Sarah:"The citta itself (for example, rooted in ignorance, or, for example, rooted in >wisdom), plus all the other accompanying cetasikas which arise with those javana >cittas also accumulate by way of upanissaya paccaya. So, wisdom itself >accumulates when ever it arises." ________________________________ 188) #115395 From: "Christine" Date: Wed Jun 1, 2011 7:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Arhatship, devas and brahmas, non-returners,and the place of virtue? Hello Vince, Thanks for the info. Is this what you were referring to? THE STORY OF SETAKETU DEVA - THE FUTURE BUDDHA http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/gotama/gotama01.htm#2 with metta Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Vince wrote: > > Dear Alex > > you wrote: > > >>1. Can devas and brahmas attain arahatship? > > Devas can achieve stream, and maybe even some Brahmas. But, if worldling is > > in Aruppa plane, one can't hear the Dhamma and thus cannot become an Aryan > > (remember Buddha's two teachers? MN26). But an Aryan, being independent of others, can. > > I I'm not wrong there is one Buddha of the list who was a deva; not remember the name... > I think it appears in the second volume of "The Great Cronicle of Buddhas" of > Mingun Sayadaw. > > All PDF books are available here: > http://dhammadownload.com/MinGunSayaDaw-eBookInEnglish.htm > > > best, > > > Vince. > 8) #115396 From: han tun Date: Wed Jun 1, 2011 7:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna- Bon-sin-san Dear Nina, This is the most valuable explanation on "A Sotapanna" I have ever read. Thank you very much. With mush appreciation and deepest respect, Han --- On Tue, 5/31/11, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I translated a Thai treatise: > > < Issue of Analysis: Will the streamwinner, sotpanna, > not be reborn more than seven times, or more than that? > > Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue: > The Sotpanna will not be reborn more than seven times. > 22) #115397 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jun 1, 2011 8:07 am Subject: Re: What unwholesome quality is this? Hi Robert E (and Howard), ------- >>> H: BTW, aversion is, IMO, an instance of tanha: It is a craving for the absence of something, but it is still craving. >>> >> KH: That is your opinion, of course, and entirely contrary to the Abhidhamma. As you well know! :-) >> > RE: Well aversion is certainly a desire to get away from something, is it not? ------- KH: No, I don't think it is. It certainly isn't in Abhidhamma terminology, but even in conventional reality there seems to be a difference between aversion and 'desire to get away.' In the Abhidhamma world there is always nama, an object of nama, a contact between them, and a feeling that is dependent on that contact. When the nama is dosa (aversion) it burns (injures) the object that is contacted, and the accompanying feeling is always unpleasant. When the nama is lobha (desire) it sticks (attaches) to the object and the accompanying feeling is either pleasant or neutral never unpleasant. I think there is a similarity in the conventional world, don't you?. For example, when a snake is striking at my foot I scream and try to get away. I would suggest that the object of my screaming consciousness is the snake, and the object of my desire-to-get-away consciousness is the idea of a safe place. So even in that conventional situation there are different moments. One moment has aversion as consciousness, a snake as object, and an unpleasant accompanying feeling. Another moment has desire as consciousness, the idea of a safe place as object, and neutral (if not pleasant) accompanying feeling. What do you reckon? Ken H #115398 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jun 1, 2011 10:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Arhatship, devas and brahmas, non-returners,and the place of virtue? Dear Nina, Christine, all, > Dear Alex, Christine, > I just want to add that a non-ariyan cannot become a sotaapanna in >an aruupa plane, because he should be aware of naama and ruupa and >know their different characteristics. As I understand it, and it is all IMHO, that the reason that a worldling cannot become an Aryan in Aruppa plane is because In Aruppa, one cannot hear or read Buddha's teaching. So one cannot hear and consider Dhamma. Similar for "mindless beings" in 4th rupa loka - they can't hear the teaching or consider it. Path to awakening requires considering and studying reality. If there is no mind, then one can't do it. With metta, Alex #115399 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jun 1, 2011 11:38 am Subject: Re: What unwholesome quality is this? Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E (and Howard), > > ------- > >>> H: BTW, aversion is, IMO, an instance of tanha: It is a craving for the absence of something, but it is still craving. > >>> > > >> KH: That is your opinion, of course, and entirely contrary to the Abhidhamma. As you well know! :-) > >> > > > RE: Well aversion is certainly a desire to get away from something, is it not? > ------- > > KH: No, I don't think it is. It certainly isn't in Abhidhamma terminology, but even in conventional reality there seems to be a difference between aversion and 'desire to get away.' > > In the Abhidhamma world there is always nama, an object of nama, a contact between them, and a feeling that is dependent on that contact. When the nama is dosa (aversion) it burns (injures) the object that is contacted, and the accompanying feeling is always unpleasant. > > When the nama is lobha (desire) it sticks (attaches) to the object and the accompanying feeling is either pleasant or neutral never unpleasant. > > I think there is a similarity in the conventional world, don't you?. For example, when a snake is striking at my foot I scream and try to get away. I would suggest that the object of my screaming consciousness is the snake, and the object of my desire-to-get-away consciousness is the idea of a safe place. > > So even in that conventional situation there are different moments. One moment has aversion as consciousness, a snake as object, and an unpleasant accompanying feeling. Another moment has desire as consciousness, the idea of a safe place as object, and neutral (if not pleasant) accompanying feeling. > > What do you reckon? I think that's a good analysis, and I would of course agree with you that there is a different quality to desire and aversion. One is going towards and the other is going away. One is desiring pleasant object, and the other is running away from unpleasant object. Still, there is a larger sense in which those two opposites are two sides of the same coin. You could say that magnetic repulsion is the opposite of magnetic attraction, to use our favorite analogy, and that is true. Still, they both have magnetic charge in common. In one sense they are different in terms of repulsion and attraction, but it is the charge that is ultimately important. They represent an "equal though opposite reaction" to phenomena. What desire and aversion both have in common is that in the larger sense they both are opposite to detachment, equanimity and letting go. In order to reach a place of equanimity that is unshakeable, one must not only stop chasing after pleasant objects, one must also stop running away from unpleasant objects. This is in terms of personal comfort and conditional happiness, rather than getting rid of defilements, which one may develop a different kind of aversion towards, based on nibbida. But everyday aversion is based on fear, desire for comfort, avoidance of things that are unpleasant for the self. Buddha does not run away from Mara, he confronts Mara and when he proves he is superior, Mara leaves in defeat, but he is not overcome by fear or disgust. I think the magnetic charge makes the point really well. All you have to do to reverse the unbalanced attraction reaction that pulls two metal bars together, is to turn one around and that same charge turns into repulsion. It's the same imbalance, the same charge, the same force of desire to have things different from the way they are, rather than simply see what the arising object of the moment is with clarity. I think we've probably both experienced chasing after someone because of desire/infatuation and when they decide to "hook up" with us almost instantly feel oppressed by being "stuck" with them and trying to get away. False desire based on the illusion that the object desired will bring satisfaction easily turns into aversion and even disgust when we actually get the object and find out it really won't make us happy. In my view, there is a cycle of attraction and aversion that keep the wheel of samsara spinning. They are both out of sync with actual reality, acceptance, detachment and letting go of the self's agenda. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = =