#117600 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:24 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Regarding: > > R: "...the last time you studied a subcommentary..." > > Scott: Here is the gist of the problem that inheres in a belief in 'practice.' The assumption remains, despite many, many assertions to the contrary, that study is a 'practice.' > > There is no such thing. > > Reading Dhamma is just reading Dhamma. Those obsessed with practice will think others are also obsessed in their own way. If one is reading Dhamma to make something happen then one has totally missed the boat (and is floating in the pond with the rest of the hard-working, selfless meditators). Yes, there is a fundamental disagreement about the value of practice. The alternative is a mystical belief in a path that is not followed, but which occurs by itself. I don't believe anyone ever reached enlightenment merely by being born and happening into it without trying. The Buddha taught to strive unceasingly to reach the difficult states that lead to enlightenment, but the non-volitional dhammas-only school of thought thinks that the path will arise by its own means, with no relation to effort. Buddha does not say that, and it also doesn't make sense. The path doesn't occur to this or that person who has not heard or practiced Dhamma. So to say that Dhamma study is not a practice is to say that it is a casual activity and yet somehow causes full enlightenment. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117601 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:35 pm Subject: Re: Considering Dhamma more? philofillet Hi Lukas > L: I feel different, my interest in Dhamma is declining. Ph: I think that happens sometimes. I believe the interest you have had over the last few years has accumulated and it will be back. Probably a healthy lifestyle, not too much alcohol or drugs is necessary for it to come back. Maybe. I don't know. If I bet money, I would bet that Lukas will stay deep in Dhamma. It is my hunch. Metta Phil #117602 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:43 pm Subject: Re: Considering Dhamma more? philofillet Hi Lukas > L: With wrong view, but what is wrong view? Is it still real. Ph: Sorry Lukas, I am not strong on wrong view, don't understand it yet. But if we understand dhammas and functions of dhammas and characteristics of dhammas and increase awareness of them we will understand anattaness more and more without thinking about right view and wrong view...I guess. Metta, Phil #117603 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:47 am Subject: How to tranquilize anger & irritation? bhikkhu5 Friends: How to pacify Anger and Irritation? The Blessed Buddha once said: There are, Bhikkhus and Friends, five methods to quell Hate and Anger. Which are these? Towards any person against whom hatred and anger have arisen, 1: One should quickly direct mind to, cultivate and develop: All-embracing, gentle and kind friendliness towards that person... or 2: One should quickly direct mind to, cultivate and develop: compassion and pity ... mutual joy and ... indifferent equanimity ... or 3: One should avoid and not pay that person any attention at all ... or 4: One should remind oneself of the law of ownership of kamma or 5: One should know that this person too is the owner and inheritor of his own actions, that he is born and created by them, that his actions are his future foundation, and that he will have both his good and bad actions as his inevitable future... In these 5 ways one may overcome hate and anger... <...> Source (edited extract): Numerical Discourses of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikâya AN 5:161 Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #117604 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Pt, ------ <. . .> > pt: ... hm, would it have panna? wouldn't that then make it the same as the above one? or it would have just sati, what would then make it like dana without panna? or maybe it has neither sati nor panna - and how is it kusala then? <. . .> Sure, but the real issue is whether in the midst of considering the above there were any panna, or just sati, or neither? ------ KH: I hadn't realised until now that *was* the issue. Until now, I have been talking about thinking, while you, apparently, have been talking about kusala thinking. Only the third of my three categories (wise consideration) was kusala. The middle one (intellectualisation) was Dhamma study, but with lobha and/or ignorance. So it's the kind of Dhamma study we worldlings do most of. And the first one (over-intellectualisation) could never quality as Dhamma study. ---------------- <. . .> > Pt: if it is not kusala, then the same argument applies to this sort of intellectualising that is put against meditation - if the citta is not kusala, then how can it be expected that it will ever condition kusala in the first place - i.e. it cannot actually lead to bhavana in the sense of developing wholesome tendencies, etc. ---------------- KH: It is not kusala and it won't lead to kusala. So what? You and I don't have lobha for kusala do we? :-) Thinking about paramattha dhammas is just part of our everyday lives, as keen Dhamma students. Can we say the same about meditation? Is meditation part of the everyday life of a keen Dhamma student? Where did the Buddha teach it? Where did he say that concentrating on walking (or on sitting, or on the various thoughts, emotions, aches and pains etc that come to mind) was part of his teaching? Nowhere! So why would those practices form part of the everyday life of a Dhamma student? --------------------------- <. . .> >> KH: I still prefer the exist/don't exist way. I think to know anatta is to know "there is no lasting thing here, no sentient being." >> > pt: I think here we differ somewhat - anatta imo is something that is understood during moments of insight (dhamma as object), and what's cognised is that the dhamma is basically not self. --------------------------- KH: Yikes, don't say that! There is a difference between being not self and being utterly devoid of a self and of anything pertaining to a self. "Not self" doesn't tell us anything. "No self" tells us everything. ------------------------- > Pt: That's about it. The whole exist/don't exist issue is completely irrelevant at those instances. Later on though, yes, one can intellectualise what happened in terms of exist/don't exist, but also runs the risk of running into over-intellectualising in the process. Without the instance of insight, it's just empty talk imo, and in fact potentially dangerous talk as we're all prone to falling into the two extremities of wrong view (so the arising of ditthi with the citta) that also run along the lines of exist/don't exist. ------------------------ KH: I think you are confusing "there is no self" with "the self does not exist." In the suttas the former is used to denote right understanding, while the latter is used to denote wrong understanding (specifically, annihilation belief). Wouldn't you agree? Ken H #117605 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... HI Howard (& Rob E), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > S: Yes, the Buddha's teachings are "pretty radical". If they weren't > radical, they wouldn't have needed a Buddha to point them out. What exists > are just experiences through the senses and thinking about them at this very > moment. "No table or anything like it" as you say. If there is no thinking > now about 'table', where is it? > > > >R: Wow, what fun. So there's really not much of anything there. Good to > know as my cittas go floating through empty space, clinging like mad... > .... > S: Now we get to the hub of the Teachings - as you suggest, cittas > "clinging like mad" to impermanent sounds, visible objects, tastes, odours and > tactile objects! Ridiculous, isn't it? When the cloak of delusion is lifted, > even momentarily, at such moments the absurdity is known. > .... > > > ===================================== >H: Sarah, I read through this entire post of yours and came away with the > distinct impression that you were expressing a phenomenalist perspective > that closely matches mine (and that I view as the perspective of the > Buddhadhamma). My eyes and mind perked up most particularly at viewing "What > exists are just experiences through the senses and thinking about them at this > very moment," which, of course, delights me. .... S: I appreciate the care with which you read our messages! These are the worlds which the Buddha pointed out - just one world at a time through one doorway. ... > OTOH, elsewhere you have stated, to paraphrase, that rupas exist "out > there," on their own and not just as objects of consciousness (or mere > experience), an "objectivist" perspective, and not phenomenalist. So, let me > know: Where does your "take" lie, at the objectivist pole, the subjectivist > pole, or somewhere in between? (There's no "right" or "wrong" answer to my > nosy inquiry, but just a clarification for me. :-) .... S: Not "nosy" at all! "Out there", rupas (and namas wherever there are living beings) are arising and falling away all the time. However, in terms of samsara, in terms of the path, in terms of the worlds appearing at this moment, if there is no experience of those rupas, they are of no significance at all, they are not the present "world". Hope this clarifies. If not, please "nosey" on:-)) Metta Sarah ===== #117606 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:41 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > S: When kusala cittas arise, there can be any kinds of concepts as object. It is > the *way* of thinking, the wholesome nature of the consideration, rather than > the concepts that make the cittas kusala. For example, there can be thinking > about "the Buddha" with kusala or akusala cittas. There can be thinking about > world events, food, even surf(!!), wisely or unwisely too. > ---------------------------- > > KH: I am *not* going to over-intellectualise about this. > > However, if I *was* going to over-intellectualise ... ... S: !! ... >HK:..I would wonder if wise thinking really could take a concept as its object. Or could it only take a reality (or a concept of a reality) as its object? .... S: It may be concept as object. For example wise thinking about giving gifts to people or reflections on conceptual death. ... > > Take your example of surf: someone might wisely think, "Even a really good wave should not give rise to greed, let alone to animosity (towards the unprincipled longboarder who has already caught it!). But in that example there are many concepts coming and going at lightning speed. Some are concepts of "wave" and "longboarder" while others are concepts of wholesome and unwholesome consciousness (e.g., "greed is bad, non-greed is good," "animosity is bad, non-animosity is good.") > > And so it is only the latter type of concept that can be the object of wisdom. .... S: Any moment..... for example, whilst making way for those longboarders or showing friendliness, there may or may not be panna arising. I understand your point and I agree there is a danger of over-intellectualising what can only be known by panna when it arises. In the development of samatha, the object is not always a concept of a reality. Good points, none the less. Maybe others have further ideas. ... > > >>>> S: As B.Bodhi summarises, the commentary "makes the important point that there is > no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit > for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of attention. That > mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should > be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome > states should be developed." > --------------------------------------------------------- > > KH: OK but, as we both agree, that is not to say concepts (waves for example) can be objects of satipatthana. .... S: No question. Concepts, such as waves, can definitely not be objects of satipatthana. Even concepts of realities can at best be referred to as "pre-satipatthana" objects, or a foundation, pariyatti. Metta Sarah ====== #117607 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasika is external nilovg Dear Phil, I put some mails together. Op 20-sep-2011, om 2:13 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > Ph: This ties in with what I was reading in PSD today, the > citta as leader, and as home to the other conascent dhammas. > > Citta is always present. And amoung the always present cittas, only > bhavanga citta is "luminous", free from outside visitors, which can > be understood to include cetasikas. > ----- N: Yes, but citta is always accompanied by cetasikas. ------ > That makes sense. Defilements such as lobha and dosa are cetasikas, > and the defilements are the visitors in that famous luminous mind > sutta passage. > > But what about hetu. Bhavanga cittas have roots, they are not > always ahetuka, right? > > What is the difference between hetu and cetasikas? > ------ > N: Bhavangacitta is the same type as the rebirth-consciousness. It can be ahetuka akusala vipaakacitta in the case of rebirth in unhappy planes, or ahetuka kusala vipaakacitta, in the case of rebirth as a human or deva, but this is a weak vipaaka. As a human one is in that case born with a handicap. Or the rebirth-consciousness is accompanied by sobhana roots, by alobha and adosa, or by amoha (pa~n~naa) as well. Hetu is cetasika, namely: lobha, dosa and moha which are akusala hetus, and alobha, adosa and amoha which are sobhana hetus. I use the word sobhana, indicating that they can also accompany vipaakacittas. A hetu or root is the foundation of citta, just as the root of a tree is its foundation and provides its sap. ------- Ph: It can clearly know the smell of different kinds of animals, plants or flowers, the smell of food, of curry and of sweets. Even if we only smell without seeing anything, we can know what kind of smell it is." I guess this is similar to my (and other people's) confusion over the moneychanger simile that is used in Vism, where it says that citta knows what kind of money it is (or something like that, the colour?) when most people assume it is sanna. Isn't it sanna that knows "what kind of smell it is?" Aren't I right in thinking that citta has the power to cognize, differentiate, somehow grasp the nature of different sounds, but it is only sanna that puts it together to remember what they are, based on past marking? ----- N: As to this simile, it compares sa~n~na of a child who knows very little. Tiika to this passage: By way of simile: different degrees of knowing, that is all. Citta clearly cognizes an object, but pa~n~naa penetrates the true nature of the object. -------- Ph: So the seven universals are not considered external. Perhaps Sarah was mistaken in denoting phassa as external? ------ N: All cetasikas are outer aayatanas. Also the universals. These are not static, but they are alive and they are varied. Take phassa: phassa is different according as it contacts an object through the eye-door, ear-door etc. ------- Ph: Oops. Bhvanga cittas don't have roots, they are vipaka so it is the kamma that caused them that did or didn't have roots, so bhavangas are only accompanied by the universal seven... ------ N: See explanation above. Results of kamma. ------- Nina. #117608 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:13 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Hi Rob E (& Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Yes, take the rupas that make up the wilderness. Regardless of whether any beings ever experience any of those rupas or not, they arise and fall away conditioned by temperature. Like all other dhammas, they come from conditions! > >R: So it seems that there is an "independent 'physical' universe" after all, regardless of experience. [If a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it, it may not make a sound, but at least it exists -- as rupas.] That is very interesting. .... S: Lots of sounds when the tree (or rupas involved) fall, but if there's no hearing of the sounds, no proliferations, no relevance to the Path or the world as it appears now. We all heard about the planet they've discovered with two suns, the other day. Lots of rupas arising and falling away "out there", but the world as experienced was the world of visible object, the world of sound as we saw and heard the news, then the world of thinking. Thinking thinks about all sorts of weird and wonderful fantasies. .... > >R: But there are still no "people" or "objects" per se in existence. The "physical universe" as it is, is just a succeeding series of rupas, not an actual "wilderness with trees." ... S: Exactly, if there is no thinking about "wilderness with trees", where is it? ... >R:That again is our concept of those types of rupas, when we happen to run into them, but they keep arising and falling due to temperature whether we see and conceptualize them or not. ... S: Exactly. We can read about the contraction of all the world systems, the "hundred thousand million world-spheres" , the various suns and moons and so on as directly known by the Buddha and certain disciples in ch X111 in the Vism. ... > >R: And Buddha has nothing to say/has no interest in why the physical rupas came into being or continue to arise and fall away. That's beside the point since it doesn't influence the path of the development of cittas to the point of no longer 'becoming' and entering into suffering conditions, which is his only concern. .... S: Again, read the above. I wouldn't exactly say he has nothing to say! With his omniscient knowledge, anything could be known. I would say that, for us, what can be known are presently arising namas and rupas. This is our "only concern", because this is the Path. ... > >S: 4 conditions for rupas - those outside the body are conditioned by temperature only. Those that make up the body are conditioned by kamma, citta, nutriment and temperature. > >R: Is there an explanation for how all these diverse non-bodily rupas arise from temperature only? I find that difficult to understand. There must be some special understanding of temperature that I'm not aware of. It doesn't seem to me that we could get the various hardnesses, textures, visible objects, etc. that make up trees, leaves, grass, mud, sky, sun, moon and stars, just by existence of temperature or variations in temperature. How does temperature cause all such rupas to come into being, rise and fall away? .... S: I can't say. It could be a qu for someone else, like Pt. Maybe more in that Vism chapter. .... > > And does temperature only cause the rupas to appear that we conceptualize as cars, buildings and plates of food? What about the appearance of other people's bodies, other than our own? What about the animals in the wilderness? I guess those living bodies all have the same 4 conditions for arising rupas that we do as "ourselves." .... S: Yes, all sentient "bodies" rupas are conditioned by kamma, citta and nutriment in addition to temperature. ... >R: Well, it's just an odd idea to me that if the world is composed of only rupas, that they would just keep arising and falling away due to temperature, and never stop going. That is a universe of eternal rupas. I don't know what other school I'm interloping from, but I think even in science the Universe eventually comes to an end, though another might also begin if a "big bang" happens to come out of nowhere. [That's about as far as science has gotten with that subject I think.] ... S: Again, see more on world systems in the Vism and also in the Aga~n~na Sutta in DN. .. > > S: ...Yes, each hardness, each experience of the tangible object now as I touch the keyboard, is different. If they weren't all different, we wouldn't be able to differentiate them and associate a "mahogany-type" hardness for any other. So when awareness slips in and experiences an object, it's just as it has always been. > > > > The rupas are different because they arise by different conditions in different kalapas and with particular mixtures of the 4 elements (and other derived elements). Just like each soup pot, each taste of each soup pot is different from each other. > >R: This is interesting to hear - I like the accounting for the different variations in particularity of this or that kind of rupa. That allows for more of what we experience to make sense in "rupa" terms. .... S: Yes, all accounted for! ... > I am just proliferating like mad I guess! Time for a short "brain rest" and then back to more namas, rupas, nimittas, and then hopefully a few more bhavanga-cittas to get a break! .... S: Yes, what would we do without those "break" cittas, the luminous ones without kilesas! Appreciate all your good humour! Metta Sarah ===== #117609 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhas instruction in the suttas sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: See Howard's post #116950. > >"...There is no actual "actor" involved, is there?" > >================ > A:> The Buddha has never said so. .... S: S:Vis. XVI: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." How could the "actor" be experienced now? Which doorway? .... >Furthermore when we look what He denied was the Brahmanical concept of Atman that is permanent (nicca) and totally happy (sukkha). Buddha has NEVER taught the absence of self and conventional (non metaphysical) people called such and such. .... S: !! ... > > > >S:We could act, there is no actual car or body involved, is there? > >================================================= > > Of course there is emperical car and a tree. If you need to get from point A to point B, you don't sit and drive in a tree. You sit and drive in a car. Tree does not have the function of a car, and car does not have a function of a tree. > > Same with, lets say, chopsticks and spoon. These objects have different functions and can do different things. You can't eat soup with chopsticks, you use the spoon. So if different functions are observed, then I believe that it means that there are different objects. .... S: I suggest you re-read Pt's helpful post to you on forks and spoons: #116892. This was his last para: "However, if we are just stuck thinking about whether knives and forks are exist or not, is this not just philosophying on a conceptual level (so no actual insight, towards which conceptual understanding of Dhamma should stear us)? Furthermore, is this not attanuditthi?! In other words, it's not just that we are missing the point of Dhamma, but we are actually engaging in wrong view?!" ... > Of course all of them are aniica, dukkha, and anatta and thus should not be clung to. .... S: Only the khandhas, are anicca, dukkha and anatta. SN 22:17 (BB transl): "At Saavatthi. 'Bhikkhus, form is nonself.....Feeling....Perception...Volitional formations....Consciousness is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' "Seeing thus....He understands: 'there is no more for this state of being.'" Metta Sarah ===== #117610 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 1 nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 19-sep-2011, om 19:02 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > That harsh word spoken by Mr. X will disturb less. It is a > conditioned dhamma, thus, a dhamma, why blame him? There are no > persons, only dhammas. > > D: that is where we want to be . Lot of right effort still > necessary from the point of intellectual understanding up to one's > truely deep penetration (incl. mana ). > Yes , we should take the harsh words of Mr. X with equanimity .But > not because it is conditioned dhamma and there is no person X ( the > chain of conditioned dhammas describe the delusioned Person , i.e. > D.O.) , but as an effort to avoid ( aversion, anger) . > Why blame him ? Well, the Buddha used sometimes straight language > in his teachings. > ------- N: I find the following is helpful: a conditioned dhamma, namely conditioned by (my own) kamma. Then we shall take harsh speech less personal and this is a help. Understanding of cause and effect conditions avoiding akusala. No need to think: 'I should avoid akusala'. ------ > > N:Everything that is real is dhamma. Here right effort arises > already without having to think about it. It performs its function > of abstaining from akusala in answering back in a disagreeable way. > It is not 'my effort' but only a conditioned dhamma. > > > > D: "The monk rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, > > unwholesome things not yet arisen ... to overcome them ... etc. (1) > "What now, o monks, is the effort to avoid? Perceiving a form, > or > a sound, or an odour, or a taste, or a bodily or mental > > impression, the monk neither adheres to the whole nor to its parts. > > And he strives to ward off that through which evil and > unwholesome > things might arise, such as greed and sorrow, if he > remained with > unguarded senses; and he watches over his senses, > restrains his > senses. This is called the effort to avoid. > > > > ----- > N: This is all so true. Not clinging to a whole of a person. > > D: if so , then your comment above makes no sense to me > ------- N: I am thinking of your quote: the monk neither adheres to the whole nor to its parts> To me a good reminder that there are only dhammas. --------- > > D: N: Viriya is a cetasika and it performs its own function by > > conditions.> > > D: not clear what you mean by ' own functions' ? > ------- N: Each cetasika performs its own function (kicca) or task. They operate, each in its own way to assist citta which is the chief in knowing an object. You will find when reading the commentaries and Visuddhimagga, that for each dhamma is mentioned: the characteristic, the function, the manifestation and the proximate cause. > > > D: I think it must be noted that the original Law of Dependent > Origination doesn't include the quality kusala, akusala or neither. > It is -as far as I understand- an extension by Abhidhamma , > wondering when this additional function was consolidated. > ------ N: Buddhist Dictionary, Nyanatiloka: sankhára: This term has, according to its context, different shades of meaning, which should be carefully distinguished. (I) To its most frequent usages (s. foll. 1-4) the general term 'formation' may be applied, with the qualifications required by the context. This term may refer either to the act of 'forming or to the passive state of 'having been formed' or to both. As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, (paticcasamuppáda, q.v.), sankhára has the active aspect, 'forming, and signifies karma (q.v.), i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volitional activity (cetaná) of body (káya-s.), speech (vací-s.) or mind (citta- or mano-s.). This definition occurs, e.g. at S. XII, 2, 27. For s. in this sense, the word 'karma-formation' has been coined by the author. In other passages, in the same context, s. is defined by reference to (a) meritorious karma-formations (puññ'ábhisankhára), (b) demeritorious k. (apuññ'abhisankhára), (c) imperturbable k. (áneñj'ábhisankhára), e.g. in S. XII, 51; D. 33. This threefold division covers karmic activity in all spheres of existence: the meritorious karma-formations extend to the sensuous and the fine- material sphere, the demeritorious ones only to the sensuous sphere, and the 'imperturbable' only to the immaterial sphere. -------- He refers to sutta texts. ------- > > D: not clear to me , in which way are you agreeing or disagreeing > with my statement 'Viriya is the energy of sankhara khanda , the > potential vigour of the mental formation group (conditioned by > avijja -sankhara-vinnana )? > -------- N: I think sankhaarakkhandha is different from sankhaara as in the D.O., see above. And viriya is one of the cetasikas belonging to the khandha of mental formations, as you say. ------- Nina. > #117611 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara sarahprocter... Dear Ken O, --- On Thu, 15/9/11, Ken O wrote: >Also in the SN Book IV, Samiddhi  "Where there is the eye,... the mind, where there are mental phenoma, mind consciousness, things to be cognized by mind-consciousness, there the world exists or the description of the world."  >The sutta you describe is about impermance and this is supported by the commentary of that sutta. So the world as in Samiddhi, things to be cognized by mind consciousness also are impermanent.  It did not solely said, only paramatha dhammas. On the contrary, it tell us those things that are cognized by the mind consciousness so that includes concept which could mean concept itself are also impermanet .... S: Again, this sutta, 35:68, is found in the Salayatana section of SN, the section about the ayatanas, including the Sabba Sutta, the "All", which as discussed many times refers to the ayatanas, the "All" to be known, just as the crumbling worlds also refer to the conditioned dhammas included in the ayatanas. The "All" in the Sabba Sutta (35:23) and these other suttas is defined by the inner and outer ayatanas. "... And what is 'all'? The eye and visible forms, ear and sounds, nose and smells, tongue and flavors, mind and ideas--this, O monks, is what is called 'all'." S: "Mind and ideas" - mano ca dhammaaca - manaayatana, inc. all cittas and dhammaayatana inc. all cetasikas and subtle rupas (and nibbana). SN 35:68 (6) Samiddhi Sutta, Bodhi translation: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the world, the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, might there be the world or the description of the world?â€* “Where there is the eye, Samiddhi, where there are forms, eye-consciousness, things to be cognized by eye-consciousness, there the world exists or the description of the world. “Where there is the ear....the mind, where there are mental phenomena, mind-consciousness, things to be cognized by mind-consciousnes, there the world exists or the description of the world. “Where there is no eye, Samiddhi, no forms, no eye-consciousness, no things to be cognized by eye-consciousness, there the world does not exist nor any description of the world. “Where there is no ear..no mind, no mental phenomena, no mind-consciousness, no things to be cognized by mind-consciousness, there the world does not exist nor any description of the world.†The Pali for the section you quote at the outset, beginning with "where there is the eye..." is: "....atthi cakkhu, atthi ruupaa, atthi cakkhuvi~n~naaṇaṃ, atthi cakkhuvi~n~naaṇavi~n~naatabbaa dhammaa,…pe… atthi mano, atthi dhammaa, atthi manovi~n~naaṇaṃ, atthi manovi~n~naaṇavi~n~naatabbaa dhammaa, atthi tattha loko vaa lokapa~n~natti vaa. ... S: There is eye, there is visible object, there is seeing, there are dhammas to be known by seeing etc. Cittas, dhammas inc. in dhammayatana and so on. All dhammas, all realities, as I understand included in the world. Perhaps others, like Scott, may again have further comments. Metta Sarah ===== #117612 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Considering Dhamma more? upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas - In a message dated 9/21/2011 2:16:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Hi Phil, > Do you have Survey of Paramattha Dhamma? L: Well, I gave away all my paper books to friends. > We are so lucky! No, no luck involved. Sensitivity to Dhamma has been accumulated by past reflection. Your interest in Dhamma is accumulating, just keep listening and reflecting, panna works its way. L: I feel different, my interest in Dhamma is declining. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Do you have any idea of why that is so? And, if so, would you care to discuss it on the list? --------------------------------------------------- Best wishes Lukas =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ Anonymous) #117613 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/21/2011 4:27:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: Not "nosy" at all! "Out there", rupas (and namas wherever there are living beings) are arising and falling away all the time. However, in terms of samsara, in terms of the path, in terms of the worlds appearing at this moment, if there is no experience of those rupas, they are of no significance at all, they are not the present "world". Hope this clarifies. If not, please "nosey" on:-)) ==================================== Thanks for that clarification. As you know, I tend to believe that the various types of material form - bodily sensations, sights, sounds, tastes, and smells - arise merely as object-contents-of-consciousness and not "externally" (in the experience-independent sense), but, of course, I do not KNOW this, and I can certainly see that your middle-way view, i.e., objectivist but with a phenomenological emphasis, might well be the correct one. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117614 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:40 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...The Buddha taught to strive unceasingly to reach the difficult states that lead to enlightenment, but the non-volitional dhammas-only school of thought thinks that the path will arise by its own means, with no relation to effort." Scott: 'Volition,' as the meaning of the term is twisted and misconstrued by meditators, is nothing more than a belief in the mystical strength of the Self. To use 'volition' in this way is to say that it is by 'My Will' that I will 'reach the difficult states that lead to enlightenment.' This belief in 'My Will' as a condition conducive to the arising of the Path only engenders thoughts about 'My Effort.' In this way, conventional descriptions are taken literally, a misunderstanding supported by thoughts about 'My Self.' There are no 'non-volitional' conditioned dhammas. There is no 'non-volitional dhammas-only school' except in your own corn field. Volition as a mental factor (cetanaa) arises with each citta. Cetanaa is not 'my will.' 'My Will' is not a condition because 'My Will' is not a dhamma. 'My Will' is another way of saying 'Me.' R: "...The path doesn't occur to this or that person who has not heard or practiced Dhamma. So to say that Dhamma study is not a practice is to say that it is a casual activity and yet somehow causes full enlightenment." Scott: Hearing the Dhamma is a condition for the arising of sati and pa~n~na, and the eventual arising of the Path. Saying that something is 'a practice' is saying that 'My Will' is actually relevant, when it is not. Meditators can't believe that somehow they and their precious works are left out of the loop as factors in the development of pa~n~na. Perhaps, like deluded gods, a belief that 'My will be done' is very soothing, but so are a lot of irrelevant things. Sincerely, Scott. #117615 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:43 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Phil, P: "...Since you have been away for awhile t[h]ere is bound to be more attention paid to your words, for awhile..." Scott: Just words. Mostly thinking about words. Be careful what you call 'attention.' P: "...things people say (or write) can be objects for useful reflection...When we read, there is an increasingly natural emerging from the book to consider present realities..." Scott: There can be. One can also be caught up in thinking that the Dhamma can be used to suppress aspects of experience with which one is uncomfortable. P: "...Will there be more awareness of lobha or more thinking about lobha, who can say? But there will at least be more awareness of the thinking about lobha, if that's all it is." Scott: I don't know. If one already thinks too much, and thinks that thinking can be a solution, isn't that just more thinking, no matter what the thoughts seem to be about? Thinking isn't magic. Thinking isn't sati. Sati isn't likely the 'more awareness' noted above. Freud may have attempted to cure obsessional neurosis, but the Dhamma cannot be twisted into being another attempt at a cure. Sincerely, Scott. #117616 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:02 pm Subject: Keep it friendly! dsgmods Dear Friends, Please keep the Guidelines for the list in mind when you write. This is how they start: For the smooth running of the list and the benefit of all, the following is the code of practice that we ask all members to observe. 1. Stay friendly and pleasant when writing to the list. Please avoid any sarcasm, discourtesy or overly personal remarks. 2. Betolerant of others' views and opinions, no matter how off-base they may seem to you. 3. Respect the particular focus of this list as a place for those who have an interest in the texts of the Theravada tradition (including the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, Vinaya and the ancient commentaries). The rest can be found in the files section. Jonothan & Sarah p.s comments about this note off-list only, thx. #117617 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: reflection on foulness, etc. was: Can actions rooted in lobha.. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 19-sep-2011, om 20:57 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > N: The metta citta is kusala citta and that is a reality. It is > > accumulated and it can grow. > > That is true even though the object is a concept? Can you explain a > bit how that works? I'm sure you've talked about it before. > ------ N: The object of sati and pa~n~naa of the level of satipa.t.thaana is a naama or ruupa. But there is not uninterruptedly satipa.t.thaana, it can be alternated with wise reflection. This is so natural and I admire the satipa.t.thaanasutta where this is so beautifully illustrated: reflections on body parts or foulness of the body, on postures, etc. These occur in daily life, and we can have reflections about these subjects very naturally and then there can be moments of awareness of naama and ruupa. In this way understanding is developed. ------ > > R: And a second question: Can there be mindfulness at a moment when > the object is a concept, for instance, a moment of metta with sati? > And if so then does the sati take the metta as object and > understand how it is directed towards a concept? > -------- N: Mettaa is a reality, adosa cetasika, and it can be object of satipa.t.thaana. At that moment there is no thinking and no need to think how mettaa is directed towards a being. Why should we? ------ Your remarks brought me to the Sa~n~naasutta I quote from ATI, but I will not quote all. Kh Sujin gave a beautiful explanation of this sutta, I shall quote in part. AN 7.46 PTS: A iv 46 Sañña Sutta: Perceptions translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 2004-2011 "Monks, these seven perceptions, when developed & pursued, are of great fruit, of great benefit. They gain a footing in the Deathless, have the Deathless as their final end. Which seven? The perception of the unattractive, the perception of death, the perception of loathsomeness in food, the perception of distaste for every world, the perception of inconstancy, the perception of stress in what is inconstant, the perception of not-self in what is stressful. [1] "'The perception of the unattractive, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end': Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said?... [3] "'The perception of loathsomeness in food, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end': Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? "When a monk's awareness often remains steeped in the perception of loathsomeness in food, his mind shrinks away from craving for flavors, bends away, pulls back, and is not drawn in, and either equanimity or loathing take a stance....> ------ N: Kh Sujin : when aware while eating we can consider this. At such moments there is also seeing, and at the same time there is no enjoyment of taste, this is a different dhamma at a different moment. This shows that enjoyment is so short. As to the perception of distaste for every world, there is nothing worth of enjoyment in the world. Some people cling to the pleasant worldly conditions (possessions, honour, etc.) , they think of these the whole day and do not develop anicca sa~n~naa, impermanence of these. Reflection on impermanence and then being aware of realities:There is dukkha in impermanence, we may die soon. We may reflect on samsara, there are many lives, birth and death again and again, and as we read in the sutta (here dukkha is translated by stress): <"When a monk's awareness often remains steeped in the perception of stress in what is inconstant, a fierce perception of danger & fear is established in him toward idleness, indolence, laziness, heedlessness, lack of commitment, & lack of reflection, as if toward a murderer with an upraised sword. > Kh Sujin: Life is very short, there is the experience of colour, of sound, very shortly and then gone. There is reflection on events of daily life, but see how it is repeated in the sutta: Leading to nibbaana, this points to vipassanaa, awareness of naama and ruupa. Reflection alone, without awareness of naama and ruupa could not lead to enlightenment. We do not have to worry about thinking of concepts, it is all beautifully and very naturally combined with awareness of realities. And so it happens in daily life. a great demonstration that satipatthaana is not separated from daily life. ------ Nina. #117618 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:22 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Scott (*Rob E) > Scott: There can be. One can also be caught up in thinking that the Dhamma can be used to suppress aspects of experience with which one is uncomfortable. Ph: Definitely. > P: "...Will there be more awareness of lobha or more thinking about lobha, who can say? But there will at least be more awareness of the thinking about lobha, if that's all it is." > > Scott: I don't know. If one already thinks too much, and thinks that thinking can be a solution, isn't that just more thinking, no matter what the thoughts seem to be about? Thinking isn't magic. Thinking isn't sati. Sati isn't likely the 'more awareness' noted above. Ph: Yes, that's facile, in the same way I have accused others, especially Ken H of being facile. But there is more confidence about awareness of characteristics of dhammas, that's also true. I remember you telling me once about moments of sensing sati, moments that were just a little different than the usual thinking. I am aware of those moments and I do believe they are valuable. Lots of facile references to awareness of realities, lots of thinking, but also reading, listening, reflecting, no reason to reject any possibility of sati arising in there somewhere. >Freud may have attempted to cure obsessional neurosis, but the Dhamma cannot be twisted into being another attempt at a cure. > Ph: Now I understand that better. I used to be truly and sincerely amazed that a mental health professional like yourself didn't see that the Dhamma would help so many people in so many ways etc. And I thought Ken H was excessive in his ranting against popular Dhamma as self help programs. And I still think that it's possible that Dhamma will never be more for me than a very refined self help program, a very refined way of improving the state of the khandas. But recently there have been more glimpses of what Dhamma is really about, still just glimpses. But "Dhamma cannot be twisted into being another attempt at a cure", well said. I still fail to be able to stick to these kind of discussions (*sorry Rob E, I'll ditch the one we barely started) I don't think they do anything but create more layers of thinking and stress me out about the way I use my limited free time. Recently I've been sticking more to asking questions, albeit muddle and mixed up ones, poor Nina! Metta, Phil #117619 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:28 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > > > Rob E., > > R: "...The Buddha taught to strive unceasingly to reach the difficult states that lead to enlightenment, but the non-volitional dhammas-only school of thought thinks that the path will arise by its own means, with no relation to effort." > > Scott: 'Volition,' as the meaning of the term is twisted and misconstrued by meditators, is nothing more than a belief in the mystical strength of the Self. That is an extreme view of what meditators think. It is the practice that one has faith in, not the person, and not the personal will. It is the actual *doing* of the practice that one believes will cause progress in development, not control over dhammas or any other such nonsense that are imputed to those who practice. If one has a belief that practicing the violin will make one a better violin player, no one would say that this is undue belief in the mystical strength of the self - it is just obvious that the more something is practiced, the more skillfully it is developed. It has nothing to do with a belief in "self." It is just a logical belief in skill through repetition of effort and practice. When it comes to the dhamma view of practice, for some reason this simple dimension of practicing a skill is misconstrued as a belief in self, because one has a mystical belief in the absolute integrity of independent free-arising dhammas. But just as dhammas arise with cetana, that cetana can be directed, not by self, but by attendant cetasikas, to focus effort on development, on bhavana, and that is what meditation is, it is the intention of development in action. There is no self involved. In order to misappropriate the Buddha's clear words to his followers and think that one should *not* practice Dhamma, one has to say that the Buddha was using conventional language [for what purpose?] and didn't really mean what he said. That is a dangerous assumption and there is no evidence that it is true. > To use 'volition' in this way is to say that it is by 'My Will' that I will 'reach the difficult states that lead to enlightenment.' No, that is in fact a straw man. There are not only two polar opposite choices, either "My Will" or "No Practice." There is practice that is based on sincere effort to do what the Buddha taught, that is not based on Will or Self, but on the spurring on of the Dhamma, the Buddha's teachings. If one follows the Buddha's instructions, that is not Self-based, or believing in Self; that is faith in the Buddha and the Dhamma. > This belief in 'My Will' as a condition conducive to the arising of the Path only engenders thoughts about 'My Effort.' In this way, conventional descriptions are taken literally, a misunderstanding supported by thoughts about 'My Self.' It is your interpretation that the Buddha's actual teachings and instructions should "not be taken literally." If Buddha said "go sit under this tree and practice anapanasati" and someone at that time had gone to read instead, saying "Oh well I didn't expect that you wanted me to take you *literally,* Buddha would have thought that person was dumb as a post. Why would you think now, centuries later, that Buddha didn't mean to be taken at his word, and to have his instructions followed literally? It is quite an arrogant assumption to think that the Buddha didn't mean what he said and that you should follow an interpretation of the path that contradicts his own actual words. That is a dangerous path to take. > There are no 'non-volitional' conditioned dhammas. There is no 'non-volitional dhammas-only school' except in your own corn field. Volition as a mental factor (cetanaa) arises with each citta. Cetanaa is not 'my will.' 'My Will' is not a condition because 'My Will' is not a dhamma. 'My Will' is another way of saying 'Me.' Nobody is saying that but you. In order to support your own view of the path, you are imputing thoughts and motives to others that they do not necessarily have. Meditation is not a self-based effort. It is merely a practice in order to carry out the Buddha's own explanation of the path. Whether you think it's right or wrong, it is the teaching that Buddha gave in sutta over and over again. And it was the practice of both Buddha himself and all of his followers who were not householders, and many who were. > R: "...The path doesn't occur to this or that person who has not heard or practiced Dhamma. So to say that Dhamma study is not a practice is to say that it is a casual activity and yet somehow causes full enlightenment." > > Scott: Hearing the Dhamma is a condition for the arising of sati and pa~n~na, and the eventual arising of the Path. But it is not the only factor, it is a precondition. Buddha laid out an eight-fold path, because there are eight elements or aspects to the path that have to be attended to, not just hearing and sharing Dhamma. On many occasions, Buddha defined Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness as results of meditative practice. The only way to deny this teaching is to invent the idea that Buddha did not mean his clear words and instructions to be taken literally. That is a big assumption and a great leap away from the teachings of the Buddha. > Saying that something is 'a practice' is saying that 'My Will' is actually relevant, when it is not. It is not. One doesn't learn to hammer a nail through "My Will," but through practice itself. You are installing the idea of Will into something that does have volition as natural part of it, but that is done through actual doing, actual practice, not through hanging around thinking of how powerful the Self is. > Meditators can't believe that somehow they and their precious works are left out of the loop as factors in the development of pa~n~na. Perhaps, like deluded gods, a belief that 'My will be done' is very soothing, but so are a lot of irrelevant things. It may be soothing also to think that one need to nothing but hang out, have fun doing all conventional activities, and that enlightenment is guaranteed in a future lifetime just by having a superficial intellectual understanding of how cittas arise, learned from a book. That is convenient for those who don't want to go to the effort to experience what is really happening in the moment, or go to the trouble of developing skill in concentration, mindfulness and samatha. There is no certainty in what you say, only a belief in a particular philosophy, and one that was not espoused by the Buddha. I have no problem with anyone believing that there is no practice, and there is no personal skill to be developed in the path, but it should not be confused with the Buddha's teachings. When I say something, I expect that people will believe what I say, not find a whole series of commentators to change what I said into something else after I am gone and cannot defend my words. I think we should accord the Buddha the same respect. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117620 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:49 am Subject: An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Hi, all - I'm writing just to pass on some personal information to you: Yesterday evening I found out the results of a CatScan, and they were a bit disconcerting. The Scan was originally ordered by my gastroenterologist, because I had mentioned to him an ongoing, mild discomfort in the abdomen. He read the results (obviously too cursorily) and reported to me that nothing seemed to indicate why I had the discomfort, but he did note lots of stones in the kidneys. So, I had him forward the results to my urologist. (I've had a long history of stones.) Well, I saw my urologist yesterday, who is a superb physician and the Acting Chief of Urology at a top quality hospital near me. He told me that most of the "stones" are not really stones and are of no concern. However, he noted something that clearly could be the cause of my discomfort and that is potentially a serious matter. It turns out that just below the level of the kidneys there is an abdominal, aortic aneurysm. It is only 3.5 cm in diameter, but how fast it is growing is important. The bursting of such an aneurysm is a very serious matter, with a 20% to 30% chance of death and higher probabilities for serious consequences such as stroke or heart attack. OTOH, surgery for this is quite major and presents its own hazards. I have an appointment set for Tuesday with a highly recommended vascular surgeon. I expect that he will suggest doing no surgery at this time but instead regularly monitoring the growth. After 5.5 cm, surgery is unavoidable, but it is also unavoidable should the rate of growth become rapid. So, we shall see what we shall see. :-) I'll let you folks know what the surgeon has to say. Hey, ya gotta admit it - life can be "interesting"! LOL! With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117621 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:52 am Subject: view 'I have no self' is wrong view truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > A:> The Buddha has never said so. > .... > S: S:Vis. XVI: > > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; > The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." > ======================= First of all, is that quote traceble to the Buddha? Second of all, it denies Hindu Atman. It doesn't deny empirical self, and neither does VsM denies empirical self. > How could the "actor" be experienced now? Which doorway? > .... Though all six or less. > >Furthermore when we look what He denied was the Brahmanical concept of Atman that is permanent (nicca) and totally happy (sukkha). Buddha has NEVER taught the absence of self and conventional (non metaphysical) people called such and such. > .... > S: !! > ======================================= That is an important point that people overlook. Empirical self and metaphysical idea of Atman are different things. > SN 22:17 (BB transl): > > "At Saavatthi. 'Bhikkhus, form is > nonself.....Feeling....Perception...Volitional > formations....Consciousness is nonself. What is nonself should be > seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, > this I am not, this is not my self.' > > "Seeing thus....He understands: 'there is no more for this state of > being.'" >========================================================= This just rejects that any aggregates are Atman that is nicca and sukkha. It is incorrect to say that "Since ABCDE is not-self, there is no self". It is also another mistake to say: "since these are not atta that has characteristics of nicca and sukkha , then there is no atta of any kind." . There can be other ideas of atta, not necessarily one that is nicca and sukkha. We need to be careful not to use the a word that means different things in different context, and use only one meaning to refute all others. Example: Buddha refuted atta that is nicca and sukha, but He didn't refute atta as empirical, inconstant, unsatisfactory personhood that can do things attakari (AN5.38) . http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html Lets remember that it is improper consideration of "Do I not exist?" And it is wrong view "'I have no self'". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.bpit.html I've used Burma Pitaka Association version and none of the quotes here from TB, so please don't use Ad Hominems. With best wishes, Alex #117622 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:10 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > I am just proliferating like mad I guess! Time for a short "brain rest" and then back to more namas, rupas, nimittas, and then hopefully a few more bhavanga-cittas to get a break! > .... > S: Yes, what would we do without those "break" cittas, the luminous ones without kilesas! > > Appreciate all your good humour! Thanks Sarah, appreciated all your notes on the rupas and other issues. I wonder, when the Buddha is able to see the creation of worlds, etc., with his omniscience, are those special cittas that are able to see such objects [as worlds, galaxies, etc.] and are the objects of those cittas rupas or concepts? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #117623 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: reflection on foulness, etc. was: Can actions rooted in lobha.. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: [K. Sujin:] > We do not have to worry about thinking of concepts, it is all > beautifully and very naturally combined with awareness of realities. > And so it happens in daily life. a great demonstration that > satipatthaana is not separated from daily life. Thank you, Nina. This is an especially nice quote, and sums up the whole subject of concepts and realities and the way they exist together very nicely. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #117624 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:35 am Subject: Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. moellerdieter Dear Nina, sorry for being a bit slow... you wrote: (D. volitional states (cetana): with regard to > visual objects, to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily impressions and to mind objects....) , agreed ?) N: Cetanaa accompanies each citta, it is one of the universals. It can be kusala, akusala or neither. It can be classified according to the objects experienced through the six doors, that is one way of classification D: I take that as agreed .. ;-) N:It is kusala when it accompanies kusala citta with sati and pa~n~naa. D: yes, wholesome when the state of consciousness/mind involves mindfulness with wisdom (?) ------ N: Yes, but it also accompanies kusala citta without pa~n~naa. D: so : "It is kusala when it accompanies kusala citta with sati and pa~n~naam but it also accompanies kusala citta without pa~n~naa .. ? ;-) N: When understanding of a naama and ruupa arises there is already right effort and no need to think: 'I shall try to guard the senses' so that akusala citta does not arise. > D: in respect to (4) the effort to maintain : the favorable object > here to be mindful of rising and ceasing mental and bodily > phenomena .. here the will/thinking is adressed to maintain ------- N: There are many aspects to the four right efforts. D: yes ..and the effort to maintain includes the need 'I shall try to guard the senses' so that akusala citta does not arise' , as for those still in the training the understanding of arising nama und rupa is not lasting very long. Hence paying attention/concentrate in order to go on with the object N:A favourable object: it can also be an object of samatha, as I read in A IV, 14. D: as to effort to maintain it says: 'Bhikkhus, what is the endeavour to protect?Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu protects the arisen good sign of concentration, the sign of bones, the sign of, the worm infested corpse, the corpse turned blue, the festering corpse, the corpse with little holes all over, the bloated corpse.' i.e. the contemplation of the corpse as one of the 4 from Satipatthana . Is is this what you mean by 'object of samatha' , N. As to the citta that experiences this object, this can be realized as non-self. It is right understanding that accompanies right effort that maintains D: samma ditthi , right understanding is often translated as right view . To me the developing of right understanding , its penetration aims to right view (panna). The level of penetration determines as well the duration .. will necessary to maintain.. N(D: understanding of the present moment. We think of stories, people, > situations. > D: yes, the nature of the monkey mind .. the thinking of stories , > people, situations however can be wholesome too when it is wisely > done.. ----- N: When the objective is daana, siila or bhaavanaa. D: yes ND: I think it is better to define that by quality of kusala / akusala kamma ------ N: Yes, these are kusala kammas. Motivated by kusala cittas. ------- > D: seeing or any other dhamma we are not that short moment. In this way > and the moments of sati, even if it is just very rarely. > > D: I suppose you concentrate on sensual experience , but do not > mention what should be avoided (1) , ------ N: When there is mindfulness and right understanding of just sound, no involvements with a story about a disagreeable person. Backbiting is avoided then. D: the mindfulness needs to guarded ( the 4 efforts) as it doesn't last N (D: . how do you treat the effort to develop (see 3) or maintain a > favorable object such the mental image of a corpse ( (i.e. having > one of the 4 frameworks of sati patthana in mind ) . > Do you include that in ' awareness of sound, hardness, seeing or > any other dhamma ' ?) ------ N: Effort to develop: develop right understanding of whatever object appears now through one of the six doors. It is very effective. To maintain, well, right mindfulness and understanding of whatever object appears lead to more kusala citta with mindfulness and right understanding. It is accumulated. D: yes, (our) training leads to accumulation of understanding , in a way that right effort serves as nutrition for right mindfulness ... N> D: I miss the emphases on 'the monk rises his will ' ( this very > crucial of mental formations , the nurtue of viriya in the sense > skilful effort. > Reading comments from some of our friends this seems to be > impossible.. "The monk rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, unwholesome things not yet arisen ... to overcome them ... to develop wholesome things not yet arisen ... to maintain them, and not to let them disappear, but to bring them to growth, to maturity and to the full perfection of development. And he makes effort, stirs up his energy, exerts his mind and strives" (A. IV, 13). -------- N: Will in this translation stands here for chanda, wholesome desire. The explanation here is in conventional terms, but in reality citta and cetasikas are operating here. The Buddha spoke about persons, but we have learnt that there is no person or self who can do anything. However, citta and cetasikas perform their tasks, and the right conditions can be cultivated so that they work in the wholesome way. By listening to the Dhamma, studying the teachings we learn what we did not know before. There is not a person who listens and develops, but it is evident that it all works. D: there is a chain of conditioned dhamma (D.O. ) which appears to us as person, the living being acting (kamma) . In respect to Sankhara khanda ,volitional states (cetana): with regard to visual objects, to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily impressions and to mind objects. "Cetanadham bhikkhave kammaam vadami " (volition/ will is what I call action) ..until its perfection ( citta and cetasikas perform there task) there is a need that to develop the will/desire (chanda) in a direction of right effort (to avoid, to overcome the unwholesome and to develop and maintain the wholesome) N: In conventional language we have to speak about person, I, you, otherwise we could not explain anything. D:Until delusion is abolished we need to work with what we still are N: D: Right effort by guarding the senses provides the ground for (samma) > sati and > (samma ) samadhi, but - as far as I understand , and would > appreciate to be > corrected - that does not really fit to the view of our friends > from K.S. > school. --- N: I would turn this phrase around: when there is sati and pa~n~naa the senses are guarded. They go together with siila. I do not see this as a specific school. Think of the harshly speaking person and not being inclined to answer back. And then I mean not keeping quiet with dosa. D: I have to repeat what has been stated many times already : we have to work/train with where we stand in order to reach where we are supposed to be, i.e. that sati /panna are guarding the senses. The message I get from K.S. is that intellectual understanding will do the job , but I don't think that is possible . (It is that , what Acharn Cha meant by 'they don't practise ' , quoted by Sarah ) with Metta Dieter #117625 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise nilovg Hi Howard, I am sorry to hear this. Health issues are worrysome, I find. I hope the growth is no fast and keep us informed. Best wishes, Nina. Op 21-sep-2011, om 18:49 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > After 5.5 cm, surgery is > unavoidable, but it is also unavoidable should the rate of growth > become rapid. So, > we shall see what we shall see. :-) #117626 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Hi Phil, No, no. Your questions are good and I always like to answer that sort of questions you ask, Nina. Op 21-sep-2011, om 15:22 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Recently I've been sticking more to asking questions, albeit muddle > and mixed up ones, poor Nina! #117627 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:54 am Subject: Re: An Unpleasant Surprise truth_aerator Hi Howard, I hope your health improves. Sickness is hard, and samsara is dukkha. With best wishes, Alex #117628 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:10 am Subject: Re: An Unpleasant Surprise szmicio Hi Howard, > Hey, ya gotta admit it - life can be "interesting"! LOL! L: Yeap, it can be :P But we all have this attachments. It clings so hard to objects, to life. Attachment is the direct cause of suffering. No attachment to life, no dukkha. Best wishes Lukas #117629 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:13 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Scott, all, >Scott: 'Volition,' as the meaning of the term is twisted and >misconstrued by meditators, is nothing more than a belief in the >mystical strength of the Self. >====================================== I think it is quite the opposite, some people have twisted volition (active) as being passive thing. Same thing with kamma and kammavipaka. They are different. Kamma is active, kammavipaka is passive. Kamma is not due to kammavipaka, and kamma is not a passive result of something. >SD: To use 'volition' in this way is to say that it is by 'My Will' >that I will 'reach the difficult states that lead to enlightenment.' >======================== That is a straw man. No real meditator believes that. In fact, for example, Ajahn Brahm's method aimed at showing how will is a selfless process without any Doer. He often teaches that there is no Self that controls the will. It is an empty process. But the will, wills. Energy, exerts. These are not passive states. In any case, there are kusala actions and there are akusala actions. kusala actions lead to kusala results, and akusala actions lead to akusala results. Developing the path leads to nibbana. Not developing it doesn't lead to Nibbana. So what should one do? Use "no control" as an excuse to remain longer in samsara? With metta, Alex #117630 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/21/2011 2:42:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I am sorry to hear this. Health issues are worrysome, I find. -------------------------------------------- Yes. And increasingly. :-) ------------------------------------------ I hope the growth is not fast and keep us informed. -------------------------------------------- Thank you, my friend. ------------------------------------------ Best wishes, Nina. ================================ Thanks for writing, Nina. My best to Lodewijk. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117631 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:27 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello RobertE, You have said it so well in (#117619)! I fully agree. With best wishes, Alex #117632 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 9/21/2011 2:54:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, I hope your health improves. ----------------------------------------------- Thanks! With an aneurysm, though, "staying pretty much the same" is what will be good. ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Sickness is hard, and samsara is dukkha. ------------------------------------------ Yes, I guess so. BTW, and I hope folks will excuse my saying this, I've decided that 'is dukkha' means "sucks"!!! LOLOL! ----------------------------------------- With best wishes, Alex =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117633 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Thanks, Lukas!! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/21/2011 3:10:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, szmicio@... writes: Hi Howard, > Hey, ya gotta admit it - life can be "interesting"! LOL! L: Yeap, it can be :P But we all have this attachments. It clings so hard to objects, to life. Attachment is the direct cause of suffering. No attachment to life, no dukkha. Best wishes Lukas #117634 From: han tun Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise hantun1 Dear Howard, I am very sorry to know about your abdominal aortic aneurysm. I most sincerely hope that it will not grow further and need surgery. I am praying for your health and well-being. with best wishes, Han --- On Thu, 9/22/11, upasaka@... wrote: Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/21/2011 2:42:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I am sorry to hear this. Health issues are worrysome, I find. -------------------------------------------- Yes. And increasingly. :-) ------------------------------------------ I hope the growth is not fast and keep us informed. -------------------------------------------- Thank you, my friend. ------------------------------------------ Best wishes, Nina. ================================ Thanks for writing, Nina. My best to Lodewijk. With metta, Howard #117635 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:06 am Subject: RE: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise dhammasaro Good friend Howard, Ditto on Doctor Han's comments... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: hantun1@... Dear Howard, I am very sorry to know about your abdominal aortic aneurysm. I most sincerely hope that it will not grow further and need surgery. I am praying for your health and well-being. with best wishes, Han #117636 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:42 am Subject: Re: An Unpleasant Surprise epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I have an appointment set for Tuesday with a highly recommended > vascular surgeon. I expect that he will suggest doing no surgery at this time but > instead regularly monitoring the growth. After 5.5 cm, surgery is > unavoidable, but it is also unavoidable should the rate of growth become rapid. So, > we shall see what we shall see. :-) I'll let you folks know what the > surgeon has to say. > Hey, ya gotta admit it - life can be "interesting"! LOL! Wow, I am sorry you are dealing with this, Howard. Yes it is "interesting" - I think there's an ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." I am glad you caught this through your own instinct and got a "second opinion." I wish you the best, and much metta to you, in monitoring and handling this situation! I'm glad you have good doctors to look into this! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #117637 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:52 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, > > You have said it so well in (#117619)! > I fully agree. > > > With best wishes, > > Alex Thanks, Alex. We will keep striving, hopefully with "Right Effort." :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117638 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: An Unpleasant Surprise philofillet Hi Howard Sorry to hear about the bad surprise. I'm reassured that you have access to the best possible doctors and medical technology. > L: Yeap, it can be :P But we all have this attachments. It clings so hard > to objects, to life. Attachment is the direct cause of suffering. No > attachment to life, no dukkha. Well said Lukas. Metta, Phil #117639 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:44 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi all As always, both sides in this debate make good points. Personally, I believe that it could be possible to meditate formally in a kusala way, somehow, but not by following techniques created by modern gurus such as Mahasi. If it is true that all we have to do is follow what the Buddha says in the suttanta, why is it that all the popular meditation teachers use techniques and practices (such as Mahashi's bizarre slow motion eating that almost led to the physical collapse of a dear friend of ours when she was working as an assistant at a retreat? :) No, change that smiley to :( Are there any meditation teachers that don't use invented techniques, such as Mahasi's abdomen watch and slowmotion walking, Goenka's body scan (actually, I don't know the details of his practice, I assume there are a lot of invented techniques, correct me if I'm wrong), Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "breath energy filling the body, breathe through your hands, through your eyes..." (feels great as a kind of breath exercise, just not taught by the Buddha) or the ineffacble Bhante V's relaxing all the stress points in the body and smiling all the time. Does anyone know of a modern meditation teacher who does not add anything to what the Buddha taught? If not, we should stop pretending that the suttanta on its own supports meditation as it is practiced today. We can still do it, and benefit from it in various ways, but we will have to stop saying that it is disrespectful not to take the Buddha at his perfect word, because all modern meditation gurus I know of fail to take the Buddha at his perfect word and if we practice in one of those traditions we are not taking the Buddha at his perfect word either. I don't know how anyone could follow one of those teachers *and* claim to believe in the perfection of the BUddha's word in the suttanta. But maybe there is a perfectly faithful-to-the-word-of-Buddha meditation teacher I haven't come across yet. That would be great! I would be all over that zabuton!!! Metta, Phil #117640 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasika is external philofillet Hi Nina > I put some mails together. Thank you for using your valuable time and energy to sort through and organize that jumble of confusing questions and comments to. Thank you also for a very excellent post from about a week ago about life is just one citta that I haven't written back about yet. I will be rereading both and hopefully asking further questions. Metta, Phil #117641 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:58 am Subject: Sati or facile speculations? philofillet Hi Sarah I'd like to find a topic that we could discuss for awhile. I know a lot of people like posts that include reflection on dhammas in daily life, I like reading and writing them too. But there is also wondering about just what is going on in those posts? For example, this that you quoted from Mike N, who writes very good posts like this, I will always remember cribbage with Rose. > >I noticed, while watching the images on TV and on my > computer screen, that interspersed between the moments > of dosa and patigha and moments of karunaa for those > suffering pain and fear, were moments of lobha--for > the beautiful photography of the blue sky and the > billowing clouds of flame and smoke; for the awareness > of my relative personal safety; for the unfolding of > the story; and even moments of none-of-the-above when > hearing a sound or touching something tangible was > predominant for a moment--in those moments, no dosa or > patigha or karunaa at all with regards to these events > (or rather my concepts of them)--just liking or > disliking or indifference to those sense-impingements. Ph: I write this with complete respect for Mike N, and I could easily imagine myself writing this sort of thing, but why do we think there is awareness of such fleeting dhammas in daily life rather than just facile speculation about what what kind of dhammas were likely to be arising, based on the conceptual context? If there really was sati of such fleeting moments, would our experience of it be clear enough to write about it later? I was going to write a post about yesterday's big typhoon and dhammas that were arising before, during and after, but I held off cuz I want to think about the value of that sort of thing.... Mike, I hope you come back soon. Well, both Mikes! #117642 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:32 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: Only the third of my three categories (wise consideration) was kusala. The middle one (intellectualisation) was Dhamma study, but with lobha and/or ignorance. So it's the kind of Dhamma study we worldlings do most of. >... > KH: It is not kusala and it won't lead to kusala. So what? You and I don't have lobha for kusala do we? :-) > > Thinking about paramattha dhammas is just part of our everyday lives, as keen Dhamma students. pt: Hm, if it's not kusala and won't lead to kusala, then what it is is akusala with moha and lobha. There we agree. Then I think the question becomes - lobha for what? You say it's not for kusala, but I'm not so sure. Say I start to read/listen about dhamma, motivated by moha and lobha. Lobha for what? I don't think it can be for anything else other than for more kusala. More knowledge that will give me more kusala in the future. Or perhaps make me feel better than others because I know more. Either way, get more pleasant feeling. So get more happiness. So, pretty much lobha in whatever form. So, the same problem as with meditation and other self-help stuff. So, wrong practice. At least that's how it seems to me. > > pt: I think here we differ somewhat - anatta imo is something that is understood > during moments of insight (dhamma as object), and what's cognised is that the > dhamma is basically not self. > --------------------------- > > KH: Yikes, don't say that! There is a difference between being not self and being utterly devoid of a self and of anything pertaining to a self. > > "Not self" doesn't tell us anything. "No self" tells us everything. pt: hm, I'm not sure i understand. Suttas generally say that a certain khanda is not self. Or at least it is by those words that the experience of understanding anatta is usually described (or rather translated to describe). Of the top of my head I can't think of a sutta that says that a khanda is utterly devoid of a self and of anything pertaining to a self, though the formulation seems familiar. Either way, I don't really see a problem with that description either, but would appreciate if you could further elaborate on the difference between "not self" formulation and "utterly..." formulation? As for "no self": > KH: I think you are confusing "there is no self" with "the self does not exist." In the suttas the former is used to denote right understanding, while the latter is used to denote wrong understanding (specifically, annihilation belief). Wouldn't you agree? pt: Again, I generally recall the (translated) formulation "khanda is not self" when it comes to describing the experience of understanding anatta in the suttas. The formulation "there is no self" is again something I don't quite recall in the suttas when it comes to description of anatta, but rather only in connection with various kinds of ditthi. Perhaps you could elaborate further on how "there is no self" differs from ditthi. For me, "there is no self" seems to be like philosophical thinking that doesn't much have to do with practical insight, while "khanda is not me" seems more like a description of an experience of insight. But different words can be used for different purposes... Best wishes pt #117643 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:14 pm Subject: Blazing is Friendliness :-) bhikkhu5 Friends: Making oneself into a Mighty Friend: Friendliness means Goodwill Friendliness means Kindness Friendliness means Helpfulness Friendliness means Assistance Friendliness means Support Friendliness means Benevolence Friendliness means Concern Friendliness means Care Friendliness means Compassion Friendliness means Cooperation Friendliness means Mutual Aid Friendliness means Mutual Advantage Friendliness means Symbiosis Friendliness means Sympathy Friendliness means Basic Trust The Blessed Buddha once said: A friend who always lends a hand, a friend both in sorrow and joy, a friend who offers good counsel, a friend who sympathizes too. These are the four kinds of true friends: one who is wise, having understood, will always cherish and serve such friends just as a mother tends her only child. DN III 188 As a mother even with her life protects her only child, so let one cultivate immeasurable loving-kindness towards all living beings. Bhikkhus, whatever kinds of worldly merit there are, all are not worth one sixteenth part of the release of mind by universal friendliness; in shining, glowing and beaming radiance the release of mind by infinite & endless friendliness far excels & even surpasses them all. Itivuttaka 27 He who does not strike nor makes others strike, who robs not nor makes others rob, sharing love with all that live, finds enmity with none. Itivuttaka 22 Thus he who both day and night takes delight in harmlessness sharing love with all that live, finds enmity with none. SN I 208 When one with a mind of love feels compassion for the entire world -- above, below and across, unlimited everywhere. Jataka 37 I am a friend of the footless, I am a friend of the bipeds; I am a friend of those with four feet, I am a friend of the many-footed. May not the footless harm me, may not the bipeds harm me, may not those with four feet harm me, and may not those with many feet harm me. AN II 72 Among tigers, lions, leopards & bears I lived on the wood. No one was frightened of me, nor did I fear anyone. Uplifted by such universal friendliness I enjoyed the forest. Finding great solace in silent solitude. Suvanna-sama Jataka 540 I am a friend and helper to all, I am sympathetic to all living beings. I develop a mind full of love and takes always delight in harmlessness. I gladden my mind, fill it with joy, and make it immovable and unshakable. I develop the divine states of mind not cultivated by simple men. Theragatha. 648-9 <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <....> #117644 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:22 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Are there any meditation teachers that don't use invented techniques, such as Mahasi's abdomen watch and slowmotion walking, There are traditional practices of slow walking, eating, etc., that are meant to merely pay attention to the actions involved with mindfulness. I'm not sure where they start, but there is no reason that the breathing can't be followed at the abdomen or the nostrils. The Visuddhimagga specifies the nostrils, but the original suttas do not. Many of the meditation techniques are close extrapolations of instructions given in the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas, so I would take a closer look - and maybe I will sometime - before deciding they are "invented" rather than "derived more directly" from the Buddha's words. The body scans are also done by a number of different teachers, just very extended by Goenka. I believe the general idea of this is just to focus on awareness of sensation/feeling and be aware of vedana, but not sure where that traditional practice started. Buddha talks about breathing in and out, being aware of bodily formations, then breathing in and out calming bodily formations, in the anapanasati sutta. So practice that is in line with those instructions would not be invented, but would be doing that practice. If they go beyond that or talk about more far-out things, then I would maybe be more suspicious. > Does anyone know of a modern meditation teacher who does not add anything to what the Buddha taught? If not, we should stop pretending that the suttanta on its own supports meditation as it is practiced today. We can still do it, and benefit from it in various ways, but we will have to stop saying that it is disrespectful not to take the Buddha at his perfect word, because all modern meditation gurus I know of fail to take the Buddha at his perfect word and if we practice in one of those traditions we are not taking the Buddha at his perfect word either. Personally I like the idea of going back to the original suttas, which give a sensible order and set of instructions for what to do. Even the Visudhimagga relies on the collection of many years of traditional practices that are not explicitly laid out in the suttas, and thus sometimes contradicts or goes into more detail on what the Buddha said in those original talks. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #117645 From: Vince Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Dear Dieter you wrote: > The message I get from K.S. is that > intellectual understanding will do the job , but I don't think that is possible . > (It is that , what Acharn Cha meant by 'they don't practise ' , quoted by Sarah ) Sometimes I think when K.S talks about understanding many times she is not referred to intelectual understanding It would be nice knowing how this point is considering in the Thai language under their own common use. In the West we have the trend to trace a very clear line because our Reason inheritance of opposition, etc.. I'm not sure if this is the same case in the East. Maybe the word "understanding" lacks of our direct and strong association with the intellect. There is the difference between panna and the common knowledge but I'm not sure if they use "understanding" in a more natural way to illustrate the process of knowing, and then it can be in company of panna or not depending of the explained situation around the same word. Nina or other person who knows the Thai language maybe can help to clarify this point. At least I have this feeling sometimes when I read the texts. (sorry for mt interruption of the thread, just it was to add this question) best Vince. #117646 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... HI Scott (& Phil_, --- On Wed, 21/9/11, scottduncan2 wrote: >Scott: I don't know. If one already thinks too much, and thinks that thinking can be a solution, isn't that just more thinking, no matter what the thoughts seem to be about? Thinking isn't magic. Thinking isn't sati. .... Sarah: Well said (I think!!) Metta Sarah ====== #117647 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:21 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Pt, ----- <. . .> >> KH: It is not kusala and it won't lead to kusala. So what? You and I don't have lobha for kusala do we? :-) Thinking about paramattha dhammas is just part of our everyday lives, as keen Dhamma students. >> > pt: Hm, if it's not kusala and won't lead to kusala, then what it is is akusala with moha and lobha. There we agree. Then I think the question becomes - lobha for what? You say it's not for kusala, but I'm not so sure. Say I start to read/listen about dhamma, motivated by moha and lobha. Lobha for what? I don't think it can be for anything else other than for more kusala. ----- KH: As Dhamma students we know there is only the present moment, from which nothing continues on. With that understanding there can be no thought of working towards some future reward. There is a lot of lobha in our imperfect daily Dhamma-study, but it is just enjoyment of what we are doing. It is not a desire to bring about future kusala. ---------------- > Pt: More knowledge that will give me more kusala in the future. Or perhaps make me feel better than others because I know more. Either way, get more pleasant feeling. So get more happiness. So, pretty much lobha in whatever form. So, the same problem as with meditation and other self-help stuff. So, wrong practice. At least that's how it seems to me. --------------- KH: You are being too hard on yourself. If there are occasional ideas of a formal practice in your Dhamma study those are just temporary relapses. We have spent so many lifetimes believing in a self that continues on; relapses are inevitable. ------------------- <. . .> >> KH: There is a difference between being not self and being utterly devoid of a self and of anything pertaining to a self. "Not self" doesn't tell us anything. "No self" tells us everything. >> > pt: hm, I'm not sure i understand. Suttas generally say that a certain khanda is not self. ------------------------------ KH: Maybe I was thinking about the reasoning Alex brought back from ATI. When people quote Ven Thanissaro as saying conditioned dhammas are not self what they really mean is something else *is* self. --------------------------- > Pt: Or at least it is by those words that the experience of understanding anatta is usually described (or rather translated to describe). Of the top of my head I can't think of a sutta that says that a khanda is utterly devoid of a self and of anything pertaining to a self, though the formulation seems familiar. Either way, I don't really see a problem with that description either, but would appreciate if you could further elaborate on the difference between "not self" formulation and "utterly..." formulation? --------------------------- KH: I'll admit the suttas often say not self, but they also say "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) And: "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found." (Yamaka Sutta) ------------- > Pt: As for "no self": >> KH: I think you are confusing "there is no self" with "the self does not exist." In the suttas the former is used to denote right understanding, while the latter is used to denote wrong understanding (specifically, annihilation belief). Wouldn't you agree? > pt: Again, I generally recall the (translated) formulation "khanda is not self" when it comes to describing the experience of understanding anatta in the suttas. The formulation "there is no self" is again something I don't quite recall in the suttas when it comes to description of anatta, but rather only in connection with various kinds of ditthi. Perhaps you could elaborate further on how "there is no self" differs from ditthi. ---------------------- KH: What's the name of the sutta I have in mind? I think it might be the Brahmajala Sutta. It describes wrong view as including "The self exists" "The self does not exist" "The self both exists and does not exist" and "The self neither exists nor does not exist." The ATI people quote it quite often when giving an example of wrong view, but they just quote the "the self does not exist" part and forget the rest. :-) In any case, the distinction between "there is no self" and "the self does not exist" is that the former is referring to a characteristic of paramattha dhammas, whereas the latter is presupposing the existence of a self and then saying it doesn't exist (annihilating it). ------------------- > Pt: For me, "there is no self" seems to be like philosophical thinking that doesn't much have to do with practical insight, while "khanda is not me" seems more like a description of an experience of insight. But different words can be used for different purposes... ------------------- KH: I can see your point, but anatta is sometimes described as "the void": every dhammas being a void in so far as atta is concerned. It seems to me that experiencing a void would be more like "there is no self" than "this is not my self." Ken H #117648 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 22-sep-2011, om 9:22 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I'm not sure where they start, but there is no reason that the > breathing can't be followed at the abdomen or the nostrils. The > Visuddhimagga specifies the nostrils, but the original suttas do not. ------- N: I checked the Satipa.t.thaansutta: parimukha.m sati.m upa.t.thapetvaa: having put sati in front. Mukha can mean face. Co: Fixes the attention by directing it towards the breath which is in front. I cannot see any abdomen here. Nina. #117649 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Pt (& Phil), I think the following was expressed well too" --- On Tue, 13/9/11, ptaus1 wrote: >So it seems quite irrelevant what the actual action/activity or even a particular stage of that action was happening at the time when insight arose into the nature of a khanda that became the object of citta at the time. Hence why I tend to find KenH's reminders about a single citta a lot more helpful than considering complex actions with constantly changing roots, objects, etc. Not that things don't happen that way, but that'd be a statement in retrospect at best, and just speculation at worst. ... S: As you suggest, in the end its quite irrelevant if insight arose whilst burning the curry, sitting in the forest, reading a Dhamma book or changing one's posture or during any other activity. The Buddha's Teachings are not dependent on time, place or activity and if we attempt to imitate the outer "appearance" in order to develop insight, we go very wrong as you and others have pointed out. Metta Sarah ===== #117650 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nilovg Dear Vince, Op 22-sep-2011, om 9:45 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > There is the difference between panna and the common knowledge but > I'm not sure > if they use "understanding" in a more natural way to illustrate the > process of > knowing, and then it can be in company of panna or not depending of > the > explained situation around the same word. > > Nina or other person who knows the Thai language maybe can help to > clarify this point. > At least I have this feeling sometimes when I read the texts. ------ N: In Thai: kaw cai: enters the heart. I like this . Kh Sujin would explain that there are many levels of understanding: intellectual understanding and this can condition direct understanding. One listen with understanding and in this way it can develop. Nina. #117651 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. sarahprocter... Dear Ken O, I just read through the detailed comments and quotes you gave from MN1 and commentary to Nina on sakkaya ditthi #117406 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote:  > Sakkaya ditthi is also about things outside,  just like an uninstructed worldings does not known earth as earth, misconceive earth belongs to oneself or there is self in earth. This earth can be composite earth or objective earth as in kasina. Sakkaya ditthi is not restrictive to just aggregates, it is about the conventional objects as well. .... S: I don't understand how you come to your conclusion. It's not my conclusion from the quotes you give! For example, taking the last quote you give with my comments interspersed: > pg 38 (how is earth used in this sutta) > > He Perceive Earth as Earth > < of conceiving the bases such as earth, etc which is the generative source of all > the things included in personality. .... S: earth element (pathavi dhatu) and the other khandhas (not conventional objects) which are the source of sakkaya-ditthi. ... >Therein, earth is fourfold: characteristics > earth (lakkhanapathavi), composite earth (samsabharapathavi), objectified earth > (arammananpathavi) and earth as conventional designtation (sammautipathavi). (1) .... S: 4 uses of pathavi, as used in the texts... ... > In the passage: "What friends, is the internal earth element? That which is > internal, belonging to oneself, hard, solid" (M.28/i,185) - that is > characteristics earth. .... S: the first use of pathavi, lakkhana pathavi - the characteristic of earth which is taken for oneself, belonging to oneself etc, when there is sakkaya ditthi. Similarly external lakkhana pathavi is taken as being other beings. We touch hardness and take it for the arm of another person. ... (2) In the passage:"If he should dig the earth, or cause > the earth to be dug." (Vin. iv 35) - this is composite earth. The twenty parts > of the body begining with head hairs, etc. and the external elements such as > iron and copper are also included in composite earth. For composite consists > consists of earth together with tis accompany material dhammas such as colour > (3) "Someone perceives the earth - kasina." (D 33/iii 268) - here the > objectified earth is the earth kasin also called the earth sign > (nimittapatthavi) (4) "Earth as conventional designation": somebody attains > jhanas with the earth-kasina as basis and is reborn in the world of the gods > gaines the name "earth deity" after his means of arriving at such a state.>> .... S: These other uses of pathavi in the texts, such as the concept or conventional object, earth-kasina, are not taken for sakkaya ditthi and I don't think the text you quote suggests they are. This is why sakkaya ditthi only arises when there is wrong view about realities, khandhas or dhatus as taken for oneself or others, not about "conventional objects" or "conventional designations". Metta Sarah ===== #117652 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ditthi at the sense door? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Thx for telling us about your health condition and very best wishes for your further medical appointments. Please keep us updated. I'm glad to read that you have such excellent care. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > >P: Today I think I heard that ditthi can appear at the sense door, > there is "my" rupa. Seems to me that could only be through the mind door... > ... > S: Can be sense door or mind door, just as panna can be at either. > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > By ditthi or pa~n~na being "at the sense door," I presume that what is > meant is that the OBJECT of the ditthi or pa~n~na is a sense-door object. > ----------------------------------------------- S: What is meant that the ditthi or panna can also arise in the sense-door process during the javana cittas, experiencing the sense-door object. As we know from our Abhidhamma series, a rupa can last for up to 17 times as long as a citta. So during a sense-door process, after the seeing consciousness and other vipaka cittas have fallen away, the visible object is still experienced by the javana cittas. These javana (impulsion) cittas are usually rooted in lobha, dosa or moha. However, they can also be kusala cittas. Ditthi or panna may therefore arise. If panna arises, in this case the visible object experienced is not a nimitta but the reality. If visible object is experienced and known by panna, it doesn't matter in the slightest as to whether it's during a sense or mind-door process. The characteristic is the same. I believe it's more likely to arise in a mind-door process in the beginning. Likewise, I would think ditthi is more likely to arise in a mind-door process, but as these processes follow so quickly, it's useless to speculate about it. Metta Sarah ====== #117653 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > N: I greatly admire you and appreciate what you are doing. All you > quoted from Dr Mehm Tin Mon was always very good. It is useful if you > can give us some quotes now and then. I mean, when it is no extra > work, since you have to spare your eyes. But maybe you could download > and copy passages from the book you have to present anyway. ... S: Good idea, but just when it's convenient for Han. ... > Yes, Htoo, our good friend. No news? .... S: I was reading the other day about how in Myanmar, they are allowing some news internet sites now. Perhaps they'll allow DSG!! I remember when we visited many years ago and found that all yahoo sites were banned. (Han, no need to reply to any of this.) Metta Sarah ===== #117654 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:31 pm Subject: Re: Sarah's call sarahprocter... Dear Lukas (& Phil) > >P: I'm sure he will benefit from that but I'm sure there are countless opprtunities to help others. For example, when there is wise response to people's behaviour that would usually irritate us abd we don't show aversion that is a kind of dana called offering others freedom from fear, or something like that. .... S: I think that's a helpful point. We may have problems, be in pain or unhappy, but "suck it up" and show restraint. It can be a kind of consideration for others, dana. > > L: Yes I think this is abhaya dana. Giving people a refuge from fear. > Am I right? .... S: This is usually forgiveness, abhaya dana. Any kind of consideration or help or restraint, thinking of others' welfare can be a kind of dana. Never mind what name! Metta Sarah p.s for the nicotine - a doctor or university counselling service would give you nicotine patches or a medication I read about which helps reduce the enjoyment from the smoking and craving! Now, that's an idea for us all - a medication to fix the lobha!! ========= #117655 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >Mettaa citta is kusala citta that is beneficial. It can and > should be cultivated. > Kh Sujin had a good way of demonstrating this. I said in Sri Lanka > that such and such a person does not like us. She said: it does not > matter, we like her. .... S: Yes, a good example. We just show friendliness, kindness without any expectation or minding about the response. Metta never hurts. ... >Similar advices she gave us when we had problems > concerning my late father who was inclined to critize us. All this is > very practical, not over-intellectualizing. ... S: Yes, again, as you stress, we just give and help when we have opportunities, especially with regard to parents, again without expectations or minding about the criticism. Thx for sharing your experiences, Nina. Metta Sarah ===== #117656 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Thank you. slowly, slowly he coughs less. Hot lemon and Indonesian > sugar helps. He got codaine from the doctor, but he does not like these. .... S: Respiratory problems are very exhausting. If I have any thai pills, I'll send them. Otherwise when I next visit Bkk. I'm sure he'll like them. .. > Perhaps your aunt will be a member of dsg? .... S: I've given her the link. Typing is very difficult for her. ... > Somewhat worried about your mother living alone in the woods. Is that > safe? .... S: As Rob E's New York examples showed, countryside or city-life has its risks. All depends on kamma. My mother lives in a lovely small village. Everyone is very caring and supportive. The village is surrounded by very old woods, but she doesn't walk in them alone. .... > I hope Jon is in good health, .... S: Apart from some skin issues, mostly fine! Busy at work. I have a niece with me in Hong Kong at the moment which is nice. Metta Sarah ====== #117657 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, all, > > Sarah, you have *totally* misunderstood what I've said. Possibly it was my fault at not expressing clearly enough. .... S: You were very clear and I don't think I misunderstood you at all!! You suggested that the Buddha did not approve any commentaries that were given after the end of his life. I disagreed. > > >S: Often in the suttas too, we read many references to the Buddha’s >Teachings as explained by his key disciples such as... > >=================================================== > > During the Buddha's life, He could personally put his stamp of approval on the commentary done by the monk. He could freely reject or correct it. .... S: There is no suggestion in the texts that the Buddha told MahaKassapa, Sariputta, Ananda, Mahakaccayana or other key disciples that his "stamp of approval" was only for their words that he could "personally" check during his life. Many of the teachings recited at the First Council, including the MahaParinibbana Sutta were not "vetted" by the Buddha in advance. It was clear that MahaKassapa and the other arahants were entrusted with this task. As the PTS brochure says: Although Buddhists refer to the Tipi.taka as *Buddhavacana, 'the word of the Buddha', there are texts within the canon either attributed to specific monks or related to an event post-dating the time of the Buddha or that can be shown to have been composed after that time. The first four nikaayas (collections) of the Sutta-pi.taka contain sermons in which the basic doctrines of the Buddha's teaching are expounded either briefly or in detail." As we read in the introduction to the Atthasaalinii, (PTS transl): "... 'Bhikkhus, learned is Mahaakaccaana, profoundly wise is Mahaakaccaana. If you had asked me the same question, I would have answered exactly as he has done.' Thus since the time when the Teacher gave his approval, the whole Suttanta became the word of the Buddha. And it is the same with the Suttas expounded by Aananda and others. "Thus in teaching the seven books, when he came to the Kathaavatthu the Buddha laid down the table of contents in the way mentioned above. In doing so he foresaw that two hundred and eighteen years after his death, Tissa, Moggalii's son, seated in the midst of one thousand bhikkhus, would elaborate the Kathaavatthu as is stated above. And Tissa, Moggalii's son, expounded the book not by his own knowledge but according to the table of contents laid down, as well as by the method given, by the Teacher. Thus the Abhidhamma consists of seven books inclusive of the Kathaavatthu." S: This is all Buddhavacana according to the ancient Theras who have recited all these texts at the various councils. Here's another quote from the Atthasaalinii referring to the reciting of the Abhidhamma at the First Council: "Thus at the time of the Rehearsal at the First Council, held by the five hundred, the company of the self-controlled who recited under the presidency of Mahaakassapa did so after previous determination: '[This is the Doctrine, this is the Vinaya], these are the first words, these the middle words, these the later words of the Buddha; this is the Vinaya-Pitaka, this the Suttanta-Pitaka, this the Abhidhamma-Pitaka, this the Diigha Nikaaya.....Khuddaka Nikaaya; these the nine parts, to wit, the Suttas, etc.; these the eightly-four thousand units of text.' And not only this: the various literary expedients appearing in the three Pi.takas such as the lists of contents (uddaana), chapters (vagga), elisions (peyyaala), sections (nipaata) of single, double subjects, etc., groups (sa.myutta), fifties (pa~n~naasa) - all this having been arranged, was rehearsed in seven months." If you prefer to ignore some of the Tipitaka and all the commentaries, that's fine. >A: The problem is that when the Buddha, and his best disciples such as (Ven. Sariputta and MahaMoggallana) have died, He is no longer with us to accept or reject this or that commentary written/said without His approval. > > That is why in suttas such as DN16 and AN 4.180 , the Buddha told us to check the suttas after His death. No matter what elder has said, we need to check the suttas and commentaries found in those suttas. ... S: He told us to check that what we hear is in conformity with Dhammavinaya, i.e. the Tipitaka as indicated above. The ancient commentaries have been found to be in conformity with the Dhammavinaya by the ancient Theras, the arahats who recited them at the first councils. to be contd Metta Sarah ====== #117658 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. sarahprocter... Dear Alex, part 2 >A: There is a big difference between the time he was alive and after. The sort of check and quality control that He could give when He was still alive, after His parinibbana is no more. Only the sutta & vinaya, which is why he told us to use that as a guide. .... S: From part 6 of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the last words of the Buddha, transl. by Sister Vajiraa and Francis Story (BPS): "Now, the Blessed One spoke to the venerable Aananda saying: 'It may be, Aananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should not, Aananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone." From the commentary to the last sentence above, taken from the beginning of Ch VI, Commentary on the Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta, transl. by Yang-Gyu An (PTS) in "The Buddha's Last Days": " 'That which was taught and made known (pa~n~natta)': The Dhamma is both taught and made known. The Vinaya is also both taught and made known. 'Made known' means set up, established. 'That is your teacher, after I am gone': The Dhamma and the Vinaya are your teacher after I am gone. While I remained alive, I taught you: 'This is slight (lahuka); this is serious (garuka); this is curable (satekiccha); this is incurable (atekiccha); this is what is to be avoided by the world (loka-vajja); this is what is to be avoided by specific precept (pa~n~natti-vajja); this offence (aapatti) is removable in the presence of an individual (puggala) this offence is removable in the presence of a group (ga.na); this offence is removable in the presence of the Order (sa"ngha).' Thus concerning the subject matter handed down as seven groups of offences (aapatti-kkhandha), I have taught what is called the Vinaya: the Khandhaka, the Parivaara and the two Vibha"ngas. All of that, the basket of the Vinaya, will perform the role of Teacher for you when I attain parinibbaana. "And during my life, I have taught these: the four foundations of mindfulness (satipa.t.thaana), the four right efforts (sammapphadhaana), the four roads to supernormal power (iddhipaada), the five spiritual faculties (indriya), the five mental powers (bala), the seven factors of enlightenment (bojjha"nga), the noble eightfold path (magga). In various ways I have analysed these doctrinal matters and have taught the basket of Suttanta. All of that basket of Suttanta will peform the role of Teacher for you when I attain parinibbaana. "And during my life, I have taught these: the five aggregates, twelve sphere (aayatana), eighteeen elements (dhaatu), four truths (sacca), twenty-two faculites (indriya), nine causes (hetu), four foods (aahaara), seven contacts (phassa), seven feelings (vedanaa), seven perceptions (sa~n~naa), seven intentions (cetanaa), seven thoughts (citta). And here too, a certain number of things are of the sensual realm (kaamaavacara), a certain number are of the form realm (ruupaavacara), and a ceertain number are of the formless realm (aruupaavacara); a certain number are included (pariyaapanna), a certain number are not included (apariyaapanna); a certain number are mundane (lokika), a certain number are supramundane (lokuttara). "I have analysed these things in detail and taught the Abhidhamma-pi.taka, which is adorned by the Mahaapa.t.thaana with its countless methods and its twenty-fourfold complete origin (samantapa.t.thaana). All of that, the basket of the Abhidhamma, will perform the role of the Teacher for you when I attain parinibbaana. " Thus all of this has been told and discussed for forty-five years from my enlightenment to my parinibbaana; three baskets, five Nikaayas, nine branches (a"nga), eight-four thousand groups of dhamma: these are the major divisions. Thus these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma remain. I alone attain parinibbaana, and now I alone advise and instruct. After I have attained parinibbaana, these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma, will advise and instruct you. "Thus giving many reasons, the Blessed One advised: 'It is your Teacher after I am gone....' " * S: Feel free to ignore it if you prefer your own interpretation of the Buddha's words! Metta Sarah ===== #117659 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? sarahprocter... Dear Alex & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: My question to you or anyone is: how can impermanent, conditioned >dhammas be "used"? > >=========== > >A: Precisely because of conditions and impermanence can there ever be change (such as progress of insight, development of kusala, eradication of akusala) etc. > > > Permanence would preclude any possibility for change, alteration or development. ... S: The point of my question was to indicate that dhammas, any dhammas inc. jhana cittas, arise and fall away by conditions. They cannot be "used" or made to be objects of insight. Anatta! Metta Sarah ===== #117660 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:20 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) ptaus1 Hi RobE, > RE: Well, I understand your line of reasoning but it bypasses the problems of the philosophy and what affect it may have *on* practice in the moment. > > I agree that understanding the nature of the object of the moment is the real issue, but I think it's side-stepping to say that the issue of how panna arises is unimportant, or that it doesn't influence the approach to the present. Can panna develop now, in the moment? Or is it just conditioned by past panna? pt: I think panna always develops only by virtue of present arising. So, yes, panna can develop now. As for what conditions the present arising of panna, one of the main conditions I think is past panna, whether that means panna with the previous citta, or some time further in the past. But there are of course other conditions, as in the object of citta, cetasikas like cetana, sanna, etc. Don't know much here, ask Nina. I think even "past panna" would in fact be termed in a certain way, like "decisive support condition" or something like that. I have to reread Nina's conditions, don't remember much. But anyway, regarding bhavana/skill analogy that we briefly touched on before, I think this accumulating of panna can be equated to playing of violin as a skill development - the more often panna arises now, the more it develops, kind of like the more one plays, the more the playing skill develops. However, the analogy cannot be extended into the temporal continuum - i.e. the moment I start thinking "I better play more (I better arouse more panna) in order to be better in the future", etc, well, that's now a concern not with the present, but with the future - past and future are domains of lobha and dosa, and panna and insight can only happen in the present moment, so analogy doesn't work anymore. anyway, that's what i think. > RE: I don't know. I think that such teachings muddy the water of what is happening now. It's important to know what the basic setup is. If it's speculative, then you're right it doesn't directly apply to what is happening now. But then why is this taught, and what is its relevance? It is not just a teaching about the general conditionality of experience, but a specific claim that disempowers the present action, the present arising of understanding, awareness, and continues to move in the direction of accepting what arises now as basically a past event delayed. I don't see how that helps the mind be aware of the present as something that is happening now. pt: It's interesting that one and the same teaching essentially leads the two us to completely opposite conclusions - for you it muddies the water and disempowers the present, while it helps me to make sense of the present. > > > RE: and does not seem to be restricted in that way in the explanations in sutta - though I may just not have seen the relevant suttas. It's a very, once again, non-active approach to understanding, as far as this lifetime is concerned, and once again gets into the difficult territory of interpreting the teachings on what constitutes practice, now, in this lifetime which is where we currently are. > > > > pt:... So, imo, suttas and all other texts are primarily meant to encourage understanding now - so kusala citta now. If on the other hand they are taken as a philosophy, something to intellectualize about, and then try to implement it in the future in order to gain something in the future - well that's (usually) akusala citta now, simply because it's not kusala citta now. > > RE: Well that seems to be the tenor of most discussions. I don't know if this is true of you in particular, but it seems that to focus so much on the technical details and give so much importance to exactly how this or that type of moment is produced, along with conditions and accompanying cetasikas, and then to say that the real emphasis is on the present moment, seems a real contradiction between actual emphasis and what you are saying is the real emphasis. Why are there so many massive volumes of detailed analysis and why is it so important, if it is all about seeing the general conditioned nature of what arises now? pt: I think I mentioned this in some of my other recent posts - my thinking is that there is so much detail in abhidhamma so that every possible aspect of experience could be covered in terms of anatta and conditionality, so that a meditator can look it up if he comes across it in his experience and conclude - oh, so this too is just conditioned and anatta, nothing to get too excited about then, etc. > RE: Well it's sort of confusing to sort out what you mean by "describing what is arising now." It would be more like giving an example of what might be arising now, since of course it's not describing one's own current experience. So it is taking the theoretical breakdown of a possible moment, and then, if I understand you correctly, encouraging you to look at the moment now in a similar way. That is very much at a remove from actually spontaneously looking at the moment now. In this way of thinking, everything is indirect and by hopeful coincidence or spurring some unintended process. Well I guess that's alright but it's much more roundabout than what I think would be more direct. pt: from experience, for me it's different. often reading or hearing something about an aspect of dhamma puts my attention to the described aspect of experience. So it is sort of instantaneous, and if I haven't read it, my attention would never end up there in the first place. If that makes sense. I remember once i read that anger is not self and it just suddenly made sense experientially at that instance. But then again, no matter how many times i read about the difference between vitakka and vicara for example, i still don't get it. Which means there's no direct experience there, unlike in the first case. So, it's not like hearing the dhamma now is a magic pill. > RE: All of the writings are either pre-facto or post-facto, none of them are actually about the moment as it is really occurring now. They're all writings. Practice can not come directly from reading as it is giving a spur or an understanding of theory or a push in the right direction, but it's not the understanding of a moment itself. It's at a remove from seeing this moment now. pt: I hope that my above example sort of illustrates the point in a different way than what you propose. Perhaps just difference of experiences between us so far. > > > RE: If in fact that is the case, then any additional purposeful effort would in fact also be arising on its own, since there is no other mechanism to make it arise, other than whatever accumulations and tendencies have led to that moment of practice/effort. > > > > pt: Yes, I think that's right. So, when we put it that way, then the best conclusion to be drawn, as applicable to the moment right now, is that whatever arises now is conditioned and anatta. > > That is the right conclusion, but does drawing that conclusion cause one to realize it directly? Or move one in that direction? That is more to the point. Maybe it does, but it can also become a substitute for seeing. Always thinking about how it is. pt: Yes. > RE: There is the other way of approaching practice, and that is to put aside the books after understanding something and apply them to the moment itself. I think that's more direct. pt: For me, this is in fact the roundabout way :) > RE: The same principle applies, that the additional effort, the practice, is in fact arising on its own, and not because of a person who wills it, but the kind of volition involved is more direct and can be understood and encouraged, rather than seeing everything as an indirect result of factors removed from the moment itself. Straw man? pt: Well, a little bit, in case it is assumed that reading books always results only in intellectualising, but that's not the problem. It's the issue of volition as you point out, and whether it is indeed kusala or not, which is down to each one of us to figure out. Or rather panna will, as Nina and Sarah tend to say. > > pt: Such conclusion hopefully encourages panna right now that then arises with right effort automatically, knows the difference between kusala and akusala, etc. However, if the conclusion we draw out of the discussion is that purposeful effort is better than the non-purposeful one, or the other way around, then what we have encouraged in the present is not more understanding but simply more intellectualizing, most probably akusala. Do you see the difference as applicable to the arising of understanding right now? > > RE: I understand the argument, but don't agree with the idea that there is either a choosing between purpose/non-purpose, or else there is the kusala approach, which would involve no judgment on what is skillful. Don't mean that as a straw man, I just draw the conclusions from what you say as best I can. pt: hm, that doesn't come across quite as what i was saying. Let me try again - it's like two different planes, or perhaps kinds of understanding - one is speculative that operates in extremes of choice/no choice, the other is direct understanding practically, where the issue of choice/no choice has no relevance. > RE: But it seems that it gives a false choice between having no view about practice, or else having an akusala intention. I don't think the choice is that absolute or that polarized. It's more like seeing the efficacy of practice and engaging it. I don't see that as akusala. pt: hm, not sure, I haven't really had "having no view about practice" vs "having an akusala intention" in mind at all when writing the above. it's more about practice now vs intellectualising the now, I guess. Best wishes pt #117661 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Dear Han (and all) - In a message dated 9/21/2011 5:55:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hantun1@... writes: Dear Howard, I am very sorry to know about your abdominal aortic aneurysm. I most sincerely hope that it will not grow further and need surgery. I am praying for your health and well-being. ------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you, Han! This is so kind of you. I'm well aware that you have your considerable difficulties, and I appreciate your writing me. BTW, my wife talked last night about me with our regular physician, a doctor of internal medicine, and he is more sanguine about my circumstances than my urologist, the latter who, probably because we are easy friends, was visibly worried for me. My internist feels that we needn't be very concerned at this point inasmuch as the size is presently only 3.5 cm, and he told my wife "Well, they'll just monitor it regularly, and if it gets large enough, then they'll just put in a stent." (I found myself laughing a bit at his "just" put in a stent! ;-) Of course, that approach is far less invasive and serious than open surgery. In any case, this conversation with our regular doctor certainly calmed us. The more definitive analysis, of course, will come Tuesday from the vascular surgeon, because he will be better able to glean information from the Cat Scan pictures than either of the other two doctors, but I do believe it to likely be the case that our internist is correct and that there is no need for more than slight concern right now. Actually, I regret a bit having written the list about this so soon, but I feel comfort in mentioning my situation to my good friends. ------------------------------------------------------- with best wishes, Han ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117662 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Thanks a lot, Chuck!! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/21/2011 6:11:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Good friend Howard, Ditto on Doctor Han's comments... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #117663 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/21/2011 6:42:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I have an appointment set for Tuesday with a highly recommended > vascular surgeon. I expect that he will suggest doing no surgery at this time but > instead regularly monitoring the growth. After 5.5 cm, surgery is > unavoidable, but it is also unavoidable should the rate of growth become rapid. So, > we shall see what we shall see. :-) I'll let you folks know what the > surgeon has to say. > Hey, ya gotta admit it - life can be "interesting"! LOL! Wow, I am sorry you are dealing with this, Howard. Yes it is "interesting" - I think there's an ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." I am glad you caught this through your own instinct and got a "second opinion." I wish you the best, and much metta to you, in monitoring and handling this situation! I'm glad you have good doctors to look into this! Best, Rob E. ================================== Thanks a lot, Robert. As you may see from my post to Han, we have some reason to be somewhat at ease about this at this point, and we are less apprehensive about the Tuesday visit with the vascular surgeon. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117664 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Thanks, Phil! With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/21/2011 8:30:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard Sorry to hear about the bad surprise. I'm reassured that you have access to the best possible doctors and medical technology. #117665 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ditthi at the sense door? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/22/2011 5:21:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, Thx for telling us about your health condition and very best wishes for your further medical appointments. Please keep us updated. I'm glad to read that you have such excellent care. -------------------------------------------- HCW: Thanks, Sarah. :-) ------------------------------------------ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > >P: Today I think I heard that ditthi can appear at the sense door, > there is "my" rupa. Seems to me that could only be through the mind door... > ... > S: Can be sense door or mind door, just as panna can be at either. > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > By ditthi or pa~n~na being "at the sense door," I presume that what is > meant is that the OBJECT of the ditthi or pa~n~na is a sense-door object. > ----------------------------------------------- S: What is meant that the ditthi or panna can also arise in the sense-door process during the javana cittas, experiencing the sense-door object. ------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, I understand. Actually, without the detailed description, I meant much the same thing. ---------------------------------------- As we know from our Abhidhamma series, a rupa can last for up to 17 times as long as a citta. So during a sense-door process, after the seeing consciousness and other vipaka cittas have fallen away, the visible object is still experienced by the javana cittas. These javana (impulsion) cittas are usually rooted in lobha, dosa or moha. However, they can also be kusala cittas. Ditthi or panna may therefore arise. If panna arises, in this case the visible object experienced is not a nimitta but the reality. If visible object is experienced and known by panna, it doesn't matter in the slightest as to whether it's during a sense or mind-door process. The characteristic is the same. I believe it's more likely to arise in a mind-door process in the beginning. Likewise, I would think ditthi is more likely to arise in a mind-door process, but as these processes follow so quickly, it's useless to speculate about it. -------------------------------------------- HCW: Okay. And speculating in public is frowned upon in polite circles anyway! (Sorry - just couldn't resist. ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Metta Sarah =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117666 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:35 pm Subject: Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara scottduncan2 Sarah and Ken O, S: "...Perhaps others, like Scott, may again have further comments." Scott: If concepts are time-freed, as they are said to be, how can they be impermanent? If Ken O's argument rests on the impermanence of concepts, then it founders on this point. The question seems to amount to: 'How do the contents of thought relate to the development of pa~n~na?' Sincerely, Scott. #117667 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:44 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...When I say something, I expect that people will believe what I say..." Scott: This is an unreasonable expectation. Were one to give it up, Dhamma discussion might proceed more profitably. In my case, I simply disagree with you. I don't 'believe' what you say. I 'believe' you are wrong. Sincerely, Scott. #117668 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Sarah, Sarah: "...(I think!!)" Scott: That's about what it is most of the time. Sincerely, Scott. #117669 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:54 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "Yes, that's facile...' Scott: I don't agree, since I'm as aware as you of the utter complexity of it all. As for having a simplistic approach, well, who doesn't? Ph: "...I used to be truly and sincerely amazed that a mental health professional like yourself didn't see that the Dhamma would help so many people in so many ways etc...recently there have been more glimpses of what Dhamma is really about..." Scott: Glad you finally are giving that one up. Sincerely, Scott. #117670 From: han tun Date: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise hantun1 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Dear Howard, I am glad to know that your internist feels that you needn't be very concerned at this point inasmuch as the size is presently only 3.5 cm, and that it may need only to monitor regularly, and even if it gets large enough, may just require endovascular stent grafting which is quite safe. I join you and your wife in believing that your internist is correct. with my sincere best wishes, Han --- On Thu, 9/22/11, upasaka@... wrote: Thank you, Han! This is so kind of you. I'm well aware that you have your considerable difficulties, and I appreciate your writing me. BTW, my wife talked last night about me with our regular physician, a doctor of internal medicine, and he is more sanguine about my circumstances than my urologist, the latter who, probably because we are easy friends, was visibly worried for me. My internist feels that we needn't be very concerned at this point inasmuch as the size is presently only 3.5 cm, and he told my wife "Well, they'll just monitor it regularly, and if it gets large enough, then they'll just put in a stent." (I found myself laughing a bit at his "just" put in a stent! ;-) Of course, that approach is far less invasive and serious than open surgery. In any case, this conversation with our regular doctor certainly calmed us. The more definitive analysis, of course, will come Tuesday from the vascular surgeon, because he will be better able to glean information from the Cat Scan pictures than either of the other two doctors, but I do believe it to likely be the case that our internist is correct and that there is no need for more than slight concern right now. Actually, I regret a bit having written the list about this so soon, but I feel comfort in mentioning my situation to my good friends. With metta, Howard #117671 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: worry, was :atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you for your concern and kind offer. We have similar pills in Holland and he did not take so much to the Thai ones. But now he hardly needs them. There seem to be all the time occasions for worry about his health, then this, then that. So many doctors' appointments, different doctors. But then we think of Howard and we find that more serious. Always sucking, as he says. Kh Sujin said something very helpful, also for me when I worry: I better take that to heart, but sometimes difficult. Thank you for writing, Nina. Op 22-sep-2011, om 11:51 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > S: Respiratory problems are very exhausting. If I have any thai > pills, I'll send them. Otherwise when I next visit Bkk. I'm sure > he'll like them. #117672 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:50 am Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear pt, Op 22-sep-2011, om 12:20 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > pt: I think panna always develops only by virtue of present > arising. So, yes, panna can develop now. As for what conditions the > present arising of panna, one of the main conditions I think is > past panna, whether that means panna with the previous citta, or > some time further in the past. But there are of course other > conditions, as in the object of citta, cetasikas like cetana, > sanna, etc. Don't know much here, ask Nina. I think even "past > panna" would in fact be termed in a certain way, like "decisive > support condition" or something like that. I have to reread Nina's > conditions, don't remember much. ------ N: We listen because we have accumulated the interest to listen. We listened in the past. Pakatupanissaya paccaya, translated as natural decisive support. Pakat comes from pakati natural, but also from pakata: what is well done, often done. As we listen we come to understand more, we can listen with understanding. For example, I was reminded that thinking with worry is so short, that while seeing, there is no thinking at the same time. Formerly this would never have occurred to me. We learn things we did not know before. ----- Nina. #117673 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise nilovg Hi Howard, Op 22-sep-2011, om 13:21 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > In any case, this conversation with our > regular doctor certainly calmed us. The more definitive analysis, > of course, > will come Tuesday from the vascular surgeon, because he will be better > able to glean information from the Cat Scan pictures than either of > the other > two doctors, but I do believe it to likely be the case that our > internist > is correct and that there is no need for more than slight concern > right now. > Actually, I regret a bit having written the list about this so > soon, but I > feel comfort in mentioning my situation to my good friends. ------ N: I am glad you were somewhat reassured. Yes, I have the same, it helps to write to good friends. But for me, I was glad so hear that thinking with worry is so short, the worry is there only at the moments of thinking. Lodewijk also said that he sympathizes. We are thinking of you. Nina. #117674 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011), part 1. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 10-sep-2011, om 0:44 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: Guarding the sense doors is usually defined in terms of not > grasping the sign or something like that. I think in Vism there is > the metaphir of a crocidile grasping an object and a leech sucking > on an object to get at how mind moves from sign to details. So it > is always nimitta of reailties that is the object of this grasp and > sucking process. Right? > ------- N: Not in this case. We cling to wholes, collections of things, nimitta of man, woman, animal. > ----- > . Acharn Sujin used the simile of a torch that > > is swung around. In this way, we have the impression of a whole, > of a > > circle of light. > > Ph: I love this simile. Do you know the reference? > ------ N: I cannot remember, perhaps in a commentary. ----- Nina. #117675 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 19-sep-2011, om 20:06 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I wonder what you think the purpose or intent of metta is when it > arises *with* panna, that is to say, with dhamma as object rather > than concept? It seems strange to have metta towards a momentary > object rather than a being. Is there an explanation for how this > makes sense? What is the object, in other words, of fully wise metta? ------- N: Moments of thinking of a person alternate with sampaja~n~na, awarenes of ultimate realities. Then the mettacitta can be object of understanding. It moves us away from thinking stories about the person one extends metta to. Even if he is not responsive metta will not be less. Remember what Kh Sujin said: it does not matter if she does not like us, we like her. A truth expressed in simple words. Metta can become purer less mixed with selfish affection, the near enemy! Also: less inclination to cling to my mettaa. It is a gain when pa~n~naa can arise, the effect will be more metta, not less. Think of the Buddha's endless metta and compassion. ------ Nina. #117676 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma nilovg Dear Phil, Op 18-sep-2011, om 15:03 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I think A.Sujin is wrong to assume that all meditators are > misguided and follow techniques with wrong view. Meditation can > happen in a kusala way. ------- N: You made a statement here, but could you quote what she said precisely? ------ Nina. #117677 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma philofillet Hi Nina > > I think A.Sujin is wrong to assume that all meditators are > > misguided and follow techniques with wrong view. Meditation can > > happen in a kusala way. > ------- > N: You made a statement here, but could you quote what she said exactly. Ph: I remember wondering when she said that for samatha there must be understanding of the difference between the characteristics of samattha (which must be kusala) and lobha why there was an assumption that there could not be such understanding for a meditator... Metta, Phil #117678 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 22-sep-2011, om 9:22 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I'm not sure where they start, but there is no reason that the > > breathing can't be followed at the abdomen or the nostrils. The > > Visuddhimagga specifies the nostrils, but the original suttas do not. > ------- > N: I checked the Satipa.t.thaansutta: parimukha.m sati.m > upa.t.thapetvaa: having put sati in front. Mukha can mean face. > Co: Fixes the attention by directing it towards the breath which is > in front. > I cannot see any abdomen here. It makes sense that the commentaries and Visudhimagga would share this understanding of the sutta's words. And that may possibly be the only good interpretation. However, I wonder if it is also possible that it means "puts mindfulness to the fore," ie, "frontmost in one's mind or intention," which is the sense that some translators have given for that passage? I wonder if the Pali is especially geared towards one of those meanings, or if they are both possible interpretations? When one attends the "entire body of the breath," as many interpret "body" in the passage further along, there is a sense of mindfulness having a broader range to follow the entire course of the breath. In this case, the focal point on the nostrils would not make as much sense, at least at that stage. Some have suggested that the nostrils remain a focal point, as Vism. asserts, but that from that focal point the attention follows the movement of the breath as it expands and contracts at that point. If that is the case, the abdomen and ribs areas would be included in the "journey" that awareness takes through the course of the breath. I would guess that for the advanced, at that point they would be following the attendant rupas at each stage, from nostrils through the abdomen and ribs as the breath expands, and then back to the nostrils. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117679 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Hi again, Han - In a message dated 9/22/2011 9:56:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hantun1@... writes: Dear Howard, I am glad to know that your internist feels that you needn't be very concerned at this point inasmuch as the size is presently only 3.5 cm, and that it may need only to monitor regularly, and even if it gets large enough, may just require endovascular stent grafting which is quite safe. -------------------------------------------- Good to hear! ------------------------------------------ I join you and your wife in believing that your internist is correct. -------------------------------------------- Yes, for the time being. We'll have a better idea after seeing the surgeon. ------------------------------------------- with my sincere best wishes, Han ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117680 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/22/2011 10:55:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 22-sep-2011, om 13:21 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > In any case, this conversation with our > regular doctor certainly calmed us. The more definitive analysis, > of course, > will come Tuesday from the vascular surgeon, because he will be better > able to glean information from the Cat Scan pictures than either of > the other > two doctors, but I do believe it to likely be the case that our > internist > is correct and that there is no need for more than slight concern > right now. > Actually, I regret a bit having written the list about this so > soon, but I > feel comfort in mentioning my situation to my good friends. ------ N: I am glad you were somewhat reassured. Yes, I have the same, it helps to write to good friends. But for me, I was glad so hear that thinking with worry is so short, the worry is there only at the moments of thinking. Lodewijk also said that he sympathizes. We are thinking of you. ---------------------------------------------- Thank you, Nina. I think of you & Lodewijk a lot! :-) --------------------------------------------- Nina. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117681 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011), part 1. philofillet Hi Nina Today I heard about nimitta, even at vipassana nana of rising and fall away of nama and rupa, still nimitta. You wre surprised, but A.S said do we have to say nimitta, without paramattha dhammas can there be nimitta? Still, one would think at least at advanced vipassana nana there would be direct awareness of dhammas, without nimitta. Also, I usually think of nimitta of rupa but tgerw is nimitta of all khandas. Nimitta of vedana for example, harder for me to understand than nimitta of visoble object... Metta, Phil #117682 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:00 am Subject: Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: The point of my question was to indicate that dhammas, any dhammas >inc. jhana cittas, arise and fall away by conditions. They cannot be >"used" or made to be objects of insight. >Anatta! >================================================ Sure that things happen due to conditions. One of the condition is presently arisen intention. For example you can look to the right or to the left. Each of these actions requires certain conditions (such as functional body and being alive). These are conditions, sure. But the trigger is present intention that you have. I believe that intention in present moment is extremely important. We do not live due to past conditions. The past conditioning sure can play a part (it deals the cards) but how you play with the cards dealt now is dependent on present intentional actions. As you know, Kamma that one does is not vipaka. Thus one can freely choose to do this or that kamma. One is not a killer, a thief, seducer, liar, or whatever due to past kamma. There is no choice about the occurrence of kammavipaka that will occur. I don't believe that it is correct or prudent to say that "I couldn't resist... It was meant to happened due to conditions that I did this akusala kamma". With best wishes, Alex #117683 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. truth_aerator Dear Sarah, All, >S: "For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and >the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone." >==================================================== There you go, the quote disproves the approval for commentaries. Sutta and Vinaya is the teacher, not this or that monk. The story of Buddha teaching Abhidhamma Pitaka is not found in the suttas. There is not a single quote about Buddha telling that He taught Abhidhamma >" Thus all of this has been told and discussed for forty-five years >from my > enlightenment to my parinibbaana; three baskets, five >Nikaayas, nine > branches (a"nga), eight-four thousand groups of >dhamma: >============================ And the classification & formating into Nikayas and (initially two) baskets was done AFTER Buddha's death. The historical research clearly states that Abhidhamma Pitaka was compiled after Buddha >S: Feel free to ignore it if you prefer your own interpretation of >the Buddha's words! >============================================= I prefer what is considered to be His words. The problem is that all those quotes about him teaching Abhidhamma came from the commentaries made long time after he is gone (to which the Buddha cannot possibly object due to his parinibbana!) The problem is that since the Buddha is gone, He cannot tell us which commentary is right and which is wrong. There have been many commentators from many different traditions. Considering that Buddha was the best, it is doubtful if anyone could explain Dhamma as good or better than Him. Zen tradition also says that the Buddha taught Zen teachings outside of suttas to Mahakassapa, and then from Mahakassapa there was unbroken linege of teachers up to modern times. Why shouldn't I believe this? Or why shouldn't I believe that Buddha had three turnings of the Wheel. At first he taught Savaka doctrine, at 2nd and 3rd He taught more advanced doctrine designed to explain the first turning better. With best wishes, Alex #117685 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:39 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear Scott, all, >Scott: This is an unreasonable expectation. Were one to give it up, >Dhamma discussion might proceed more profitably. >========================= I believe it is unreasonable to say that whenever Buddha talked about "Do this, strive hard, etc" what He really meant was that one should NOT do that, and should not ever strive hard. Such assumption that He didn't express Himself clearly is really unfair trick to reinterpret what He has said in a way that one wants. I think we should take what He meant by what He actually said. I think it is heretical to imply that He couldn't explain Himself clearer and kept saying opposite of what He intended. Furthermore, nowhere has He said that doing this or that in any way implies developing "self view", and the belief in "don't do practice because you are trying to control reality" I've only heard here and by DSG followers. I don't remember any single real Buddhist teacher that taught to "control reality". And neither do I remember reading ANYWHERE in the suttas about Buddha saying that you should not control thing. If anyone knows pali for no-control and such, please post them and I can e-search them in Tipitaka. The thousands of pages that I've read in English, don't teach "do not do anything or you'll develop Self View". ====== Just as a strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts - imbued with desire, aversion or delusion - still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then - with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth - he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As - with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth - he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.005.than.html "And what, monks, is right effort? "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. ...for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen....for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen....for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." [alex: I've removed repetitions] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html I am very unhappy when I hear that the Buddha has never taught about intentional effort. He plainly did, and I don't know what He could have said to make it more clear. With best wishes, Alex #117686 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:43 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi pt. Okay, you win - with my help you have now created the mother of all marathon posts - at least so far this year! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > Hi RobE, > > > RE: Well, I understand your line of reasoning but it bypasses the problems of the philosophy and what affect it may have *on* practice in the moment. > > > > I agree that understanding the nature of the object of the moment is the real issue, but I think it's side-stepping to say that the issue of how panna arises is unimportant, or that it doesn't influence the approach to the present. Can panna develop now, in the moment? Or is it just conditioned by past panna? > > pt: I think panna always develops only by virtue of present arising. So, yes, panna can develop now. As for what conditions the present arising of panna, one of the main conditions I think is past panna, whether that means panna with the previous citta, or some time further in the past. But there are of course other conditions, as in the object of citta, cetasikas like cetana, sanna, etc. Don't know much here, ask Nina. I think even "past panna" would in fact be termed in a certain way, like "decisive support condition" or something like that. I have to reread Nina's conditions, don't remember much. > > But anyway, regarding bhavana/skill analogy that we briefly touched on before, I think this accumulating of panna can be equated to playing of violin as a skill development - the more often panna arises now, the more it develops, kind of like the more one plays, the more the playing skill develops. However, the analogy cannot be extended into the temporal continuum - i.e. the moment I start thinking "I better play more (I better arouse more panna) in order to be better in the future", etc, well, that's now a concern not with the present, but with the future - past and future are domains of lobha and dosa, and panna and insight can only happen in the present moment, so analogy doesn't work anymore. anyway, that's what i think. I would agree with this to a good extent; I would only add that I think that practice is very present-oriented. It is a not a thought-process about "doing more in the future." It is focused on the object of awareness now. If I practiced clarinet - or mindfulness for that matter - thinking about result instead of present object/present tone, present sensation, I would become a really lousy clarinet player. That's not how it works. In fact, practice focuses the mind much more on the present object than it normally is, by virtue of the practical necessity of the task at hand, with no special thought of self. > > RE: I don't know. I think that such teachings muddy the water of what is happening now. It's important to know what the basic setup is. If it's speculative, then you're right it doesn't directly apply to what is happening now. But then why is this taught, and what is its relevance? It is not just a teaching about the general conditionality of experience, but a specific claim that disempowers the present action, the present arising of understanding, awareness, and continues to move in the direction of accepting what arises now as basically a past event delayed. I don't see how that helps the mind be aware of the present as something that is happening now. > > pt: It's interesting that one and the same teaching essentially leads the two us to completely opposite conclusions - for you it muddies the water and disempowers the present, while it helps me to make sense of the present. Well I can see how it can inform the approach to the present if the information is held in the right context, and then not "applied intellectually" at the moment of seeing, but informs the moment of seeing as a background knowledge. I think that's what K. Sujin is driving at with some of her comments about 'not worrying about what things are called or thinking about them, but just seeing what is arising now.' > > > > RE: and does not seem to be restricted in that way in the explanations in sutta - though I may just not have seen the relevant suttas. It's a very, once again, non-active approach to understanding, as far as this lifetime is concerned, and once again gets into the difficult territory of interpreting the teachings on what constitutes practice, now, in this lifetime which is where we currently are. > > > > > > pt:... So, imo, suttas and all other texts are primarily meant to encourage understanding now - so kusala citta now. If on the other hand they are taken as a philosophy, something to intellectualize about, and then try to implement it in the future in order to gain something in the future - well that's (usually) akusala citta now, simply because it's not kusala citta now. > > > > RE: Well that seems to be the tenor of most discussions. I don't know if this is true of you in particular, but it seems that to focus so much on the technical details and give so much importance to exactly how this or that type of moment is produced, along with conditions and accompanying cetasikas, and then to say that the real emphasis is on the present moment, seems a real contradiction between actual emphasis and what you are saying is the real emphasis. Why are there so many massive volumes of detailed analysis and why is it so important, if it is all about seeing the general conditioned nature of what arises now? > > pt: I think I mentioned this in some of my other recent posts - my thinking is that there is so much detail in abhidhamma so that every possible aspect of experience could be covered in terms of anatta and conditionality, so that a meditator can look it up if he comes across it in his experience and conclude - oh, so this too is just conditioned and anatta, nothing to get too excited about then, etc. That is an interesting way of looking at it. I'm not sure if others, who study the details to get a much more specific understanding of the working of all the various conditions and cetasikas are seeing it as a just a reference resource for experience. But that is a nice active approach to take. > > > RE: Well it's sort of confusing to sort out what you mean by "describing what is arising now." It would be more like giving an example of what might be arising now, since of course it's not describing one's own current experience. So it is taking the theoretical breakdown of a possible moment, and then, if I understand you correctly, encouraging you to look at the moment now in a similar way. That is very much at a remove from actually spontaneously looking at the moment now. In this way of thinking, everything is indirect and by hopeful coincidence or spurring some unintended process. Well I guess that's alright but it's much more roundabout than what I think would be more direct. > > pt: from experience, for me it's different. often reading or hearing something about an aspect of dhamma puts my attention to the described aspect of experience. So it is sort of instantaneous, and if I haven't read it, my attention would never end up there in the first place. If that makes sense. That does make sense. That is more like the field biologist who reads about a certain kind of newt and then is excited about spotting one 'in the wild.' I think that approach, which is sometimes paid reference to as a kind of 'maybe it will happen sometime' is very worthwhile if it happens regularly. If the way it happens is by reading and then noticing, then that is a 'real practice' in my view. > I remember once i read that anger is not self and it just suddenly made sense experientially at that instance. But then again, no matter how many times i read about the difference between vitakka and vicara for example, i still don't get it. That's funny, because when I heard about vitakka I got extremely excited about it. I kept seeing the image in my mind of citta reaching out to an object and poking, beatin, turning it over, all the expressions they use for this, and exploring the nature of the object by this kind of poking around at it and seeing what it is really like. It's affected the way I think about things sometimes, and I think I may experience 'objects of thought' a little differently because of that idea. Something similar happened to me when I first really heard about jhana in more detail a few years ago. I have little hope of experiencing jhana, at least that I know of, in my current regimen [you had a better chance with your long meditations in the past,] but for unknown reasons it touched off a sense of something and really brought up a lot of moments of thought, consideration, investigation, etc. I really don't know why. Maybe there is some accumulation that has been latent and was touched off to the next stage of preparation for jhana in the future... > Which means there's no direct experience there, unlike in the first case. So, it's not like hearing the dhamma now is a magic pill. Well maybe different items touch off different perceptions and thought-processes in different "people" [cittas.] > > RE: All of the writings are either pre-facto or post-facto, none of them are actually about the moment as it is really occurring now. They're all writings. Practice can not come directly from reading as it is giving a spur or an understanding of theory or a push in the right direction, but it's not the understanding of a moment itself. It's at a remove from seeing this moment now. > > pt: I hope that my above example sort of illustrates the point in a different way than what you propose. Perhaps just difference of experiences between us so far. Or just differences in how we think the info is used. I never dismissed the idea of the descriptions touching off perceptions and knowing of different kinds. I am mostly concerned for whatever we "do" with the Dhamma - or that it does with us, if that is more like it - that it be real; have a real effect, be a real practice, and that whatever theory we have about it is somehow realized in the actuality of living so that the path is not just a guess or a belief, but it really does develop the enlightenment factors and move towards transformation and cessation. I don't really care if it takes a bunch of lifetimes, but I also don't want to fool myself through philosophy into thinking something is happening that is just an idea. > > > > RE: If in fact that is the case, then any additional purposeful effort would in fact also be arising on its own, since there is no other mechanism to make it arise, other than whatever accumulations and tendencies have led to that moment of practice/effort. > > > > > > pt: Yes, I think that's right. So, when we put it that way, then the best conclusion to be drawn, as applicable to the moment right now, is that whatever arises now is conditioned and anatta. > > > > That is the right conclusion, but does drawing that conclusion cause one to realize it directly? Or move one in that direction? That is more to the point. Maybe it does, but it can also become a substitute for seeing. Always thinking about how it is. > > pt: Yes. > > > > RE: There is the other way of approaching practice, and that is to put aside the books after understanding something and apply them to the moment itself. I think that's more direct. > > pt: For me, this is in fact the roundabout way :) Okay... :-) > > RE: The same principle applies, that the additional effort, the practice, is in fact arising on its own, and not because of a person who wills it, but the kind of volition involved is more direct and can be understood and encouraged, rather than seeing everything as an indirect result of factors removed from the moment itself. Straw man? > > pt: Well, a little bit, in case it is assumed that reading books always results only in intellectualizing, but that's not the problem. It's the issue of volition as you point out, and whether it is indeed kusala or not, which is down to each one of us to figure out. Or rather panna will, as Nina and Sarah tend to say. Well I would have to agree with that! Either the cetana is kusala or akusala, and only the development of adequate panna can tell the difference. Here's hoping I [or whoever] don't get caught in the vicious cycle of akusala mistaken for kusala cetana! [The Abhidhamma version of hell...] > > > pt: Such conclusion hopefully encourages panna right now that then arises with right effort automatically, knows the difference between kusala and akusala, etc. However, if the conclusion we draw out of the discussion is that purposeful effort is better than the non-purposeful one, or the other way around, then what we have encouraged in the present is not more understanding but simply more intellectualizing, most probably akusala. Do you see the difference as applicable to the arising of understanding right now? > > > > RE: I understand the argument, but don't agree with the idea that there is either a choosing between purpose/non-purpose, or else there is the kusala approach, which would involve no judgment on what is skillful. Don't mean that as a straw man, I just draw the conclusions from what you say as best I can. > > pt: hm, that doesn't come across quite as what i was saying. Let me try again - it's like two different planes, or perhaps kinds of understanding - one is speculative that operates in extremes of choice/no choice, the other is direct understanding practically, where the issue of choice/no choice has no relevance. If the latter, then I would probably agree. When there is direct action, direct seeing, direct application of Dhamma, whether through meditation or through spontaneous arising of understanding in everyday life, then I would say that is the "real moment" that citta is able to understand to develop more panna. > > RE: But it seems that it gives a false choice between having no view about practice, or else having an akusala intention. I don't think the choice is that absolute or that polarized. It's more like seeing the efficacy of practice and engaging it. I don't see that as akusala. > > pt: hm, not sure, I haven't really had "having no view about practice" vs "having an akusala intention" in mind at all when writing the above. it's more about practice now vs intellectualizing the now, I guess. Well, we may not agree on how that comes to be, but I think we would both agree that that is the correct path - direct "...practice now vs. intellectualizing the now..." That is good. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #117687 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: An Unpleasant Surprise epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Thanks a lot, Robert. As you may see from my post to Han, we have some > reason to be somewhat at ease about this at this point, and we are less > apprehensive about the Tuesday visit with the vascular surgeon. That is very good to hear! Thanks for sharing the situation; it is good to stay in touch and know how you are doing! You're a good Dhamma friend! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117688 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:49 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...When I say something, I expect that people will believe what I say..." > > Scott: This is an unreasonable expectation. Were one to give it up, Dhamma discussion might proceed more profitably. > > In my case, I simply disagree with you. I don't 'believe' what you say. I 'believe' you are wrong. I think there's a little misunderstanding in the premise here. I did not mean to say that you should agree with me, but that you should take me at my word. I have no problem with you thinking I am "wrong." That's your privilege. This post was not really about me, but about the Buddha. I was using myself [or anyone] as an example that we most likely mean what we say when we say "I would like you to do this," or "This is how I think things work," and that we should give that same presumption to the Buddha. In my view, if we say that we should not take the Buddha's own words literally, which he said, not as metaphor or imagery, but very direct statements of what he wanted his followers to do, practice, or consider, we are doing the Buddha a disservice. While I expect and am happy to have you disagree with me, I think you probably are not prepared to disagree with the Buddha. So if he says something direct and clear, I think we should pay attention to his actual words and take them seriously. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117689 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 19-sep-2011, om 20:06 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I wonder what you think the purpose or intent of metta is when it > > arises *with* panna, that is to say, with dhamma as object rather > > than concept? It seems strange to have metta towards a momentary > > object rather than a being. Is there an explanation for how this > > makes sense? What is the object, in other words, of fully wise metta? > ------- > N: Moments of thinking of a person alternate with sampaja~n~na, > awarenes of ultimate realities. Then the mettacitta can be object of > understanding. It moves us away from thinking stories about the > person one extends metta to. Even if he is not responsive metta will > not be less. Remember what Kh Sujin said: it does not matter if she > does not like us, we like her. A truth expressed in simple words. > Metta can become purer less mixed with selfish affection, the near > enemy! Also: less inclination to cling to my mettaa. > It is a gain when pa~n~naa can arise, the effect will be more metta, > not less. Think of the Buddha's endless metta and compassion. > ------ Thank you, Nina, for this good explanation. I think this short post of yours is deceptively rich and worth reading a number of times. Especially the parts about panna seeing the mettacitta as object and understanding its nature, and this creating more metta, instead of being lost in the story of the person. I think I am seeing something here that you might be able to help me with - the idea that when the citta itself becomes the object of understanding for sampajanna or panna, that this is a higher level or more pure type of understanding, because the concept that may be on the "lower" end of the original citta is not confusing the understanding anymore. I don't know if that's correct, but it just occurred to me that way. I also liked the very wise simple statement of Kh. Sujin about liking the person not being dependent on whether they like us. There is a very clear sense of the nature of metta in that. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117690 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:59 am Subject: Re: Not Who, but What? part 1 moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: ( D:Yes , we should take the harsh words of Mr. X with equanimity .But > not because it is conditioned dhamma and there is no person X ( the > chain of conditioned dhammas describe the delusioned Person , i.e. > D.O.) , but as an effort to avoid ( aversion, anger) . > Why blame him ? Well, the Buddha used sometimes straight language > in his teachings. ------- N: I find the following is helpful: a conditioned dhamma, namely conditioned by (my own) kamma. D: you mean as a definition of the concept person? ( the term concept includes function(ing), doesn't it? ) N: Then we shall take harsh speech less personal and this is a help. Understanding of cause and effect conditions avoiding akusala. No need to think: 'I should avoid akusala'. D: I think it is useful to recall the Kamma Sutta S.N. XXXV , 145 (transl. T.B.) 'Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak. "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma. "And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma. "And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. "So, monks, I have taught you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever a teacher should do - seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them - that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." We cannot change what has appeared to us here -and -now , i.e. old kamma or like you said 'conditioned by (my own) kamma' but we influence the future appearance by our (re)action here and now , i.e. new kamma. ( the difference between sankhara ,2nd place and sankhara khanda , 4th place in D.O. ..) But does this understanding avoid akusala ? After all only if sila, in particular the 10 fold wholesome kamma , has been internalized (compare with the path links (2,3,4,(5) ) This mere understanding isn't obviously enough , is it? N:D: I think it must be noted that the original Law of Dependent Origination doesn't include the quality kusala, akusala or neither. > It is -as far as I understand- an extension by Abhidhamma , wondering when this additional function was consolidated. ------ N: Buddhist Dictionary, Nyanatiloka: sankhára: This term has, according to its context, different shades of meaning, which should be carefully distinguished.(I) To its most frequent usages (s. foll. 1-4) the general term 'formation' may be applied, with the qualifications required by the context. This term may refer either to the act of 'forming or to the passive state of 'having been formed' or to both. snip D: good quotation ;-) old kamma / (avijja-)sankhara conditons the passive state of 'having been formed, the Citta here-and-now , , whereas new kamma , i.e. our (re-) action ,means 'Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect' , i.e. sankhara khanda N(D: not clear to me , in which way are you agreeing or disagreeing > with my statement 'Viriya is the energy of sankhara khanda , the > potential vigour of the mental formation group (conditioned by > avijja -sankhara-vinnana )? > -------- N: I think sankhaarakkhandha is different from sankhaara as in the D.O., see above. D: we talk about both in the 2nd and 4th place of D.O. . Nama includes sankhara khanda , doesn't it? N: And viriya is one of the cetasikas belonging to the khandha of mental formations, as you say. ------- D: in other words it is the strength, energy of the will ( sankhara /kamma formation / volition / will): Chanda as you mentioned will be splendid nutrition. over to you ;-) with Metta Dieter #117691 From: "connie" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:01 am Subject: Just checking re concepts and panna nichiconn R: "...When I say something, I expect that people will believe what I say..." Scott: This is an unreasonable expectation. Were one to give it up, Dhamma discussion might proceed more profitably. In my case, I simply disagree with you. I don't 'believe' what you say. I 'believe' you are wrong. ------- nicely said. however, c I(n us we) trust #117692 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:25 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > "And what, monks, is right effort? > > "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates > persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. > ...for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that > have arisen....for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen....for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." > [alex: I've removed repetitions] > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html > > > I am very unhappy when I hear that the Buddha has never taught about intentional effort. He plainly did, and I don't know what He could have said to make it more clear. Alex, yes, your quotes make the Buddha's intention very clear. While I think the understanding of conditions and mental states through the very careful breakdown and analysis in the Abhidhamma is of great value, I think that its value is undermined if it is turned into a separate philosophy of no-effort, and one of understanding only without volitional action. The truth is that Abhidhamma and the Buddha's exhortations to strive and engage in right effort can live together side by side, and work together to create a path of understanding and practice. It is really a shame when the Buddha's teachings are put aside for a very different interpretation of how the path develops. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117693 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Unpleasant Surprise upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/22/2011 2:46:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Thanks a lot, Robert. As you may see from my post to Han, we have some > reason to be somewhat at ease about this at this point, and we are less > apprehensive about the Tuesday visit with the vascular surgeon. That is very good to hear! Thanks for sharing the situation; it is good to stay in touch and know how you are doing! You're a good Dhamma friend! ------------------------------------ Ahhh, thank you! And vice-versa! :-) ------------------------------------ Best, Rob E. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117694 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:11 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > R: "...When I say something, I expect that people will believe what I say..." > > Scott: This is an unreasonable expectation. Were one to give it up, Dhamma > discussion might proceed more profitably. > > In my case, I simply disagree with you. I don't 'believe' what you say. I > 'believe' you are wrong. > > ------- > nicely said. > however, > c Unfortunately the point I was making, which had nothing to do with agreeing with anything I said, was missed, apparently by both of you - It was to honor the words of the Buddha. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117695 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:02 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., Regarding: R: "...When I say something, I expect that people will believe what I say..." R: "I think there's a little misunderstanding in the premise here. I did not mean to say that you should agree with me, but that you should take me at my word. I have no problem with you thinking I am 'wrong.' That's your privilege." Scott: No, I understood you quite well. Your expectation that others 'should take you at your word' is unreasonable, as unreasonable as expecting others to always 'believe' you. And, by the way, I do believe you when you say that that is what you expect. I just say, 'Good luck.' R: "...In my view, if we say that we should not take the Buddha's own words literally, which he said, not as metaphor or imagery, but very direct statements of what he wanted his followers to do, practice, or consider, we are doing the Buddha a disservice. While I expect and am happy to have you disagree with me, I think you probably are not prepared to disagree with the Buddha. So if he says something direct and clear, I think we should pay attention to his actual words and take them seriously." Scott: I see where you are coming from. Such a statement is a natural offshoot of an expectation that what you say should simply be believed by anyone you happen to say it to. As a useful position to take in a Dhamma discussion the expectation is seriously flawed by the pristine grandiosity of it's whole premise. You are, incredibly, 1) asserting that you actually know what the Buddha was saying (!!!), 2) expecting that in agreeing with you I am actually agreeing with the Buddha (!!!!), and 3) expecting that I take both you and the Buddha on faith. Obviously, such an inflated rhetorical device is hardly anything one can discuss, no matter how amazingly audacious it is. Sincerely, Scott. #117696 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:11 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear Scott, >Scott: You are, incredibly, 1) asserting that you actually know what >the Buddha was saying (!!!), >=============================================== And what do you think the Buddha is saying regarding effort whenever he talked about crushing mind with mind (MN2), exerting effort as much as one would when trying to extinguish one's head on fire (AN6.20), exerting to such a degree that body becomes emaciated (AN2.5), etc? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/117685 With best wishes, Alex #117697 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:15 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > You are, incredibly, 1) asserting that you actually know what the Buddha was saying (!!!), Are you saying that the suttas are not the words of the Buddha? Or that some of the plain simple statements he made are hard to understand? There are difficult passages in sutta, but not all of them are so subtle as to need a lot of interpretation. You disagree with this? > 2) expecting that in agreeing with you I am actually agreeing with the Buddha (!!!!), That's a ridiculous assertion which I never made and which has nothing to do with anything I said. I'm talking about a very obvious level - that if I say "I like milk" that you don't interpret that to either mean "I don't like milk" or that I am saying "I like orange juice." I'm talking about the plain meaning of an obvious statement. That is what I meant by "taking someone at their word," that if someone makes a direct statement, you don't decide that they're actually saying something else. Do you disagree with this simple level of understanding? > and 3) expecting that I take both you and the Buddha on faith. Are you saying that you don't take the words of the Buddha on faith? What is the status of the Buddha's teachings in sutta in your view? I don't expect anyone to take *me* on faith - except to the extent that if I say something obvious, that you don't think I mean the opposite. > Obviously, such an inflated rhetorical device is hardly anything one can discuss, no matter how amazingly audacious it is. You have inflated it yourself. There's no rhetorical device here at all. I'm talking about the plain and simple meaning of direct statements. You're having a little too much fun with a very simple point. There's nothing audacious about saying that x = x, but maybe to you it is. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117698 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma philofillet Hi again Nina > > > I think A.Sujin is wrong to assume that all meditators are > > > misguided and follow techniques with wrong view. Meditation can > > > happen in a kusala way. > > ------- > > N: You made a statement here, but could you quote what she said > exactly. > > Ph: I remember wondering when she said that for samatha there must be understanding of the difference between the characteristics of samattha (which must be kusala) and lobha why there was an assumption that there could not be such understanding for a meditator... Ph: To clarify, I can understand why desire for results, desire to cause arising of kusala states would interfere with the arising of the necessary understanding of characteristics of samattha for meditators, but the assumption that it couldn't happen for a meditator seems extreme. But I guess that is nitpicking on my part because it is hard to imagine there are many householders who have both the favpurable circumstances laid out in Vism and, more impirtantly, the right mental conditions (freedom from greed for results) to make kusala meditation a possibility. In any case, I find this topic is not helpful for bettering the understanding of presently arisen dhammas so will hopefully stay out of it from now on. Metta, Phil #117699 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:57 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Are you saying that the suttas are not the words of the Buddha? Or that some of the plain simple statements he made are hard to understand? There are difficult passages in sutta, but not all of them are so subtle as to need a lot of interpretation. You disagree with this?..." Scott: Yes, of course I am saying that the suttas are not the words of the Buddha. I'm also saying that I disagree with you. I think it is audacious of you to suggest that you understand the suttas, not to mention expecting me to think you do too. R: "...I'm talking about a very obvious level...I'm talking about the plain meaning of an obvious statement. That is what I meant by 'taking someone at their word,' that if someone makes a direct statement, you don't decide that they're actually saying something else." Scott: I continue to marvel at your claim of understanding the suttas, and, by implication, the depth and complexity of the Dhamma. R: "...Are you saying that you don't take the words of the Buddha on faith? What is the status of the Buddha's teachings in sutta in your view?" Scott: I don't take the words of the Buddha on faith. The suttas have come down to us after centuries as an oral tradition and now in the form of many conflicting and competing translators opinions. The suttas express the conventional form of the Dhamma. The Dhamma is difficult and deep and I don't pretend to understand it, nor do I find the suttas to be particularily understandable at first, second, third, fourth, etc., reading. This is where the commentarial tradition comes in, as well as the Abhidhamma. And, again, as blasphemous as it seems, I don't happen to believe that you have figured them out by a long shot either. When you use the premise that you should be listened to in a Dhamma discussion because of your special understanding of the suttas, I simply don't accept it. Such a claim makes it difficult for anyone to discuss much with you. One has to either agree with you or disagree with you. And yes, I am playing with you, in all seriousness, and it's fun. Sincerely, Scott. #117700 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:07 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hi Scott, > Scott: > >The suttas have come down to us after centuries as an oral >tradition and now in the form of many conflicting and competing >translators opinions. >======================== So do the commentaries, and commentators disagree with each other. >The suttas express the conventional form of the Dhamma. The Dhamma >is difficult and deep and I don't pretend to understand it, >==================================================== Then don't claim that you are the one who knows that when the Buddha told us to strive, what he really really meant but couldn't clearly express is that "you should not strive". >nor do I >find the suttas to be particularily understandable at >first, second, >third, fourth, etc., reading. This is where the commentarial >tradition comes in, as well as the Abhidhamma. >=============================================================== Maybe because you try to make suttas mean exactly opposite of what they say which is the reason why they are so hard. Of course it is hard to to understand that which is supposed to be understood totally opposite of what they said. And also, which commentarial tradition do you trust? And why do you have preference in one commentarial tradition and not the other? With best wishes, Alex #117701 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:48 am Subject: Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. glenjohnann Sarah - thank you for the heads up on your possible dates. Will certainly keep it in mind and if I/we are able to come in the new year, will definately work around Jan. 21-26. Ann e may be able to visit Bangkok at the end of January over Chinese New > *p.s Ann, Phil, anyone else, pls keep these dates in mind as we're hoping to arrange something at this time. Will keep you posted off-list > > #117702 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011), part 1. philofillet Hi Nina - So it > > is always nimitta of reailties that is the object of this grasp and > > sucking process. Right? > ------- > N: Not in this case. We cling to wholes, collections of things, > nimitta of man, woman, animal. Ph: Thanks. These days I am interested in hearing about nimitta of realities, but goid to remver that almist always (as close to always as almost can come) people and things is the dream world we live in. Gradually, our dream woelds are becoming mire refined as the nimitta of dhammas becomes more apparent. BTW, these days I hear Lodewijk ask many important questions in Bangkok talks, he was also interested in nimitta. Yesterday his honesty in saying after 40 of listening and reading he still didn't understand sati. I remember a few years ago when I was entering my Rage Against The Acharn stage I heard that talk and said that it was because A.S gave a false teaching of sati that Lodewijk didn't understand (fully) yet, the Buddha is such a great, clear speaking teacher, how could sati not be understood by an intelligent man as Lodewijk after so many years? Now (we'll see how long it lasts!) I understand how subtle sati of satipatthana is, and Lidewijk's saying that he didn't understand it indicated important understanding that mist modern Buddhists would benefit from achieving. metta, phil #117703 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:33 am Subject: Re: nama and rupa distinguishable, part 2. to Howard. characteristics. philofillet Hi all A very good post from Nina covering many aspects of the difficult topic, sati of satipatthana: > Hi Howard, > When someone asks me a question it helps to make things clearer to myself. > Lodewijk:what are characteristics? > Howard: < I'm not clear here as to what you mean by one "characteristic" at > a time.> > ---------- > Howard: > > > I agree there is but one arammana at a time. At a moment that hardness is the > > objective content, visual object is not. I certainly believe that. > ----- > N: I have to explain more about sati of the level of satipatthana. This is a > difficult subject for me. I often confuse sati and thinking. > Sati can be mindful of one dhamma at a time, and this has its own > characteristic. A characteristic of a reality can be directly known by > paññaa at the moment sati is mindful, non-forgetful of it. A characteristic > of dhamma is not an abstract notion, it is real, it appears now at this > moment. There is no need to think about it. > When we meet someone we may think of that person, his appearance, the way he > expresses himself by speech and action. But what is the citta like that > thinks? Is it citta with anger, or with metta? We are absorbed in situations > or events when we think of the person we meet. When sati arises it can be > aware of anger or mettaa, it is directly aware of those characteristics of > dhammas, one at a time, and at such moments more understanding of them can > develop. > Is there not a difference between the moments we are absorbed in thinking of > a situation, a person, and the moment there is mindfulness, > non-forgetfulness of only one dhamma, so that it is known as dhamma, a nama > or a rupa. We begin to understand what dhamma is. > The three general characteristics cannot be penetrated immediately, first > different dhammas have to be directly known as nama and as rupa. We should > by no means try to know the difference between nama and rupa, then we are > merely thinking. Some people believe that they have to try to know the > difference between seeing and visible object, hearing and sound and take > them in pairs. This is not the way. > Sati can become used to the different characteristics of dhammas that appear > and in this way understanding develops. Sati and understanding perform their > functions: sati is mindful, non-forgetful of whatever dhamma appears and at > the same time understanding of that dhamma grows. It is the task of > understanding to reach different stages of insight. When the time is ripe, > any nama or rupa can appear through the mind-door, they do not have to be > known in pairs. I used to think in that way. > It is difficult to know the difference between sati and thinking. Sati > arises with kusala citta. At that moment there is not the darkness of > delusion, not the clumsiness of akusala. There is no rigidity but there is > alertness, lightness, wise attention, a degree of detachment, alobha, > confidence in kusala and the Path the Buddha taught. We can learn the > difference between the moment we are forgetful and the moment we wake up > with sati. There can be a beginning of understanding of just one > characteristic at a time, such as anger, sound, hardness. > > In the Discourse on the Elephant Footprint (M.N.) we read about a monk who > is abused. He understands:<'This painful feeling born of ear-contact has > arisen in me. That is dependent, not independent. Dependent on contact.'> > He realizes dhammas as impersonal elements, he realizes their true nature. > Here we see that when sati arises dhammas can be seen as impersonal > elements. > This does not mean that we should force ourselves not to think of people and > events. We can lead our daily life very naturally, otherwise there would be > a cramped state of mind. The satipatthanasutta shows us that any aspect of > daily life can bring us back to reality: there can be awareness of nama and > rupa that are internal or external. Another person's cittas and feelings can > be objects of our thinking, and then we can be reminded that also our > thinking is only a conditioned element. > The Buddha often spoke about conventional realities when he helped people in > showing them that these point to ultimate truths. The impermanence of human > life can remind us of momentary death of citta at this moment. > There are many moments of thinking in our life. Also thinking can be > realized as naama. It is conditioned, it arises. There is no need to push it > away or force ourselves not to think of concepts. We cannot avoid it anyway. > Lodewijk remarked that one can really understand what sati of the level of > satipatthana is when it has arisen. And even then it is difficult to explain > to others what it is. > Kh Sujin said, when sati has arisen you know its characteristic and then it > can be developed. I used to find this a vicious circle, but now I understand > that it does not help to reason about it. Logic does not help. > Listening and considering Dhamma are the conditions for its arising, and it > will perform its function of being aware. Nobody in the world can cause its > arising. > Nina. > Nina. > #117704 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:15 am Subject: Citta associated with doubt philofillet Hi Nina and all Reading SPD chapter on associated dhammas. Vicikiccha-sampayutta is "citta associated with vicikiccha cetasika, doubt about realities." Does this mean doubt that the Buddha taught about the dhamma in question? Or doubt that the dhamma has the function it is taught to have? (e.g doubt in the efficacy of kamma.) Or doubt that there can be awareness and understanding of it? Metta, Phil #117705 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:27 am Subject: Question for Saturday group philofillet Hi Azita, Rob K, Sukin or ? Could you ask a question at the Saturday discussion? These days often I hear about understanding as condition for sati. What is understanding that is condition for sati? Understanding gained from reading and listening? Thanks, if you could pass that on. Metta, Phil #117706 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:54 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "Are you saying that the suttas are not the words of the Buddha? Or that some of the plain simple statements he made are hard to understand? There are difficult passages in sutta, but not all of them are so subtle as to need a lot of interpretation. You disagree with this?..." > > Scott: Yes, of course I am saying that the suttas are not the words of the Buddha. This is a novel idea. What do you think the suttas are? Someone else made them up? What do you think the real Dhamma is, and who wrote or said it? > I'm also saying that I disagree with you. About what? You seem to disagree with me period. Is there something in particular you would like to disagree with me about? > I think it is audacious of you to suggest that you understand the suttas, not to mention expecting me to think you do too. > > R: "...I'm talking about a very obvious level...I'm talking about the plain meaning of an obvious statement. That is what I meant by 'taking someone at their word,' that if someone makes a direct statement, you don't decide that they're actually saying something else." > > Scott: I continue to marvel at your claim of understanding the suttas, and, by implication, the depth and complexity of the Dhamma. Well, like I said, there are aspects of the Dhamma and of the suttas that are difficult to understand, but when Buddha says "work unceasingly, strive with all your might," you think there is something unclear or uncertain about what that means? I wouldn't say I understand the depth and breadth of the suttas by any means whatsoever, and never made such a statement. But I do understand plain speech, and even Buddha said some very clear things for ordinary followers that are not obscure. > R: "...Are you saying that you don't take the words of the Buddha on faith? What is the status of the Buddha's teachings in sutta in your view?" > > Scott: I don't take the words of the Buddha on faith. So what is your relationship to the Buddha's teaching? Do you consider yourself a person who follows the path he set out? Are you a Buddhist? Do you believe the Abhidhamma and commentaries and what they teach? Do you feel you understand those and how they are to be understood? > The suttas have come down to us after centuries as an oral tradition and now in the form of many conflicting and competing translators opinions. The suttas express the conventional form of the Dhamma. The Dhamma is difficult and deep and I don't pretend to understand it, nor do I find the suttas to be particularily understandable at first, second, third, fourth, etc., reading. This is where the commentarial tradition comes in, as well as the Abhidhamma. And, again, as blasphemous as it seems, I don't happen to believe that you have figured them out by a long shot either. I never said I figured out the depth and breadth of the Dhamma - never made any statement that suggested that, so blaspheme away, just don't misquote me. I only understand what I understand, and not what I don't. But that doesn't stop me from studying, learning and practicing in the way that I understand to do. In that way I'm no different than anyone else, so there's no reason to focus on me in that regard, but more worthwhile to talk about the content in question. > When you use the premise that you should be listened to in a Dhamma discussion because of your special understanding of the suttas, I simply don't accept it. I never said that at all. I don't have any special understanding, just my own understanding. As I have now said two or three times, you misunderstood the example I was trying to give you. It was an analogy and I have explained the type of respect that any person should expect for their statements - that they will be believed that they are saying what they think, not that they are right or that anyone should agree with them. If you would just get that straight we could move on from this nonexistent point. I have no special knowledge of Dhamma and do not claim to. I only express and try to work through my own understanding by way of exchange, conversation, consideration and correction. It's an ongoing process, and I've said many times that my understanding is very incomplete. > Such a claim makes it difficult for anyone to discuss much with you. One has to either agree with you or disagree with you. You are fighting with a shadow that you invented yourself. I never made "such a claim." You made it up. Please look back at the original message that you are still chewing over, and you will see that I never claimed any knowledge, but was making a simple analogy about being believed when making a simple statement. > And yes, I am playing with you, in all seriousness, and it's fun. Well, you can play, you can be serious, you can have fun. Does that include actually talking about what we are talking about? If so, feel free to say something, if you have anything to say. I had fun writing my long sarcastic response to you before, but you ignored it and someone else gave me a hard time about it. That's the way it goes! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117707 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:20 pm Subject: Re: Sarah's call szmicio Dear Sarah(Phil) > p.s for the nicotine - a doctor or university counselling service would give you nicotine patches or a medication I read about which helps reduce the enjoyment from the smoking and craving! Now, that's an idea for us all - a medication to fix the lobha!! L: Yes, there are even more stronger medical drugs for nicotine addiction, but they have lot of side effects. Nicotine is very addictive drug. Very few drugs cause physiological dependence. Nicotine is one of them. Nicotine is a very strong drug, that causes very deep mental addiction also. This is very hard to give it up, it needs to change your life and have a lot of motivation. You can easily buy a patches, they won't change anything. When I came up with Dhamma about six years ago, I gave it up totally for 4 years, but after that time I started smoke again. I didnt realize how strong it is. Best wishes Lukas #117708 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:37 am Subject: Alert Elevated Joy! bhikkhu5 Friends: How does the Noble live in Alert Elevated Joy? The Blessed Buddha once said: How, Nandiya , does a Noble Disciple live in alert elevated joy? Here, Nandiya , any Noble Disciple is endowed with verified conviction in the Buddha thus: Worthy, honourable & perfectly self-Enlightened is the Buddha! Not satisfied with that verified conviction in the Buddha , he makes a further effort in solitude by day and by seclusion at night! When thus enthusiastic, he is elevated by alertness! When thus elevated by alertness, then gladness is born! When he is gladdened, then a rapturous joy arises! When the mind is uplifted by joy, the body becomes all tranquil... One tranquil in body experiences a pure bliss of sweet happiness! The mind of one who is thus happy becomes condensed and concentrated... When mind is concentrated, even subtle phenomena become plain and simple. Since these subtle phenomena become plain and simple, he becomes one, who lives and dwells always rejoicing in alert elevated joy... <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nik�ya. [V:398] Section 55 on Stream-Entry: Sot�pattisamyutta. Thread 40: Nandiya. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #117709 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >KH: Alex, it's called anatta. You've seen anatta in the suttas. It >means there are no people in the world - no trees, no cars - just >momentary conditioned dhammas. > >================================================ > >A: The most typical way that Buddha talked about anatta was to cross question: > > "What do you think, Rahula - is the eye constant or inconstant?" > "Inconstant, lord." > "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" > "Stressful, lord." > "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" > "No, lord." [Alex: same repeated for 18 elements, and in other suttas 5 aggregates are also used] - MN147 > > Please note, the Buddha refutes the existence of Atta that is nicca and sukkha. This seems like refutation of Advaita like unchanging Atman that is nicca and sukkha. ..... S: Please note, the Buddha points to all the conditioned dhammas, the 18 elements, the 5 khandhas as being anicca and dukkha. Those dhammas which are anicca and dukkha are not fit to be clung to with attachment, conceit or atta-view. It is the dhammas which are anicca, dukkha and anatta. Metta Sarah ===== #117710 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Cetasika is external sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > >N: There are seven universals accompanying each citta, but as to the > > > other cetasikas, there is such a variety of them and they accompany > > > citta as the case demands. We can see them as 'outsiders', not like > > > citta that is always present. > >P: I missed this the first time. So the seven universals are not considered external. Perhaps Sarah was mistaken in denoting phassa as external? .... S: All the cetasikas are outer ayatanas. The citta is "innermost", therefore the inner ayatana. Really, these are just different ways of classifying dhammas. What's important is to realise that at this moment, in order for citta to arise and experience its object, there has to be the "coming together", the "meeting" of the various inner and outer ayatanas - there has to always be the arising of citta with at least 7 cetasikas experiencing an object. At the moment of seeing, there has to be the meeting of the eye-sense, visible object, seeing consciousness and seven cetasikas. This is where we started:-) Metta Sarah ==== #117711 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Can actions rooted in lobha condition kusala? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E (& Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >A: In the satipatthana suttas, 4 elements, 10 stages of corpse decomposition, 4 postures and minor movements, !mindfulnesss! of breathing (anapanaSATI) are all part of satipatthana as taught by the Buddha. > >R: Thanks, and I agree this is part of satipatthana practice. I am just wondering what the technical Abhidhamma sense of this is, but your point is well taken. ... S: Just namas and rupas, however described, however "bundled up"..... and any nama, any rupa, can be the object of satipatthana. Metta Sarah ===== #117712 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Can actions rooted in lobha condition kusala? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > a) Base of infinite space/nothingness can lead to Nibbana. Both are conceptual from CMA point of view. .... S: Any dhamma can be a condition for the experiencing of nibbana by natural decisive and other conditions. The arupa-brahma citta can be an object of satipatthana, for example. Metta Sarah ====== #117713 From: Vince Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Hi Nina you wrote: > N: In Thai: kaw cai: enters the heart. I like this . Kh Sujin would > explain that there are many levels of understanding: intellectual > understanding and this can condition direct understanding. One listen > with understanding and in this way it can develop. ok, thank you.. I think what you says is fully clarifying. She talk about the flow of a process until the end, with different depths and characteristic. This is what I mean. People don't use "understanding" in that way but we have the addition of a cultural schism in this matter. I fear in a first approach many people will read "understanding" as if she was talking of the same rational nature which rules the common "understanding" notion. And then many people believe this is about the rational understanding and its different intensities So many people can think: "not possible.. there is not realization just by understanding".... "Is there not jhana?".. etc. This is what I mean about the additional weight of cultural causes which are rooted in an opposition between the Rational and Non-rational mind. This problem is detectable in modern explanations of Buddhist texts, even in many famous authors. I understand she says the nature of knowledge is a continuous flow in where citta knows its object. However, the deepest levels of the process are characterized by panna, which is able to eradicate ignorance and dukkha and to get full realization and eventually the arising of nibbana. When one want to persist in the common oppositional prism (rational/non-rational), then also one should be aware of the non-rational part in the process, outside of our common use of the word "understanding". Normally, we are unaware of using the word "understanding" to denote the knowledge which is ruled by the reason and -self. But this is a different interpretation in where the deepest levels of the "understanding" process are not about objects grasped by the -self to produce intellectual meanings for the reason. So I believe the frequent discussion about the power of "understanding" it's in fact a whole misunderstanding. Thanks to clarify the Thai use, I think quite important :) best, Vince. #117714 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:48 pm Subject: Re: Notes on nimitta, part 3. sarahprocter... HI Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: It's also true that as the cittas with panna develop, they are less and less "encumbered" by delusions in between and thus, the moments of insight and depth of insight becomes more the norm. > >R: That sounds nice. Right now most of my cittas seem encumbered by kilesas - you start to notice how painful all those subtle kilesas really are, .... S: Maybe that's thinking about them. Most the kilesas (including all kinds of lobha) are not painful in anyway! .... >and realize that even many or most of the "good" moments are underlined with various discomforts, fears, anxieties or resentments. Good to see I guess... And of the course the idea of "my" which seems associated with all of them! .... S: Yes, good to see and this is just why we stress that it isn't the "action" or "practice" that counts, but the present citta. From the moment we wake up, there are clingings to sense objects, discomforts, fears and so on as you describe. And, yes, all taken for being "my" experiences so very often. ... > > > S:With regard to the "luminous mind" you referred to, panna can begin to realise that it is the kilesas, the defilements, which arise in the javana processes that cause the harm. > > > Even now, it becomes more obvious with a small amount of awareness that develops... > > > The vipaka cittas, such as moments of seeing, hearing and bodily experience are "luminous" in the sense that they are just 'results', they are pure of kilesa. > >R: Hm...even the uncomfortable ones? That is interesting... ... S: The only "uncomfortable" vipaka cittas are the moments of painful bodily experience, i.e experience through the body-sense accompanied by unpleasant feeling. This is so even for the arahats. Because even these vipaka cittas are free of lobha, dosa and moha - they are just "results", they are said to be luminous in this sense. The problems in life are not the unpleasant bodily experiences, but the lobha, dosa and moha which follow all sense door experiences. Metta Sarah ===== #117715 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Question for Saturday group rjkjp1 dear Phil yes understanding gained from reading, listening, considering, discussing.. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Azita, Rob K, Sukin or ? > > Could you ask a question at the Saturday discussion? > > These days often I hear about understanding as condition for sati. What is understanding that is condition for sati? Understanding gained from reading and listening? > > Thanks, if you could pass that on. > > Metta, > Phil > #117716 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:55 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: What we agree on is that any effort, right or wrong, any volition, >right or wrong, any practice, right or wrong, are all anatta, beyone >anyone's will or control. > >========================================================== > >A: So just because things are "beyond anyone's will or control" it means that one shouldn't strive to do good, avoid evil and purify the mind? ..... S: it means there is no "one", no Self to do anything. Right effort will arise naturally when there are the conditions, when there is right understanding. At such times, it performs the function of energising the citta and associated mental factors to "do good, avoid evil and purify the mind." The key is the right understanding. Without this, it is bound to be wrong effort which is being developed. .... > > Does this means that intentional actions, being "beyond anyone's will or control" should not be done? .... S: It means that all kinds of kusala states will arise only when there are the right conditions and never when there is the idea of Oneself making them arise. ..... > > In that case do not eat, do not drink water, do not move even a finger, do not breath, etc. These things do occur. Intentions do occur. Good intentions lead to good results, bad intentions lead to bad results. .... S: The idea of Atta is very deeply rooted. This is why it's so very difficult for us to understand what we read and hear about conditioned dhammas. Metta Sarah ==== #117717 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara sarahprocter... Hi Howard, (& Lukas) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >S: Even at a moment of understanding of reality now, there has to be > serenity. > ================================== >H: I think this can be understood if one takes note of the > instantaneousness and rapid variation of experience: Someone might say that when being > aware of their own terrible fear, there cannot be serenity, but that is not > correct. There is terrible fear, and THEN there is the very quickly > following (probably wordless) understanding "Fear," and at the instant of that > understanding, fear is momentarily absent. .... S: Yes, nicely put. And at that moment of understanding of fear (of whatever level), there is serenity. Someone might think that they were afraid for 5 minutes or even 5 hours, but actually, there are so many different cittas even in a split second. This is why a monk who had tried to commit suicide or a drunk could become enlightened even at such times. The more understanding develops, the more saddha (confidence) grows in the power of the Teachings, the power of right understanding and awareness to perform their functions at absolutely anytime at all. Lukas, I'm thinking of your examples of when you wake up feeling wretched and reach for the caffeine - even at such moments, there can be serenity with wisdom Metta Sarah ===== #117718 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:07 pm Subject: Re: Notes on nimitta, part 3. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >H: 1) Nimittas are basically percepts, the simplest sort of concepts in > > that they are sankharic constructs (or, better, "constructings") that are > > rather like faithful photocopies of just-passed, unmediated experiential > > phenomena, and not the originals. > >R: Perhaps you could liken the more refined nimittas to "better resolution" photos that begin to approximate the dhamma more closely, until one is finally able to see them directly. .... S: That's good - I like the "better resolution" photos too... ... > > >H: 2) Nimittas are like elements of dreams in that they appear to be > > originals but are only constructed facsimiles. ... These facsimiles, whether dream elements or > > nimittas, though constructs that are misperceived as originals, are > > nonetheless actually experienced. > >R: Yes, and the nimittas in daily life are equivalent to a dream too, so I think it's more than an analogy, but a real experiential analog. > > I guess in the Buddhist world we could say "Life is but a nimitta" from now on. .... S: :-) I think you've both "nailed" the nimittas in this discussion. Metta Sarah ===== #117719 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:12 pm Subject: Re: Cetasika is external philofillet Hi Sarah > .... > S: All the cetasikas are outer ayatanas. The citta is "innermost", therefore the inner ayatana. > > Really, these are just different ways of classifying dhammas. What's important is to realise that at this moment, in order for citta to arise and experience its object, there has to be the "coming together", the "meeting" of the various inner and outer ayatanas - there has to always be the arising of citta with at least 7 cetasikas experiencing an object. At the moment of seeing, there has to be the meeting of the eye-sense, visible object, seeing consciousness and seven cetasikas. This is where we started:-) > Ph: Yes, understanding that at the moment of seeing, there has to be the meeting of the eye-sense, visible object, seeing cobsciousbess snd seven cetasikas, and the seven cetasikas experience the same object as the seeing consciousness, that's what is the mostimportant thing to understand. Nevertheless still a bit perplexing that sanna, for exampke, can be considered an external ayatana when similes such as the village raiding daicots are used for the ext. ayatanas, I have assumed the daicots were sense objects for some time now. Could be an example of how suttas are not as straight forward as we may think when reading them, or maybe I have misunderstood about the meaning of external ayatanas here as compared to external ayatanas in SN35 Metta, Phil p.s Thanks for the note re January. I have to double check with my company, but I think I will have to wait until I get fresh flex days off with my new contract in April... #117720 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:13 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: >....Unfortunately some classifications do seem to go against the suttas, ex: sati being only positive factor. > > In the suttas there is term called micchasati (AN 10.103). Sati can be right or wrong depending whether it is samma or miccha. I don't want to focus too much time on this, this is just an example of little things. .... S: The point is that you use many examples "of little things" to indicate that somehow the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries have got it all wrong instead of considering, just for a moment, that perhaps we ignorantly misunderstand what is said. How can we think, for an instant, that we understand the suttas better than the Buddha and ariyan disciples who conveyed these teachings to us? Taking your first example above, in the suttas, as you indicate, micchasati is referred to. Here, it is a conceptual term referring to many unwholesome factors which arise. It is not referring to the cetasika sati which can only arise with sobhana cittas. These are all good questions to raise for discussion, but we shouldn't assume that those points we don't understand must be errors in the texts. Metta Sarah ==== #117721 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:26 pm Subject: Re: Proximate cause of visible object sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& Ken H), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > KH: Yes, visible objects �Epleasant, unpleasant and middling �Earise all the time, but there will be no visual consciousness of any particular one of them unless the appropriate kamma has been put in place. > >P: So seeing arises as a result of kamma (vipaka) but visual object and other rupa arises because of not only kamma but also temperature and other factors. And rupa must always have colour, odor, temperature and nutritive in addition to the primary rupa with every kalapa, if I recall correctly. .... S: "colour, odor, *taste* and nutritive essence in addition to the primary rupas *in* every kalapa, if I recall correctly! ... > > So to summarize, the angry bellowing butterfly that is charging towards us, that rupa arose for reasons other than kamma. It is the seeing that is the result of our kamma, and kamma might condition seeing the pretty little buffalo that is fluttering above the charging butterfly instead? .... S: Oh, long, long stories about the butterfly! All the various kalapas of rupas which make up what we call the butterfly are conditioned by kamma, citta, nutriment or temperature. There must be kammaja rupas in any living being rupas. The seeing which arises, conditioned by kamma, just sees visible object, period:-)) What stories the cittas weave.... Metta Sarah ===== #117722 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Cetasika is external sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: Yes, understanding that at the moment of seeing, there has to be the meeting of the eye-sense, visible object, seeing cobsciousbess snd seven cetasikas, and the seven cetasikas experience the same object as the seeing consciousness, that's what is the mostimportant thing to understand. Nevertheless still a bit perplexing that sanna, for exampke, can be considered an external ayatana when similes such as the village raiding daicots are used for the ext. ayatanas, I have assumed the daicots were sense objects for some time now. .... S: Yes, in that sutta, it is the sense objects being referred to. Citta as foremost or innermost in the experiencing of objects. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about ayatanas. The meaning is that they refer to the "meeting" of dhammas - there have to be the "inner" and "outer" dhammas coming together. Subtle rupas are also "outer" ayatanas, only experienced through the mind. ... >Could be an example of how suttas are not as straight forward as we may think when reading them, or maybe I have misunderstood about the meaning of external ayatanas here as compared to external ayatanas in SN35 ... S: Without the sense objects, the "daicots", there is no experiencing, no "plundering", no kilesa, no dukkha on account of such experiences. Similarly, without the arising of cetasikas such as sanna and phassa, there is no "meeting", no consciousness at all. Good to consider further..... (I don't have any texts at hand to check). Metta Sarah ==== #117723 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:02 pm Subject: Re: Reflection on disadvantages of akusala: when? Now! No, when??? sarahprocter... Dear Phil & Rob E, > > R:I guess the question is whether it is akusala to dismiss your duties as householder in order to refrain from killing. I wonder what the official answer to this is? > > Ph: I probably don't understand it properly, but the mangala sutta occurs to me a lot. See verse 5. > > http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Pesala/Mangala/mangala.html .... S: Just checking: Maataapitu upatthaanam Puttadaarassa sangaho Anaakulaa ca kammantaa Etam mangalamuttamam Looking after one's mother and father Caring for one's wife and children And unconfused actions, This is the most auspicious sign. .... S: The greatest care for one's family is to help them understand what kusala is and lead them towards the path. I was surprised to read Rob suggest that it would be "akusala to dismiss your duties as householder in order to refrain from killing." It would never occur to Jon or I to intentionally harm a cockroach that was walking across the bed. I would consider that to be the opposite of a householder's duties! .... >P: And certainly there would be less killing of cockroaches or mosquitoes that I wouldn't kill if I were the only one they were harassing. .... S: I have a niece staying in Hong Kong at the moment. The wasps and mosquitoes seem to love her and she becomes very agitated (and bitten) by them. But just like with the small children the other day, the best assistance is to show her how to stay calm and kindly towards them (whilst covering up some flesh and using a lotion if need be!). Helping her to harm the creatures, leading to more akusala kamma, more akusala vipaka, doesn't help. .... > >R: I remember having an argument with a an old friend, a devout Christian who said that if someone broke into his house and attacked and threatened his family, he still wouldn't kill that person, no matter what they did. I argued that your responsibility to your children is more important than your own spiritual philosophy, which is for your own benefit. He disagreed. > > Ph: Well as Buddhists we know that there is no telling what would happen, the Christian who insists he wouldn't kill has little understanding of the way conditions can come together to cause people to kill no matter waht they vowed. ... S: As you say, we don't know what conditions will unfold, but I agree with the friend's principal that killing is not a responsibility or support. it always comes back to the citta as your New Your examples showed, Rob. Metta Sarah ===== #117724 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:05 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Pt (& Rob E), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > pt: Looks like in my dealings with RobE I got his gargantuosis messagitis. > > > > RE: Hey, don't blame it on me, man. I think it's your own tendency towards over-intellectualization. :-))) > > pt: Yes, I think you're right :) .... S: :-)) ... > >Pt: Sorry, I'm still in the process of replying to your other two long posts, hope to finish some time next week at least one of them, sometimes i wish it took me more time to commute so i could write a bit more. .... S: Maybe you could start a little earlier and choose an indirect train route? Just don't think about getting that car!! Seriously, amazing that you're able to write all your messages on the Galaxy tab without a proper keyboard and without all Phil's typos!! Metta Sarah ===== #117725 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:22 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, last one for a couple of days.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: There is the experiencing of rupas through different sense doors all the time in between the multiple mind door processes. Even now as we 'talk'. It just depends on accumulations what kind of thinking follows or doesn't follow, conceptualising as it's inclined to do so. Regardless, just thinking.... > >R: I guess what I'm shooting for here is a sense of whether there are the kinds of associations between patterns of rupas that have a parallel sensible coordination as those that we assign them when looking at conventional objects. ....I wonder if the rupas that we actually encounter such as visible object, hardness, motion, smoothness, visible object, etc., are arranged in a way that would tend towards similar types of conceptions, if that makes any sense. .... ... S: Yes, just as they are. If all visible objects, all sounds and so on were identical, there'd be no differentiation, no idea that 'this is a vase', 'this is a table', 'black', 'white', 'screechy noise', 'gruff voice' and so on. Phil just gave a good quote from A.Sujin's book SPD, translated by Nina, p.68 "All kinds of realities can appear when citta arises and clearly knows the object that presents itself. The citta that smells through the nose can arise and clearly know the different odours that appear. It can clearly know the smell of different kinds of animals, plants or flowers, the smell of food, of curry and of sweets. Even if we only smell without seeing anything, we can know what kind of smell it is." ... .... > > >R: Well if we have to live with a certain amount of fantasy, they may as well be lighter and sleeker ones don't you think? > > .... > > S: That's how I justify it.....:-)) > > Ah! An appreciation of pleasing rupas followed by a series of verifying namas! .... S: !! ... > I guess I am wondering whether the "enjoyable vipaka" which we conceptualize into a Macbook, does itself correspond to kusala kamma. I guess it probably does, even though it does not add up to the objects we think it does. While I think I'm enjoying the Macbook, I am really enjoying some nice namas and rupas from previous kusala kamma. .... S: Of course, we were just kidding about the macbook. Again, we have to understand the dhammas, not the concepts. At moments of touching the hardness or temperature (of the macbook) or at moments of seeing the visible objects, there are bound to be instances of kusala and akusala vipaka. We can't begin to "work out" what is what at this moment and it's irrelevant in that it is the kusala/akusala on account of such experiences that matters. At a moment of awareness of visible object, there's no thinking about whether it's kusala or akusala vipaka either. When we think we're enjoying the Macbook, we're really just thinking about a story of concepts based on various sense experiences and long, long stories beforehand, all of which sanna (perception) has been marking and remembering at each moment. ... > > >S: In between, there is thinking about different concepts about 'macbook', 'keyboard', 'blackberries' and all these squiggles. > >R: They may be equivalent. Still, I would not like to have the experience, conceptual though it may be, of typing on the blackberries. .... S: Could be a bit "squilchy":-))) Always fun chatting to you.... but then I'm spared the sarco!! metta Sarah ===== #117726 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:28 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, i just meant to add a quote: > >R: Well, it's just an odd idea to me that if the world is composed of only rupas, that they would just keep arising and falling away due to temperature, and never stop going. That is a universe of eternal rupas. I don't know what other school I'm interloping from, but I think even in science the Universe eventually comes to an end, though another might also begin if a "big bang" happens to come out of nowhere. [That's about as far as science has gotten with that subject I think.] > ... > S: Again, see more on world systems in the Vism and also in the Aga~n~na Sutta in DN. .... S: I thought of you when I just read the following quote Ven Samahita gave us: The Blessed Buddha once said: There will come a time, Bhikkhus, when all the mighty oceans will evaporate, dry up, vanish, and exist no more. But there will be no end of Suffering for beings who, blinded by Ignorance and obsessed by Craving, are hurrying and hastening through this samsaric round of endless rebirths...So is it! One day this mighty planet earth will explode in a gigantic burst of fire, be completely destroyed, and exist no more. But there will be no end of Misery for beings who, obstructed by Ignorance and addicted by Craving, are hurrying, even running and hastening from birth to repeated death in this round of rebirths... This I have now explained to you! Source: Grouped Discourses of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya SN 22:99 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html S: I think that says it all... Have a good weekend, everyone. Metta Sarah ===== #117727 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma nilovg Dear Phil, Op 22-sep-2011, om 17:39 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I think A.Sujin is wrong to assume that all meditators are > > > misguided and follow techniques with wrong view. Meditation can > > > happen in a kusala way. > > ------- > > N: You made a statement here, but could you quote what she said > exactly. > > Ph: I remember wondering when she said that for samatha there must > be understanding of the difference between the characteristics of > samattha (which must be kusala) and lobha why there was an > assumption that there could not be such understanding for a > meditator... ------- N: In her book Survey of paramattha dhammas, ch 28, on Samatha she explains that it is essential to know the difference between kusala and akusala. It is indeed very basic. She does not mention persons, only: She explains what is miccha samaadhi, she explains cause and effect. She deals with the subject matter, not with specific persons. I do not read here that all meditators are misguided. It is good to talk about this or that practice and not to speak about this or that person. Stories about people distract from the present moment and life is so short. ------- Nina. #117728 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma nilovg Dear Phil, Op 22-sep-2011, om 23:48 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > In any case, I find this topic is not helpful for bettering the > understanding of presently arisen dhammas so will hopefully stay > out of it from now on. ------ N: Yes, that is very good, we do not forget the real aim. Maybe you will go again to Bgk, and I just wanted to ask you: did you have an opportunity to speak to Kh. Duangduen? You have to make a little effort because she always stays at the background. She understands a lot, is very wise but never shows this. She is extraordinary, thinking of giving the whole day. It was such a previlige to be with her during our many trips to India. ------- Nina. #117729 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt nilovg Dear Phil, Op 23-sep-2011, om 3:15 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Vicikiccha-sampayutta is "citta associated with vicikiccha > cetasika, doubt about realities." > > Does this mean doubt that the Buddha taught about the dhamma in > question? Or doubt that the dhamma has the function it is taught to > have? (e.g doubt in the efficacy of kamma.) Or doubt that there can > be awareness and understanding of it? ------ N: Doubt about the Buddha, the Dhamma the Sangha. Doubt that enlightenment is possible, doubt about the difference between naama and ruupa. Is this naama, is this ruupa? Many aspects, all concerning the teachings, including characteristics of paramattha dhammas. Doubt is real, it can be object of awareness. The sotaapanna has eradicated such doubts. Nina. #117730 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma philofillet Hi Nina > Maybe you will go again to Bgk, and I just wanted to ask you: did you > have an opportunity to speak to Kh. Duangduen? You have to make a > little effort because she always stays at the background. She > understands a lot, is very wise but never shows this. She is > extraordinary, thinking of giving the whole day. It was such a > previlige to be with her during our many trips to India. > ------- Ph: I'm afraid I only talked with her once, about all the dogs she saved from the streets. I should have talked to her more. I'm glad I sent her a card to thank her for her hospitality. It is like a dream tgat never fades away, those Dhamma talks in the garden, the soft fragrant air, the food...sigh... I will definitely be going back next year at some point, to Bkk at least if not KK. Metta, Phil #117731 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 22-sep-2011, om 20:57 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I think I am seeing something here that you might be able to help > me with - the idea that when the citta itself becomes the object of > understanding for sampajanna or panna, that this is a higher level > or more pure type of understanding, because the concept that may be > on the "lower" end of the original citta is not confusing the > understanding anymore. I don't know if that's correct, but it just > occurred to me that way. > > I also liked the very wise simple statement of Kh. Sujin about > liking the person not being dependent on whether they like us. > There is a very clear sense of the nature of metta in that. ------- N: Your good questions help me to consider more. A concept does not need to confuse pa~n~naa, but it is beneficial to understand realities. It is the mettacitta that matters, not the person who may react in this or that way. But there are conditions to think all the time, and some of these moments can be thinking with kusala citta. We do not mind what arises and there need not be worry that thinking of persons confuses understanding. ------- Nina. #117732 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nilovg Dear Vince, Op 23-sep-2011, om 9:49 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > Normally, we are unaware of using the word "understanding" to > denote the > knowledge which is ruled by the reason and -self. But this is a > different > interpretation in where the deepest levels of the "understanding" > process are > not about objects grasped by the -self to produce intellectual > meanings for the > reason. > > So I believe the frequent discussion about the power of > "understanding" it's in > fact a whole misunderstanding. > > > Thanks to clarify the Thai use, I think quite important :) ------ N: Generally in the West the brain is considered to be the centre of mental activity, but in Asia it is the heart. Think of the word heartbase, this confuses people. It is the physical base of many cittas. Doctors speak of brain death and when this is the case one is pronounced dead, but I do not believe in this. There may still be conditions for cittas originating at the heartbase. It is not exactly defined where this is, it is a ruupa near the heart or the blood of the heart. ------- Nina. #117733 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt philofillet Hi Nina Thank you for the explanation. > doubt about the difference between naama and ruupa. Is this naama, is > this ruupa? Ph: This doubt is mentionned in particular in the commentary? Related to the first vipassana nana? Isn't it easy to know nama from rupa? Nama experiences something, rupa doesn't. But it is the first vip nana, so it cannot be as obvious as it might seem to some of us. Metta, Phil #117734 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., Me: "Yes, of course I am saying that the suttas are not the words of the Buddha." R: "This is a novel idea. What do you think the suttas are? Someone else made them up? What do you think the real Dhamma is, and who wrote or said it?" Scott: Hey, relax man. The above demonstrated inability to discern irony expressed in my response to the absurd question you asked should get you questioning your ability to get the suttas straight. To use your argument: I knew it was an ironic statement, how could you have not known this as well? And if this sort of ordinary thing trips you up, well, maybe the suttas aren't so straight forward either. Thinking you are right and that you know what the Buddha is saying in the suttas, you go on to literally believe that I don't consider the suttas to reflect 'the words of the Buddha' when I disagree with you. You might wonder what lead you to take my statement literally. You might want to then question this tendency towards concrete, literal thinking and ask whether it might influence your comprehension of the suttas. You might want to re-think your belief in the straight-forwardness of the suttas since, as I am suggesting, this is merely an inflated belief in your own abilities, which are actually, like mine, questionable in this regard. R: "...You seem to disagree with me period. Is there something in particular you would like to disagree with me about?..." Scott: No, just everything. Seriously, I've read your take on things long enough to see that you believe in wholes and processes and insubstantiality and 'buddhism' and concrete notions of literal paths and practice and in the fundamental efficacy of the Self as a central, moving force. You believe in 'the suttas,' which as I'm stating, amounts to no more than a belief in your own intellectual understanding of them (which you then equate with the suttas themselves and then go on to get all tied up in knots when someone disagrees with you, actually thinking that the suttas themselves are being dismissed - see above). And, as I'm pointing out to you, I disagree with all of this. Sincerely, Scott. #117735 From: Lukas Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:51 pm Subject: News from prison szmicio Dear friends, The last letter from Lucas(the first since 2 weeks) was very different. He was smiling and joking, saying he's waiting for Dhamma books. It appears that Phil letter encouraged him. (Phil as far as I know, Lucas answered to your letter, but this letter is still missing since he send it one week ago to my other adress). In yesterday's letter Lucas just mentioned me that he wrote to you last letter, and told me to remind you of a money :P He said also that he needs a cards to play. Lucas mentions also that he would like to have a mail contact with any nice-looking, buddhist girl :P Best wishes Lukas #117736 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:59 pm Subject: Re: Considering Dhamma more? philofillet Hi Lukas, Here is another encouraging passage from SPD, p.201: " Do we at times feel tired and bored, without energy? Simetimes the citta thinks of performing a particular kind of kusala, but then it is too weak and fatigue and boredom arise. Can sati at such moments be aware of the characteristics of citta that is weak and without energy for kusala? If there is no awareness there is a concept of self who feels that way. Fatigue, weakness and boredom. a feeling of being downcast, in low spirits and without energy, all such moments are real. If sati is not aware of the characteristic of such realities as they naturally appear, it will not be known that they are not a living being, not a person, not a self. They are only characteristics of citta that arises because of conditions and then falls away again." (end quote) Let's not let moha rope us into identifying with our moments of boredom and addiction, let's not get fooled into casting ourselves as the main character in the story of Lukas the tired chain smoker, Phil the frantic porno addict. Those akusala cittas arise and fall away again, they are not us. Understanding is not us eitger, but it will lead us out. I will keep sending you some passages. If you can get SPD back from your friend it would be good I think. Or Sukin can send yiu a copy if you e-mail him your address. Metta, Phil > > Ph: I just found a great passage on p. 122 of SPD: "Though knowledge acquired. from reading and listening, defilements cannot be eradicated; they are still bound to be present in full force. When we consider dhammas and have right understanding of them, conditions are being accumulated for the arising of right awareness. Then sati can be directly aware and notice the characteristics of the dhammas of which we formerly had theoretical understanding acquired through listening. In this way panna can penetrate the characteristics of realities that appear and then fall away, and wrong view, by which one takes realities for a living being, a person or self, can be eliminated." > > L: With wrong view, but what is wrong view? Is it still real? > > Best wishes > Lukas > #117737 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:15 pm Subject: Re: News from prison philofillet Hi Lukas What a coincidence! You posted this goid news about your friend just as I posted a note to you. I'm glad my letter encouraged him, I look forward to getting a letter from him someday. > Lucas mentions also that he would like to have a mail contact with any nice-looking, buddhist girl :P Ph: Great! That us a good sign that he is feeling better! Metta, Phil #117738 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:11 pm Subject: Re: Question for Saturday group philofillet Hi Robert > yes understanding gained from reading, listening, considering, discussing.. Thanks. I guess that answers that!:) I withdraw the question, I'd like to hear her talk about it, but that's for you lucky guys.. I will send more detailed questions for which the answers can be sent by e-mail another time. Say hi to Sukin, tell him the things he told me over Pad Thai make sense now, they didn't at the time, but I'm glad I kept listening. Also say hi to Ivan, I really enjoyed his stories about his California days. Metta, Phil #117739 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nilovg Dear Dieter, Sorry for being even slower! I read your two last posts, but I have to take more time. I can hardly cope with all the work ahead and this active list, but as Sarah once said, a mail is never too old to be answered. Nina. Op 22-sep-2011, om 10:19 heeft Nina van Gorkom het volgende geschreven: >> Dear Nina, >> >> sorry for being a bit slow... #117740 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 22-sep-2011, om 17:50 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > N: I checked the Satipa.t.thaansutta: parimukha.m sati.m > > upa.t.thapetvaa: having put sati in front. Mukha can mean face. > > Co: Fixes the attention by directing it towards the breath which is > > in front. > > I cannot see any abdomen here. > > It makes sense that the commentaries and Visudhimagga would share > this understanding of the sutta's words. And that may possibly be > the only good interpretation. However, I wonder if it is also > possible that it means "puts mindfulness to the fore," ie, > "frontmost in one's mind or intention," which is the sense that > some translators have given for that passage? > > I wonder if the Pali is especially geared towards one of those > meanings, or if they are both possible interpretations? > ------- N: You are quite right, there are other translations. ------ > > R: When one attends the "entire body of the breath," as many > interpret "body" in the passage further along, there is a sense of > mindfulness having a broader range to follow the entire course of > the breath. In this case, the focal point on the nostrils would not > make as much sense, at least at that stage. > > Some have suggested that the nostrils remain a focal point, as > Vism. asserts, but that from that focal point the attention follows > the movement of the breath as it expands and contracts at that > point. If that is the case, the abdomen and ribs areas would be > included in the "journey" that awareness takes through the course > of the breath. > -------- N: Is this not more like a yoga exercise? Do not be mistaken, I respect yoga teachers. You spoke about a teacher who could jump high up and land perfectly, and this gave me another view of yoga. An amazing experience you described. Back to breath: this is the tiniest ruupa originated by citta that arises and falls away at one point, the upperlip or nose point. It is so ephemeral and how amazing that our life depends on it. By following it to the whole body we make it as it were bigger than it is and also lasting longer. We cling already to breath, and should we not become more detached from it? Paying attention to the whole body makes us cling to 'wholes'. Shouldn't we detach from wholes? Whereas, if there can be awareness of bbreath, just at one point for the briefest moment, it will help us to see its nature of impermanence, not worth holding on to it; it is already gone before we realize it. Sometimes it may be good to return to the litteral meaning of Pali terms: pari mukha, in front, in the face. ------ Nina. > > > I would guess that for the advanced, at that point they would be > following the attendant rupas at each stage, from nostrils through > the abdomen and ribs as the breath expands, and then back to the > nostrils. > #117741 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:44 am Subject: Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. moellerdieter Dear Nina , you wrote: 'Sorry for being even slower! I read your two last posts, but I have to take more time. I can hardly cope with all the work ahead and this active list, but as Sarah once said, a mail is never too old to be answered' please answer any time convenient for you . I can imagine how busy you must be and admire how you cope with plenty of mails . with Metta Dieter #117742 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:02 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > S: Please note, the Buddha points to all the conditioned dhammas, the >18 elements, the 5 khandhas as being anicca and dukkha. Those dhammas >which are anicca and dukkha are not fit to be clung to with >attachment, conceit or atta-view. > > It is the dhammas which are anicca, dukkha and anatta. >======================== And the way in which the Buddha talks about anatta is based upon anicca, then dukkha in what is anicca, and anatta in what is anicca and dukkha. Furthermore anatta is not the same word as natthatta. Also, for whatever reason, He kept saying this and that should not be considered as self. In MN2, for whatever reason, He said that one should contemplate 4NT rather than have wrong reflections of "Am I not? There is no self". With best wishes, Alex #117743 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Can actions rooted in lobha condition kusala? truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > S: Just namas and rupas, however described, however "bundled up"..... >and any nama, any rupa, can be the object of satipatthana. >================================================== And things like anapanasati, 4 postures, 4 elements, 10 stages of decomposition, 31 (or 32) bodyparts, etc. Not to mention aging of the body, sickness, death and kamma which can lead to the Arhatship. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html With best wishes, Alex #117744 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:13 am Subject: Re: Notes on nimitta, part 3. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > The problems in life are not the unpleasant bodily experiences, but the lobha, dosa and moha which follow all sense door experiences. Thanks. Rob E. - - - - - - - - #117745 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:23 am Subject: Re: Notes on nimitta, part 3. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > I guess in the Buddhist world we could say "Life is but a nimitta" from now on. > .... > S: :-) I think you've both "nailed" the nimittas in this discussion. Thanks, Sarah. I wonder, since the nimittas are concepts, is there any sense of how long they last, or can this not be said about a concept? Do they have a number of moments for which they are entertained by citta in order to be more closely understood than a fleeting dhamma? I ask this since it seems that the nimitta lasts longer and thus gives the cittas a chance to get more information about the dhammas through understanding the nimittas. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117746 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:28 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: They may be equivalent. Still, I would not like to have the experience, conceptual though it may be, of typing on the blackberries. > .... > S: Could be a bit "squilchy":-))) > > Always fun chatting to you.... but then I'm spared the sarco!! Each according to his kamma... Anyway, I think Scott enjoys it. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #117747 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:27 am Subject: Re: Reflection on disadvantages of akusala: when? Now! No, when??? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: As you say, we don't know what conditions will unfold, but I agree with the friend's principal that killing is not a responsibility or support. I guess the problem for me is when there doesn't seem to be a choice between allowing harm and causing harm. It seems that allowing harm is just as bad as causing it. For instance, if someone is attacking a child with a knife, just to give an unpleasant example, is your responsibility to stop the person with the knife, even though in doing so you may hurt or kill him, or to refrain from any violence and let the child be killed? Obviously what I would do ideally would be to defend the child without hurting the attacker, but that is not always possible. > it always comes back to the citta as your New Your examples showed, Rob. It is remarkable that I was able to get through those events without ever raising a hand, and several more that I haven't mentioned. I had a kind of instinct to "act dumb and cooperate." I would literally go into a kind of relaxed mode, not make any eye contact that would challenge the other person, and "follow instructions." While it may not always be fun to be so passive, it seemed to disarm any violent intentions on the part of the other person. Speaking of odd vipaka - if that's what it is - I had one odd event that I will mention because it has some weirdly interesting elements - I was a "bad boy" when I was a pre-teen, and I actually used a fake note to buy some cigarettes with my friend at a local store, in the "bad neighborhood" where we lived. In that area, there was a lot of tension between whites and blacks, with the usual reputations on both sides. Anyway, an older white boy came over to me and demanded the cigarettes and my money, and put a knife to my throat. I emptied my pockets but only had a few cents left. He was angry that I didn't have more money and wouldn't take the knife away. Over his shoulder I saw a gang of black young men approaching, and I thought "Okay now I'm in even more trouble - they'll probably fight over who gets to kill me!" The leader of the group of black guys came over and said to the white guy "Leave him alone - he's too small." The white guy protested, but the black gang leader made him go away. Then they left too. The gang leader smiled at me as they were leaving and I smiled and waved to him. He waved back. I always remembered that no matter how many decades passed, that I was saved from a white mugger by a black gang. It sort of challenges one's "concepts." Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #117748 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:35 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > One day this mighty planet earth will explode in a gigantic burst of fire, > be completely destroyed, and exist no more. But there will be no end of > Misery for beings who, obstructed by Ignorance and addicted by Craving, > are hurrying, even running and hastening from birth to repeated death in > this round of rebirths... This I have now explained to you! > S: I think that says it all... Thanks for quoting that, Sarah, that certainly answers my question on the eventual end of at least our local rupas! Of course I thought to myself "Well if they are hurrying through more rounds of birth and death and the world is gone, where will they go?" But I like Buddha's tone in that passage - almost sarcastic on his part, that these beings are "...hurrying, even running and hastening from birth to repeated death..." I'm glad to see that in his subtle way, the Buddha had a good sense of humor. I hope you have a good weekend too. Hope you're back to some decent green tea after your trip! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117749 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Your good questions help me to consider more. A concept does not > need to confuse pa~n~naa, but it is beneficial to understand > realities. It is the mettacitta that matters, not the person who may > react in this or that way. But there are conditions to think all the > time, and some of these moments can be thinking with kusala citta. We > do not mind what arises and there need not be worry that thinking of > persons confuses understanding. I'm still a little confused about how panna looks upon a conceptual object, if it does. If mettacitta arises with a concept of a being, does panna see the nature of that concept, or since it is not a dhamma, does it not consider it at all? I'm a little unsure how the concept appears for a kusala citta. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117750 From: Vince Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Hi Nina you wrote: > N: Generally in the West the brain is considered to be the centre of > mental activity, but in Asia it is the heart. Think of the word > heartbase, this confuses people. It is the physical base of many > cittas. Doctors speak of brain death and when this is the case one is > pronounced dead, but I do not believe in this. There may still be > conditions for cittas originating at the heartbase. It is not exactly > defined where this is, it is a ruupa near the heart or the blood of > the heart. heart it's the organ with the strongest electromagnetic signal in our body. Today the scientific knowledge is forcing to a wider notion of mind because non-located memory, subatomic particles, new body signals, etc... There is people in science who are putting the heart in the center of this new paradigm for the mind. This is no more a Buddhist belief but a very plausible reality. Today the assumption of the mind inhabiting the brain it's an old cultural belief. best, Vince. #117751 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:51 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Me: "Yes, of course I am saying that the suttas are not the words of the Buddha." > > R: "This is a novel idea. What do you think the suttas are? Someone else made them up? What do you think the real Dhamma is, and who wrote or said it?" > > Scott: Hey, relax man. I'm not unrelaxed, just trying to have a conversation with you. You make it a little difficult with all your fun games and head trips. > The above demonstrated inability to discern irony expressed in my response to the absurd question What was absurd about the question? > you asked should get you questioning your ability to get the suttas straight. To use your argument: I knew it was an ironic statement, how could you have not known this as well? It wasn't that clear; however you can always clarify. On the other hand, if you make a direct statement, it's not ironic, just opposite. > And if this sort of ordinary thing trips you up, well, maybe the suttas aren't so straight forward either. If you stick your foot in front of someone and they trip, you have something to do with them "tripping up." > Thinking you are right and that you know what the Buddha is saying in the suttas, you go on to literally believe that I don't consider the suttas to reflect 'the words of the Buddha' when I disagree with you. No, you actually stated that and then said afterwards that it was ironic. The Buddha didn't play head games, saying one thing and meaning the opposite, just to see who he could "trip up." That's your kind of fun, Scott. Yippee! > You might wonder what lead you to take my statement literally. Because you stated it directly. Yes, I would believe you meant it, if you didn't clarify, but that's not my problem, it's yours. I don't know what you think. For all I know, you may think the subcommentaries are the true word of the Buddha, delivered in the 9th arupa plane, and that the suttas are a clever plot to make the Buddha look like a reasonable person. > You might want to then question this tendency towards concrete, literal thinking and ask whether it might influence your comprehension of the suttas. You might want to re-think your belief in the straight-forwardness of the suttas since, as I am suggesting, this is merely an inflated belief in your own abilities, which are actually, like mine, questionable in this regard. I made a clear distinction between very straightforward, obvious statements and whether they should be believed or not, versus more complex or subtle passages that would need to be investigated much more carefully. You haven't answer my question, whether the Buddha saying "strive with all your might," "work unceasingly night and day" can be taken to mean something other than what they say. They are direct admonitions. Are they subject to interpretation other than what they say? > R: "...You seem to disagree with me period. Is there something in particular you would like to disagree with me about?..." > > Scott: No, just everything. I got the irony on that one - I guess I get a point for that? > Seriously, I've read your take on things long enough to see that you believe in wholes and processes and insubstantiality and 'buddhism' and concrete notions of literal paths and practice and in the fundamental efficacy of the Self as a central, moving force. Not the last part - you have invented that. No Self involved, but imagine away... I do believe in conventional practice, a path of actual practice and elements of living, so you've got enough to disagree with me about, without imputing an idea of Self which I don't have. > You believe in 'the suttas,' which as I'm stating, amounts to no more than a belief in your own intellectual understanding of them (which you then equate with the suttas themselves and then go on to get all tied up in knots when someone disagrees with you, actually thinking that the suttas themselves are being dismissed - see above). My approach to this is straightforward. It doesn't dismiss the complexity of the Dhamma. What it does is object to people who twist the meaning of the suttas inside-out for no reason other than their own beliefs, and who interpret contradictory meanings between the suttas and commentaries in favor of the commentaries. Using the commentaries as the source with which to interpret the suttas, even when they contradict the suttas, makes one into a commentarialist, not a Buddhist. Since you don't believe in Buddhism per se, that is probably fine with you, but it's not following the Buddha to believe someone else when they "interpret" the Buddha to mean the opposite of what he said. As for the subtlety and complexity of the Dhamma, that is fine. But many who use the commentaries as their guide are all too happy to dismiss the plain meaning of the suttas in favor of someone else's interpretation. That doesn't give deeper knowledge, but opposite knowledge, and that is not correct understanding, if one cares about that. > And, as I'm pointing out to you, I disagree with all of this. Your enjoyment of your ability to disagree with this, that, or the other thing does not guarantee that anything you know is correct. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #117752 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Rob E. > > Some have suggested that the nostrils remain a focal point, as > > Vism. asserts, but that from that focal point the attention follows > > the movement of the breath as it expands and contracts at that > > point. If that is the case, the abdomen and ribs areas would be > > included in the "journey" that awareness takes through the course > > of the breath. > > > -------- > N: Is this not more like a yoga exercise? Do not be mistaken, I > respect yoga teachers. You are right that it has something in common with yoga exercises. However, my idea about this comes from the passages in anapansati that talk about "being mindful of the whole body." Many translate that as the "whole [breath] body." I guess they do that because of something about the Pali involved...? And that leads to the passage about "pacifying the bodily formations" or "formation" in some translations, which also seems like a yoga breathing exercise in some ways, except that Buddha is emphasizing the mindfulness involved as samatha is thus developed. So that leads to the idea that the "whole body" is being followed in the movement of the breath, and that bodily samatha is being developed through this action. Do you have an alternate way of looking at those passages? ... > Back to breath: this is the tiniest ruupa originated by citta that > arises and falls away at one point, the upperlip or nose point. It is > so ephemeral and how amazing that our life depends on it. By > following it to the whole body we make it as it were bigger than it > is and also lasting longer. We cling already to breath, and should we > not become more detached from it? Paying attention to the whole body > makes us cling to 'wholes'. Shouldn't we detach from wholes? Whereas, > if there can be awareness of breath, just at one point for the > briefest moment, it will help us to see its nature of impermanence, > not worth holding on to it; it is already gone before we realize it. Thank you, Nina, I like this very much, and I think you make an excellent point about how that rupa can be understood. > Sometimes it may be good to return to the litteral meaning of Pali > terms: pari mukha, in front, in the face. I can see how the Visuddhimagga picked up on this and understood it in this way. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #117753 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:25 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...You haven't answer my question, whether the Buddha saying 'strive with all your might,' 'work unceasingly night and day' can be taken to mean something other than what they say. They are direct admonitions. Are they subject to interpretation other than what they say?... Scott: As I've asked, please show me an example of how you, in your 'practice,' follow these conventionally stated admonitions. Tell me what you actually do and I'll examine this method of yours and question you about it in detail and see if the way in which you actually 'strive' makes any sense from a Dhamma perspective. Sincerely, Scott. #117754 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:19 am Subject: Kamma can be Modified! bhikkhu5 Friends: Effect of Action is not fixed, but Modifiable by new Action: Painful effects of past wrong action is reduced by future right action. Painful effects of past wrong action is enhanced by more wrong action. Pleasurable effects of past right action is reduced by new wrong action. Pleasurable effects of past right action is enhanced by right action now. Behaviour (kamma) is almost always mixed: Sometimes good, often bad! Later effects are thus similarly mixed: Sometimes pleasure, often pain... Good begets good & dilutes & delays evil. Evil begets evil & delays good! <....> Some sound sources of the Buddha on Kamma: AN 3.99 Lonaphala Sutta The Salt Crystal: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html Kamma & the Ending of Kamma: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1 -b Instant Karma in Action! Thus Don't do Evil! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #117755 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:05 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...You haven't answer my question, whether the Buddha saying 'strive with all your might,' 'work unceasingly night and day' can be taken to mean something other than what they say. They are direct admonitions. Are they subject to interpretation other than what they say?... > > Scott: As I've asked, please show me an example of how you, in your 'practice,' follow these conventionally stated admonitions. Tell me what you actually do and I'll examine this method of yours and question you about it in detail and see if the way in which you actually 'strive' makes any sense from a Dhamma perspective. It doesn't surprise me that you won't give a straight answer to that very simple question, since it potentially challenges your interpretation of Dhamma. How one applies the admonition or how one practices is a worthwhile subject, but it has nothing to do with whether those plain words of the Buddha can be taken literally or not. Let's take the first thing first, and give you a chance to stop slithering away from the question like an evasive eel. Answer the question, whether those words mean what they say or not, and then we can discuss what they mean in practice, from your point of view and from mine. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #117756 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:52 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Answer the question, whether those words mean what they say or not..." Scott: This list has a clearly stated parameter: "A Theravada Buddhist discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of dhammas (the 'realities' of the present moment)." Scott: Your question has been answered in various ways, citing various texts, by me and many others on the list more capable than me: The suttas are written in conventional language and describe ultimate realities thereby. Sound familiar? Prior to my hiatus I provided my versions of this answer to you in many posts. If memory fails you, do a bit of searching and you will see how many times and in how many ways your current request has been acceded to. I see the Dhamma in the same way as do Nina, Sarah, Jon, Ken H., pt, Azita, Rob K., and whomever else has given you many, many excellent answers to your question. I may not seem as patient, as clear, as kind, or as knowledgeable but I agree with all of them when it comes to their general position. I read on the list because I see the Dhamma this way. Now, you do not accept the Commentarial tradition, you do not accept the Abhidhamma, and you claim an understanding of the suttas which, given your lack of acceptance of two of the accepted source texts on this list, can only be based on your very own version of it. It would seem to me, given the amount of time others, including me, have invested in responding to your question over the months, that you would have something better to say than 'answer the question.' This would insult all those who have, in good faith, done just that, carefully, many times, and in many ways (but it likely doesn't and your lucky). It throws everyone's answers back in our faces when you make this demand. I know that you know that you've been answered many, many times. You know the answers and you don't agree. That is clear to any reader who has followed your correspondence on the list. It also seems to me, since you approach this list with a view divergent from the list's own stated aims, (which is totally fine) that the responsibility lies with you to demonstrate the merits of your view, since it is a divergent one here. People are polite enough to let you dismiss on their own list many of the things they find valuable. The stance of meditators is clearly not seen here as it is by you. No, I'd like to see you - a meditator, a denier of the Commentarial position, a Sutta-only advocate - step beyond the rhetoric that I see as common to the meditator stance, and attempt to engage in a discussion of your very own practice. You say you do it, you say it's important. Unless you say what it is, then you are merely making rhetorical statements. For discussion that transcends rhetoric, the next step is to describe your practice. You say there is a need to literally practice and strive. Describe this practice of yours - what you actually do, how you actually strive - and let us look at it from the point of view of 'the realities of the present moment.' Let us examine the 'striving' that you talk about. Let us see what it is in actuality - in action. With an honest enough description of what you do when you practice, you can give us the opportunity to consider the merits of it. This practice can be examined and compared to the suttas, the Abhidhamma, and the Commentaries - the accepted texts here. This would be a risky sort of task, but if you stand by your practice, it should be fine. I don't expect that you will do this. You haven't yet, after a first clear request. Now you have my answer, and a reminder that others, with whom I agree, have also answered your question. If that answer was really what you needed before proceeding, you have more than gotten it now. Any reader will be able to see this. So, now for your part of the agreement. Proceed as you prefer: Your practice or last word to you. Sincerely, Scott. #117757 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:09 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Robert E 117372 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: I'm saying that if 'mindfulness' here is a reference to the mindfulness of the Satipatthana Sutta, then what is being described is the attainment of the 4th jhana by a monk who is also developing insight, and not the attainment of the 4th jhana alone. > > [RE:] I think this is a very intriguing conversation, and I will say more later when I have time, but I wanted to sort of agree with you on this comment above, in a way: I do think that what Buddha is talking about here is the development of mindfulness along with jhana, ... > =============== J: Well I'm glad to find we are in agreement on this after all :-)). > =============== > ... and that the two are developed together in the Buddhist method. > =============== J: Certainly mindfulness and samatha are developed together, particularly since at every moment of mindfulness right concentration is being developed also. However, as I read the suttas that are most often quoted on this topic (Satipatthana S, Anapanasati S), the person being described is one who is already highly developed in both samatha (jhana attainer already perhaps) and insight (close to enlightenment), and the point of the teaching is to show how insight may be developed in tandem with the attainment of jhana so that there is the possibility of enlightenment with jhana as basis. > =============== > [RE:] I think this supports the idea that the Buddha's jhanas are not "the old fashioned" Hindu jhanas, and that they are meant to be developed in conjunction with mindfulness from the beginning. > =============== J: For those who have heard and understood the teachings, the development of all forms of kusala is to be understood as being 'in conjunction with mindfulness' (as far as possible). I think you'll find that suttas dealing with dana and sila also make reference to the development of awareness/insight. But jhana citta is jhana citta, regardless of the tradition within which it is attained or the level of insight (or wrong view) that may precede or follow it. > =============== > [RE:] If that is the case, that either in tandem or by systematic alteration, deeper stages of insight are reached through suppression of the defilements followed by mindful investigation of the characteristics of the subtle dhammas attendant upon the jhanas, ... > =============== J: The notion of deeper insight during periods of the suppression of the hindrances brought about by attainment of jhana is not one that is stated in the texts. The basis usually given for this notion is that the hindrances are described in the texts as being hindrances to the development of awareness. From this it is deduced that if the hindrances were to be suppressed then insight would be free to shine. But that thinking (or speculation) seems to ignore the fact that there is no insight to shine unless it has already been developed (i.e., outside the context of the hindrances being suppressed by jhana). > =============== ... and that by the reaching of the 4th jhana the deep suppression of defilements, achievement of equanimity and fulfillment of satipatthana have been reached together, leading to a most extraordinary state of satipatthana within deep equanimity and unity of mind. This state would be the perfect launching point for the purified cittas, rich in panna, that would then go through the final path factors and realize nibbana. > =============== J: The only possibility of there being "purified cittas, rich in panna" is if such purification and panna has already been developed -- that is to say, in other (non-jhana) contexts. > =============== > [RE:] If the above is the case, then the words of the Buddha can be taken quite literally and the details can be filled in according to that order of the practice. > =============== J: By 'words of the Buddha' here are you referring to the description of Right Concentration? If so, that description does not speak about an 'order of practice', does it. It merely confirms that at moments of enlightenment, concentration of the level of jhana is present. (Would you apply the same 'order of practice' construction/interpretation to the other 7 path factors? I don't think so :-)) Jon #117758 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt nilovg Dear Phil, Op 23-sep-2011, om 12:45 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > doubt about the difference between naama and ruupa. Is this > naama, is > > this ruupa? > > Ph: This doubt is mentionned in particular in the commentary? > Related to the first vipassana nana? > > Isn't it easy to know nama from rupa? Nama experiences something, > rupa doesn't. But it is the first vip nana, so it cannot be as > obvious as it might seem to some of us. ------ N: Howard also took up this point. It seems easy, but: right at the moment! When thinking, we understand, but how is this through awareness? When visible object appears there is also seeing, but sati can be aware of only one dhamma at a time. They are so close. At the moment of the first stage of vipassanaa there is no doubt, but after that pa~n~naa has to be aware of many more realities, to apply the understanding gained at the moment of vipassanaa ~naa.na. At that moment naama and ruupa appear through the mind-door, and there is no doubt what the mind-door is. Before, the mind-door was concealed. ------- Nina. #117759 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reflection on disadvantages of akusala: when? Now! No, when??? nilovg Dear Rob E, This is a very nice story about kindness. You always have amazing experiences! Nina. Op 23-sep-2011, om 22:27 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > The gang leader smiled at me as they were leaving and I smiled and > waved to him. He waved back. I always remembered that no matter how > many decades passed, that I was saved from a white mugger by a > black gang. It sort of challenges one's "concepts." #117760 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 23-sep-2011, om 22:38 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I'm still a little confused about how panna looks upon a conceptual > object, if it does. If mettacitta arises with a concept of a being, > does panna see the nature of that concept, or since it is not a > dhamma, does it not consider it at all? I'm a little unsure how the > concept appears for a kusala citta. ----- N: Not so complicated when you consider the rapidity of cittas. Citta that thinks of a being with metta, and so soon after citta with awareness of a reality. Awareness of the level of satipa.t.thaana always has a dhamma as object, so that it can be seen as impermanent, dukkha, anattaa. A concept does not have these characteristics. Direct awareness is not thinking. Kusala citta with understanding can think of a being, but this understanding is not direct understanding of a reality. Different moments, but they can be so close, it seems one moment. Nina. #117761 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:59 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...How one applies the admonition or how one practices is a worthwhile subject, but it has nothing to do with whether those plain words of the Buddha can be taken literally or not..." Scott: As an aside, while you ponder your course of discussion, in relation to this notion of practice, 'whether those plain words of the Buddha can be taken literally or not' has everything to do with the question. If this is suddenly not what we are discussing, then you have veered precipitously off the road of our conversation, plunged into a dark ravine, and I can only see the burning wreckage of your argument's car with binoculars. Sincerely, Scott. #117762 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nilovg Dear Vince, Op 23-sep-2011, om 22:51 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > heart it's the organ with the strongest electromagnetic signal in > our body. > Today the scientific knowledge is forcing to a wider notion of mind > because > non-located memory, subatomic particles, new body signals, etc... > There is people in science who are putting the heart in the center > of this > new paradigm for the mind. This is no more a Buddhist belief but a > very > plausible reality. > > Today the assumption of the mind inhabiting the brain it's an old > cultural > belief. ------ N: That is quite a development. But as to the Dhamma, let us distinguish between science and scientific notions which are different and changeable at different times, and ultimate realities that have unalterable characteristics, no matter at the Buddha's time or now. Nina. #117763 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:32 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator >R: "...Answer the question, whether those words mean what they say or >not..." > > Scott: This list has a clearly stated parameter:... >============================================= Scott, you haven't answered Robert's question. Do those quotes say that one should strive or not? We are talking about those sutta quotes, not Robert's practice. ===== "And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will... Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty... Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to destroy these things do not arise for him when he destroys them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html Just as a strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts - imbued with desire, aversion or delusion - still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then - with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth - he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As - with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth - he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html Monks, I have known two qualities through experience: discontent with regard to skillful qualities[1] and unrelenting exertion. Relentlessly I exerted myself, [thinking,] 'Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.' From this heedfulness of mine was attained Awakening. From this heedfulness of mine was attained the unexcelled freedom from bondage. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.005.than.html "And what, monks, is right effort? "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. ...for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen....for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen....for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." [alex: I've removed repetitions] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html ================================================= With best wishes, Alex #117764 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:55 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...Do those quotes say that one should strive or not? We are talking about those sutta quotes, not Robert's practice." Scott: (This next response is all tongue-in-cheek. Please don't respond as I have no intention of continuing with you. I'll leave that to the more patient on the list. Oh, that was not tongue-in-cheek, I really won't discuss stuff with you.) How many times do you have to be told the same thing? I love how you meditators get so worked up about things. If I believed in the efficacy of manful striving on the cushion, I'd suggest you go back to it and strive harder and then you might relax. Don't you guys always say that the hard work on the cushion is supposed to somehow carry over? I, of course, have my excuse because all I'm doing is nothing and waiting for enlightenment, using my laptop to type this response while having a beer in a bus that is also a rolling strip club which happens to be going through a red light as I type and is about to crash into a tree that someone who is washing dishes is right next to and is actually trying to eat the tree with a fork! We aren't talking about Robert's practice because he hasn't described it. I suppose you aren't willing to describe your own striving either. You have repeated yourself ad nauseum such that even a corpse would know that you believe in the Protestant work-ethic of faith-without-works-is-dead that is so clearly taught at the core of the Dhamma. Okay. That's it. I will not discuss this with you. No offense but it is not what I find useful. I know you'll keep at it but please don't be offended when I do not respond. Let's wait and see what Rob E. will say. Oh, it's my turn for the lap dance, can't type right now (dropped my beer)... Sincerely, Scott. P.S. Remember, I'm not going to reply to you. Like, I'm not going to. So don't expect it okay? When you reply it will just be to the ether, right? Okay, bye. Yeah, I'm ready now... #117765 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:50 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello Scott, RobertE, all, >A: "...Do those quotes say that one should strive or not? We are >talking about those sutta quotes, not Robert's practice." >============================ >Scott...How many times do you have to be told the same thing? >I love how you meditators get so worked up about things.... >================= Here is the issue. You have said that Buddha never taught about striving etc. I have shown many quotes where He clearly said things about striving. Rather than admitting that Buddha tought effort in no uncertain words, you keep distraction by attacking the person ("so how well do you meditate?"). You are throwing red-herrings and trying to be personal about with me or Robert rather than keep on topic "Did the Buddha teach to strive"? You say that I, Robert, Venerable Mahasi Saydaw (on the issue of effort), countless other great Bhikkhus (even those who hold Abhidhamma in High Esteem and base their teaching on it) and others, don't understand what the suttas say but you do... After ~ 2,500 years few people have figured it out... Sure, I don't understand how one can take a phrase: "strive with all your might" and make it mean "DO NOT strive with all your might or you will be just controlling realities and developing Self View". As if one doesn't run a risk at developing self view in daily life. Of course it is very hard to understand how and why should a statement be taken in exact opposite of what it says. With best wishes, Alex #117766 From: "philip" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:56 am Subject: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt philofillet Hi Nina > > Isn't it easy to know nama from rupa? Nama experiences something, > > rupa doesn't. But it is the first vip nana, so it cannot be as > > obvious as it might seem to some of us. > ------ > N: Howard also took up this point. It seems easy, but: right at the > moment! Ph: Yes, it is easy for me to understand intellectually that seeing sees and visibke object is seen but I don't yet really understand what is satipatthana of moment of seeing. N: When thinking, we understand, but how is this through > awareness? Ph: We do know that understanding the teaching on seeing and visible object bty reading about it, listening about it, discussing it and reflecting on it is helpful condition for conditioning satipatthana, but this iis not satipatthana. N: When visible object appears there is also seeing, but sati > can be aware of only one dhamma at a time. Ph: I heard you say in a talk you used to understand both nama and rupa at same time. It is natiral to thinj knowing nama ftom rupa must happen in this way. But no, that can only be thinking again. So only one dhamma at a time. nama or rupa. I heard this: "At a moment of experiencing hardness, there are two realities: hardness and knowing hardness" Natural to want to be aware of both, but no, that is not knowing nama from rupa, right? We know nama better, we know rupa better, and knowing bama ftom rupa will come from that in a way that is not as obvious as thinking thinks. Does that sound right? They are so close. > At the moment of the first stage of vipassanaa there is no doubt, but > after that pa~n~naa has to be aware of many more realities, to apply > the understanding gained at the moment of vipassanaa ~naa.na. At > that moment naama and ruupa appear through the mind-door, and there > is no doubt what the mind-door is. Before, the mind-door was concealed. Ph; This is difficult for me, but that is fine, no hurry on this point. Stupid question, but is the mind door nama or rupa? Metta, Phil Metta, Phil > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #117767 From: "philip" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:02 am Subject: Knowing nama from rupa ( was Re: [dsg] Citta associated with doubt philofillet Hi again Correction: > N: When visible object appears there is also seeing, but sati > > can be aware of only one dhamma at a time. > > Ph: I heard you say in a talk you used to understand both nama and rupa at same time. It is natiral to thinj knowing nama ftom rupa must happen in this way. But no, that can only be thinking again. Ph: I heard you say that you used to try to know both, or used to believe both should be understood together. Metta, Phil > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > #117768 From: "connie" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? part 2. nichiconn Hi Vince, Nina, > N: Generally in the West the brain is considered to be the centre of mental activity, but in Asia it is the heart. Think of the word heartbase, this confuses people. It is the physical base of many cittas. Doctors speak of brain death and when this is the case one is pronounced dead, but I do not believe in this. There may still be conditions for cittas originating at the heartbase. It is not exactly defined where this is, it is a ruupa near the heart or the blood of the heart. connie: Hm... just thinking that the little pool of blood is a conventional expression reflecting jivitindriya & it's not so much, with mentality, a matter of "where" as "how"... how clear is that pool? best wishes, c. #117769 From: "connie" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:10 am Subject: Re: Kamma can be Modified! nichiconn Catchy but misleading title/subject line, sir. Ditto, the phrase "instant karma". peace, connie #117770 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:13 am Subject: Re: Kamma can be Modified! scottduncan2 connie, c: "Catchy but misleading title/subject line, sir. Ditto, the phrase 'instant karma'." Scott: Soylent green is to people as dhammas are to kamma. Sincerely, Scott. #117771 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:25 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Scott, It's really good to have you back on the list. Even if a little scary at times! :-) ------ > Scott: This list has a clearly stated parameter: "A Theravada Buddhist discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of dhammas (the 'realities' of the present moment)." ------ KH: One thing we don't notice in that parameter is a ban on people with alternative motives. It might seem strange not to have such a ban but, in practice, it seems to be working. Suppose there is occasionally someone at DSG who comes here with the sole aim of disrupting genuine Dhamma study. That person might be (for example) a missionary from a religious cult, trawling for potential victims to indoctrinate. (I am not saying there are, or have been, such people here but just suppose.) Should we expel them? I don't think so; provided they stay on topic there is no reason to. Trolls should be treated with patience, courage and good cheer, and they provide us with an opportunity for doing just that. And the good kamma might come in handy one day. No doubt we have all been trolls in past lives, and probably will be again. Wouldn't it be good if, in one of those future lives, we were to happen upon a Dhamma site moderated by Jon and Sarah? :-) Ken H #117772 From: "connie" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:34 am Subject: Re: Kamma can be Modified! nichiconn > > Scott: Soylent green is to people as dhammas are to kamma. > State Security Chief Donovan: Do you have the words straight? Gilbert: You know I won't understand them if I live to be a hundred. State Security Chief Donovan: You won't. ;) connie #117773 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:59 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Hey Ken H., K: "It's really good to have you back on the list. Even if a little scary at times! :-)" Scott: Thanks, Ken! I scare myself sometimes. Actually, all the time. KH: "One thing we don't notice in that parameter is a ban on people with alternative motives. It might seem strange not to have such a ban but, in practice, it seems to be working." Scott: Absolutely. I took a hiatus because I felt my own ability to just be myself and express my ideas was being compromised. I don't think this was the case, in retrospect. I must have scared myself. I'll say what I wish, in the way I wish (and I know that I edit and review each time I post - you think the final product is scary). Others ought to and do, of course, have the same privilege. KH: "Suppose there is occasionally someone at DSG who comes here with the sole aim of disrupting genuine Dhamma study...Should we expel them? I don't think so; provided they stay on topic there is no reason to. Trolls should be treated with patience..." Scott: Pardon the elipses but I'm just trimming the post, as we are asked. How come no one else does that? (This message on trimming has been brought to you by the Editors Guild of the Ether Realms.) I agree. I'm not into expelling trolls. When I felt treated like a troll on 'my own' list, I expelled myself. I think this is what happens. Someone goes off in a huff. Trolls bug me, sure, but I've come back to post in my own way, not run anyone off. I don't want Rob E. or Alex to leave, for example. That being said, I'd like them to remember where they are. Should a troll be affronted if confronted and challenged and reminded about the lay of the land? No. And, everyone gets to have his or her own style, I would assume. The detractor allows for great Dhamma study, taking his or her view and really looking at it's problems and divergences from the held view of the list. I just like to poke one or two of them once in awhile. And sometimes I just tire of the same old thing. I do find it difficult dealing with the brutal repetition of the same message over and over. This isn't so much Dhamma study as a mugging. I really think I have a good idea in having a meditator be brave enough to actually provide a sample description of his practice so we can demonstrate what exactly we think of it by comparing it with the texts. I'm tired of being told that there is an imperative to act over and over, and having the same suttas shoved under my eyes. But that's just me. I think the overall debate has totally stalled. Also, I didn't want you to suffer the onslaught alone anymore. Now you can rest while people cry about me for awhile. Sincerely, Scott. #117774 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:01 pm Subject: Re: Kamma can be Modified! scottduncan2 connie, c: "State Security Chief Donovan: Do you have the words straight? Gilbert: You know I won't understand them if I live to be a hundred. State Security Chief Donovan: You won't." Scott: I wish DSG had a 'like button.' s #117775 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:01 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi KenH, all, Splitting your post in two bits as the issues are different: > KH: As Dhamma students we know there is only the present moment, from which nothing continues on. With that understanding there can be no thought of working towards some future reward. pt: I agree, but I think for me, this is mostly just an intellectual understanding, which rarely (if at all) translates into actual pariyatti, as in knowing there is only the present moment in the sense of panna being concerned with what's occurring presently. At all other times, there's something else going on under the guise of "considering dhamma" so i'm trying to hear from others what else could be happening there. > KH: There is a lot of lobha in our imperfect daily Dhamma-study, but it is just enjoyment of what we are doing. It is not a desire to bring about future kusala. pt: This is where my primary concern is - i think in my case, there's lobha for kusala a lot of the time. > KH: You are being too hard on yourself. If there are occasional ideas of a formal practice in your Dhamma study those are just temporary relapses. We have spent so many lifetimes believing in a self that continues on; relapses are inevitable. pt: Fair enough, though for me, I don't think the relapses are that temporary, more like most of the time. Either way, I still don't have a clear picture of the following - and this is a question to all: If there's no pariyatti at the moment, as in panna concerned with the present reality (concept of a dhamma that fell away), then what sort of kusala is happening there in the sense of bhavana - development of understanding? In other words, when it comes to "wise consideration", if there's no panna concerned with concepts of the present realities (pariyatti), then it seems there must be simply some sort of thinking - concepts concerned with concepts of dhammas (to use KenH's and RobE's terminology), or basically intellectualising that has nothing to do with the present moment. What I don't understnad is: 1. How exactly does that sort of intellectualising abdout dhamma classify as kusala, since there's no panna at the time? 2. How does this sort of intellectualising actually lead to development of panna? If at all possible, I think development can only be indirect - due to accumulation in sanna, which then might be one of conditions for panna at some other point. Which reminds me of something i once read from Mahasi Sayadaw, that one of the conditions for sati and panna is "strong" sanna. I had no idea what that meant at the time, but now, maybe it makes sense in terms of intellectualising, even if with aksuala citta, leading to panna eventually? Confusing. Confusing concepts :) Best wishes pt #117776 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:16 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi KenH, part 2 > KH: I'll admit the suttas often say not self, but they also say "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) And: "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found." (Yamaka Sutta) pt: ok, I see now, no problems. > KH: In any case, the distinction between "there is no self" and "the self does not exist" is that the former is referring to a characteristic of paramattha dhammas, whereas the latter is presupposing the existence of a self and then saying it doesn't exist (annihilating it). pt: ok, so basically, for you saying that "there is no self" is essentially the same as saying that all dhammas have anatta characteristic? Right? > KH: I can see your point, but anatta is sometimes described as "the void": every dhammas being a void in so far as atta is concerned. > > It seems to me that experiencing a void would be more like "there is no self" than "this is not my self." pt: Ok. I'd say there's nothing in general I disagree with you here, I think I see what you mean by "there is no self". In detail though, my objection remains similar - suttas usually use the formulation "khanda is not self". I'd still appreciate if possible a sutta which uses "there is no self" when referring to anatta. This is not to dispute what you say, but just for reference. As I've said, I think suttas predominantly use "khanda is not self" formulation, and now I wonder if that might be because "there is no self" formulation is such a minefield. I mean, most of the people who ever hear "there is no self" automatically assume that it's referring to existence/non-existence issue, and automatically then the discussion is about ditthi, rather than anatta. Therefore, I still maintain that using "khanda is not self" is a more skillful approach to explaining anatta than "there is no self". On the other hand, it might also have to do with depth of insight - I think on early stages "khanda is not self" is more obvious, while on later stages "there is no self" and void formulations might work better as there is now turning away from all conditioned dhammas. Anyway Best wishes pt #117777 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:40 pm Subject: A few issues ptaus1 Hi all, Just some questions that occurred to me during recent discussions. 1. Cetana that accompanies a citta with lobha and pleasant feeling will produce akusala vipaka, right? Damn it, that doesn't feel fair at all - to feel good when it's happening, but then the vipaka not to feel good. In fact it's going to feel bad (if at body-sense) and indifferent at best (if at other senses). That really sucks. As Sarah's kid has aptly put it. 2. Further, if there's just thinking about an issue with lobha, this doesn't really produce vipaka does it? I mean, if there's no action committed as such? It should basically just accumulate more lobha, moha, and similar sort of thinking, right? 3. For that matter, does thinking classify as an event-producing-vipaka at some point? There's that formulation "good thoughts, words and deeds" so I was wondering if that's in reference to kamma/vipaka? 4. Is sarcastic speech included in the precept of wrong speech? I mean it's sort of just as bad as harsh speech which comes with dosa and unpleasant feeling, whereas sarcastic speech would I think come predominantly with mana and good feeling, but still akusala. And still putting the other person down in both cases. Anyway, I just noticed myself wandering off into sarcasm when responding to RobE's posts, so was wondering? Best wishes pt #117778 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:43 pm Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Pt, Pt: "...Is sarcastic speech included in the precept of wrong speech?...Anyway, I just noticed myself wandering off into sarcasm when responding to RobE's posts, so was wondering?" Scott: Don't let that stop you. He's good at it too. Actually, sarcasm is dosa. Whatevs. Sincerely, Scott. #117779 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma can be Modified! upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 9/24/2011 8:10:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@... writes: Catchy but misleading title/subject line, sir. Ditto, the phrase "instant karma". peace, connie ================================ Yes, it's about vipaka not kamma. "Vipaka can be offset" and "instant vipaka" would be better. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117780 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:48 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > I don't expect that you will do this. You haven't yet, after a first clear request. Now you have my answer, But not an answer to a direct question, whether the statements the Buddha made in sutta that are clear and obvious should be taken to mean what they say. Somehow you don't have the guts to say "No, I do not take the Buddha's actual words literally, because I am committed to interpret them according to my understanding of Abhidhamma and commentary and the view they give of the statements in the sutta as "merely conventional" speech. No, you have not answered the question, and no, there is not just one answer to one general question that then stands for all other answers to all other questions, because you look down on the standpoint of the questioner and therefore don't think it's worth thinking about or answering. And no, you do not understand what I think about Abhidhamma and commentary, but you presume that you do, and are content with that. You refuse to have a discussion that involves both people involved actually exchanging views and information, and I don't blame you, since you clearly see my standpoint - whatever concept you have of it in any case - as worthless and not worth having an exchange with. I don't have any problem talking about meditation or "my practice" which I haven't claimed to have, and have done so a number of times on dsg. But I'm not interested in turning this conversation at this moment into a discussion about me, because that is a diversion. I want to know what you think about the words of the Buddha, and you refuse to answer, which is cowardly. It is cowardly to avoid a questio about the status of the words spoken in sutta and it is disingenuous and slippery to divert the conversation from that question - a very simple and important one that stands on its own - to one about whether my personal practice is valid or not, so that you can inspect and critique it instead of answering the question about what you think about the Buddha and what he taught. That's the question. I don't care if you choose not to reply or continue to refuse to take this discussion on its own merits instead of diverting it to your agenda in which you can give yourself the upper hand and play inspector general. Do as you wish. If you think all questions have already been answered then that's that. I have engaged in many conversations here in order to continue to explore the meaning of not only sutta and the practice given by the Buddha, but also Abhidhamma and commentary. Any glance at my recent posts will show you that I have been looking into specifics that are discussed in Abhidhamma and commentary and have continued to look into them with great interest. I just don't agree with those who say that Buddha did not promote a practice, did not tell us to do certain things in order to follow the path, and that is a valid disagreement, despite your view of it. Take Care, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #117781 From: "philip" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:50 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Scott > Scott: Don't let that stop you. He's good at it too. Actually, sarcasm is dosa. Whatevs. Ph: I think saracasm is speech intimation, isn't, it? So it is a condition for dosa, I think, or conditioned by dosa. Metta, Phil #117782 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:45 pm Subject: Re: A few issues ptaus1 Hi Scott and Phil, > > Scott: Actually, sarcasm is dosa. > > Ph: I think saracasm is speech intimation, isn't, it? So it is a condition for dosa, I think, or conditioned by dosa. pt: Hm, interesting you both say sarcasm is with dosa. Maybe I have something wrong. While I think sarcasm can happen as a response to dosa - disliking smth the other person says or does, i think when it actually happens, it comes with pleasant feeling (i tend to smile or laugh at someone) and i assumed with mana because at the time i think i'm better than the other person. Maybe I'm confusing smth, especially because i thought dosa cannot arise with pleasant feeling. Further i wonder if "harsh" speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person, etc. anyway gotta get off the train now. thanks Best wishes pt #117783 From: "philip" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:35 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi pt Ph: Interesting, when does the lobha arise, with the speaking of sarcastic words. or afterwards when getting pleasure out of what one wrote? Who knows, case by case. There can of course be affectionate sarcasm, that's different. I assume, maybe R and S are excha ging ideas with affectionthat the reader can't fathom because ofhis/her own accumulations. Metta, Phil #117784 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:39 pm Subject: Re: A few issues scottduncan2 Pt, Pt: "Hm...Maybe I have something wrong...disliking smth the other person says or does...it comes with pleasant feeling...with mana...i wonder if 'harsh' speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person..." Scott: Thanks for the suggestions. Maybe you still don't like my style of posting. I don't mind the way I post - whether I enjoy it, or am conceited. And I leave the other to his or her reactions. In the morning I'll look into Pa.t.thaana to find some textual support for these suppositions of yours. I'm pretty sure dosa is in the mix. Sincerely, Scott. #117785 From: "connie" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:42 pm Subject: Re: Kamma can be Modified! nichiconn Hi Howard, c: Catchy but misleading title/subject line, sir. Ditto, the phrase "instant karma". ============ H: Yes, it's about vipaka not kamma. "Vipaka can be offset" and "instant vipaka" would be better. ============ c: the way it's usually meant, yeah, but is there such a beast? For sure, kamma committed is instantly kamma, but i think, if not always, then at least for the most part, vipaka's from 'some other time' kamma. peace, connie #117786 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:02 am Subject: Effect of Action is Inevitable! bhikkhu5 Friends: Effect of Immoral Action is Inevitably Painful! The Blessed Buddha once explained: The destroying and cruel killing of any living being, Bhikkhus and Friends, committed, carried out, and often pursued, leads to Hell, the animal world, or the realm of ghosts. Even the least result of killing living beings brings a short future lifetime. Killing brings a bad and painful future & quick death! The taking of other people's belongings, committed, carried out, and often pursued, leads to Hell, the animal world, or the realm of hungry ghosts... Even the slightest result of stealing other people's belongings brings the future loss of one's own goods & property and induces thus future poverty! Adultery and illegitimate sex, committed, carried out, and often pursued, leads to Hell, rebirth as animal, or in realm of ugly ghosts. Even the minimum result of unlawful sex brings future enmity, jealousy, envy & vicious rivalry! Lying, committed, carried out, and often pursued, leads to Hell, the animal world, or the realm of ghosts. Even the weakest result of lying brings future false accusations, blame, condemnation, despise and evil-minded complaints! Tale-bearing, slander, divisive speech of gossip & malicious rumours committed, carried out, & often done, leads to Hell, animal world, or the realm of ghosts. Even the slightest result of tale-bearing brings discord, disagreement and splitting conflicts even with one's closest friends, family and associates. Harsh, hurting and aggressive speech, committed, carried out, and often done, leads to rebirth in Hell, rebirth in the animal world, or the realm of ghosts. Even the smallest result of abusive language echoes back future relentless, rude and ruthless rebuke, vicious verbal scolding and insulting insinuations! Vain and empty gossip, prattle, and hearsay committed, carried out, & often pursued, leads to Hell, the animal world, or the realm of ghosts. Even the least result of vain and void prattle brings future hearing of unacceptable and disagreeable stories, foul-mouthed speech, & offensive unpleasant words! Drinking intoxicating drinks, such as wine and liquor, committed, carried out, and often pursued, leads to rebirth in Hell, the animal world, or the realm of hungry ghosts. Even the minutest result of drinking alcoholic drinks brings future dementia and lunatic insanity either in this or in a future life! Beings are owners of their actions (kamma), inheritor of their own actions, are created and conditioned by their actions, and linked to their actions! Their actions produce, shape, limit and prepare their future destiny... Whatever action they perform; good as evil, the resulting reaction and inevitable consequential effects will be theirs only! Be careful! Kamma causes and creates a rebirth location! A shadow that never leaves! <....> Source: Numerical Discourses of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikâya AN 10:208 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/Index.Numerical.htm Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <....> #117787 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: The non-locality of mind and consciousness... bhikkhu5 Do loved ones bid farewell from beyond the grave? http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/23/living/crisis-apparitions/index.html?hpt=h p_c2 http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/23/living/crisis-apparitions/index.html?hpt=h p_c2 Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #117788 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:55 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > However, as I read the suttas that are most often quoted on this topic (Satipatthana S, Anapanasati S), the person being described is one who is already highly developed in both samatha (jhana attainer already perhaps) and insight (close to enlightenment), What leads you to think that? And if so, what leads you to think that they developed jhana/vipassana by some other means beside this same sort of method that Buddha is describing? > and the point of the teaching is to show how insight may be developed in tandem with the attainment of jhana so that there is the possibility of enlightenment with jhana as basis. Well we don't disagree about that. That's the point of jhana and insight being developed together. > > =============== > > [RE:] I think this supports the idea that the Buddha's jhanas are not "the old fashioned" Hindu jhanas, and that they are meant to be developed in conjunction with mindfulness from the beginning. > > =============== > > J: For those who have heard and understood the teachings, the development of all forms of kusala is to be understood as being 'in conjunction with mindfulness' (as far as possible). I think you'll find that suttas dealing with dana and sila also make reference to the development of awareness/insight. It's possible that awareness/insight can be developed in relation to dana and sila as well, but that does not mean that jhana does not have a specific role in developing insight when jhana is used as basis. > But jhana citta is jhana citta, regardless of the tradition within which it is attained or the level of insight (or wrong view) that may precede or follow it. What precedes or follows it, and what accompanies it, does make an enormous difference, doesn't it? The question is whether jhana facilitates the development of insight by suppressing the defilements, and the existence of jhana as jhana does not answer that question. > > =============== > > [RE:] If that is the case, that either in tandem or by systematic alteration, deeper stages of insight are reached through suppression of the defilements followed by mindful investigation of the characteristics of the subtle dhammas attendant upon the jhanas, ... > > =============== > > J: The notion of deeper insight during periods of the suppression of the hindrances brought about by attainment of jhana is not one that is stated in the texts. I guess it depends on what statements you are reading. When Buddha defines the 4th jhana as "achievement of equanimity and fulfillment of satipatthana," I think he is clearly stating that jhana has this role. > The basis usually given for this notion is that the hindrances are described in the texts as being hindrances to the development of awareness. From this it is deduced that if the hindrances were to be suppressed then insight would be free to shine. I think it is deduced that without the hindrances insight is free to develop. Removing the influence of the hindrances is one of the requisites for satipatthana. > But that thinking (or speculation) seems to ignore the fact that there is no insight to shine unless it has already been developed (i.e., outside the context of the hindrances being suppressed by jhana). Don't understand this assertion. If the hindrances are suppressed in jhana, it is during or immediately after that time that the insight based on that suppression is able to develop. > > =============== > ... and that by the reaching of the 4th jhana the deep suppression of defilements, achievement of equanimity and fulfillment of satipatthana have been reached together, leading to a most extraordinary state of satipatthana within deep equanimity and unity of mind. This state would be the perfect launching point for the purified cittas, rich in panna, that would then go through the final path factors and realize nibbana. > > =============== > > J: The only possibility of there being "purified cittas, rich in panna" is if such purification and panna has already been developed -- that is to say, in other (non-jhana) contexts. Again, I don't see the basis for saying this. Please explain. > > =============== > > [RE:] If the above is the case, then the words of the Buddha can be taken quite literally and the details can be filled in according to that order of the practice. > > =============== > > J: By 'words of the Buddha' here are you referring to the description of Right Concentration? If so, that description does not speak about an 'order of practice', does it. The movement thtrough the jhanas from 1-4 is an orderly progression based on each preceding jhana. Buddha speaks of them in that order and explains how they move deeper from one jhana to the next. Indeed, he does speak of an order of practice in that sense. > It merely confirms that at moments of enlightenment, concentration of the level of jhana is present. That is not how I understand his definite statements, working through the jhanas in order, and asserting that the fourth jhana is the completion of that sequence, as quoted above. > (Would you apply the same 'order of practice' construction/interpretation to the other 7 path factors? I don't think so :-)) Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration may be unique in being a direct part of developmental practice. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #117789 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reflection on disadvantages of akusala: when? Now! No, when??? epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > This is a very nice story about kindness. You always have amazing > experiences! > Nina. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - #117790 From: "connie" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:08 pm Subject: Re: A few issues nichiconn hi pt: > Further i wonder if "harsh" speech in the harsh speech formulation for the precept refers to the underlying citta (with dosa, mana, etc), or to the effect it has on the other person, etc. anyway gotta get off the train now. thanks > c: for what it's worth, i think the harsh speech thing is part of the right speech formulation whereas the training precept only deals with 'false' speech / deceptiveness. Yes, tho, it's the underlying citta that matters... and whether i take offense or rejoice, what's that got to do with anyone else - isn't that just according to my accumulations / the way my world rocks? I can't hold you accountable for that. Likewise, "justifying" my own snottiness by pointing to yours doesn't really cut it. Pronouns here just picked for convenience, nothing personal. Illustrator: Speaking falsehood: the 'falsehood' is the verbal means or bodily means employed in concealing a meaning [on the part] of one who gives precedence to deception; but the speaking of the falsehood is the wrong choice as to intention to deceive, occurring in either the body door or the speech door, which originates the [form of the] body or speech that is the means to the deceiving of another. peace, connie #117791 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:14 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...How one applies the admonition or how one practices is a worthwhile subject, but it has nothing to do with whether those plain words of the Buddha can be taken literally or not..." > > Scott: As an aside, while you ponder your course of discussion, in relation to this notion of practice, 'whether those plain words of the Buddha can be taken literally or not' has everything to do with the question. > > If this is suddenly not what we are discussing, Scott, it would be helpful to the discussion, if we are still having one, if you would learn to concentrate when you read and not get confused by sentence structure. I said that your diversion into my practice is not relevant to the question I asked you, which is whether you believe the words of the Buddha or not. You have veered precipitously off the question that you keep refusing to answer: Do you believe the Buddha's own words should be taken literally or not? Should we do what he says to do, or not? I did not say that words of the Buddha had nothing to do with practice. That is your mixed-up reading getting the better of you again. You don't seem to understand half of what I say, and you misinterpre the other half. Please try harder. > then you have veered precipitously off the road of our conversation, plunged into a dark ravine, and I can only see the burning wreckage of your argument's car with binoculars. If you can see anything at all, that is cause for celebration. Please try looking with your eyes open next time - the view is much more clear. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #117792 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:18 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob HI Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > We aren't talking about Robert's practice because he hasn't described it. I suppose you aren't willing to describe your own striving either. You have repeated yourself ad nauseum such that even a corpse would know that you believe in the Protestant work-ethic of faith-without-works-is-dead that is so clearly taught at the core of the Dhamma. > > Okay. That's it. I will not discuss this with you. Don't worry, you haven't discussed it in the first place. You apparently are incapable of answering a direct question, but at least you're having fun! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #117793 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:29 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Trolls bug me, sure, but I've come back to post in my own way, not run anyone off. A troll is someone whose purpose is to disrupt discussion - that would be more a description of you than anyone else here. > I don't want Rob E. or Alex to leave, for example. That's very beneficent of you, but it wouldn't make any difference if you did. > That being said, I'd like them to remember where they are. I'd like you to remember that you just showed up after a long hiatus, and that Alex and I and others have been here every day engaging in sincere discussion. If you think that you have some sort of privilege to show back up out of nowhere and act like you are running the place, you should think twice, and try having a little respect for people who don't agree with your view instead of taunting, disparaging and playing head games like a genuine troll. > Should a troll be affronted if confronted and challenged and reminded about the lay of the land? No. And, everyone gets to have his or her own style, I would assume. Assume away. There is no "lay of the land" other than sincere Dhamma discussion, and no one has appointed you sheriff. You seem to think you are the judge of what is legitimate discussion here. Please consult the moderators if you have a problem. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #117794 From: "connie" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nichiconn Rob, q: what is "practice"? a: the wholesome consciousnesses, all classes of. connie #117795 From: "philip" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:11 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi pt, > > 1. Cetana that accompanies a citta with lobha and pleasant feeling will produce akusala vipaka, right? Damn it, that doesn't feel fair at all - to feel good when it's happening, but then the vipaka not to feel good. In fact it's going to feel bad (if at body-sense) and indifferent at best (if at other senses). That really sucks. As Sarah's kid has aptly put it. Ph: What has always struck me as unfair or paradoxical is that kusala kamma conditions vipaka that - being pleasant object - is bound (because of the thickness of our defilements) to be accumulated as akusala lobha rooted citta at the very least or can even lead to akusala kamma patha. It shows how hard it must be to get out of samsara. Of course there is the possibility of the development of satipatthana. Metta, Phil #117796 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:15 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Pt, ------------- >> KH: As Dhamma students we know there is only the present moment, from which nothing continues on. With that understanding there can be no thought of working towards some future reward. >> > pt: I agree, but I think for me, this is mostly just an intellectual understanding, which rarely (if at all) translates into actual pariyatti, as in knowing there is only the present moment in the sense of panna being concerned with what's occurring presently. At all other times, there's something else going on under the guise of "considering dhamma" so i'm trying to hear from others what else could be happening there. ------------ KH: Allow me to enlighten you. When it's not panna it's some other dhamma. It's always just dhammas rising and falling, and nothing to do with you as a sentient being. You, as a sentient being, are just an occasional figment of those dhammas' imagination. --------------------- > > KH: There is a lot of lobha in our imperfect daily Dhamma-study, but it is just enjoyment of what we are doing. It is not a desire to bring about future kusala. > pt: This is where my primary concern is - i think in my case, there's lobha for kusala a lot of the time. --------------------- KH: Do you mean wanting to be a better person? The important thing is you know that is not genuine kusala. You know it is some kind of near opposite. But even when there is right theoretical understanding, the lure of "being a better person" can be immensely strong. I can think of at least one former DSG member who chose to go down that path, even though it would have been against his own better [theoretical] judgement. -------------------------- <. . .> > Ph: Either way, I still don't have a clear picture of the following - and this is a question to all: -------------------------- KH: OK, I will try not to butt in. :-) ------------------ > PT: If there's no pariyatti at the moment, as in panna concerned with the present reality (concept of a dhamma that fell away), then what sort of kusala is happening there in the sense of bhavana - development of understanding? ------------------ KH: None! ------------------ > PT: In other words, when it comes to "wise consideration", if there's no panna concerned with concepts of the present realities (pariyatti), then it seems there must be simply some sort of thinking - concepts concerned with concepts of dhammas (to use KenH's and RobE's terminology), or basically intellectualising that has nothing to do with the present moment. ------------------ KH: Yes, maybe saying the right words but without understanding. But even that can be understood for what it is. ------------------------- > PT: What I don't understand is: 1. How exactly does that sort of intellectualising about dhamma classify as kusala, since there's no panna at the time? -------------------------- KH: Who said it does? --------------------------- > PT: 2. How does this sort of intellectualising actually lead to development of panna? -------------------------- KH: It doesn't. Only the other sort (intellectualising that *is* accompanied by panna) will lead to more panna. --------------------------------- > Pt: If at all possible, I think development can only be indirect - due to accumulation in sanna, which then might be one of conditions for panna at some other point. Which reminds me of something i once read from Mahasi Sayadaw, that one of the conditions for sati and panna is "strong" sanna. I had no idea what that meant at the time, but now, maybe it makes sense in terms of intellectualising, even if with aksuala citta, leading to panna eventually? Confusing. Confusing concepts :) ------------------------------------ KH: Now I'm confused! :-) Ken H #117797 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Breathing body, was: Just checking . nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 23-sep-2011, om 22:57 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > You are right that it has something in common with yoga exercises. > However, my idea about this comes from the passages in anapansati > that talk about "being mindful of the whole body." Many translate > that as the "whole [breath] body." I guess they do that because of > something about the Pali involved...? > > And that leads to the passage about "pacifying the bodily > formations" or "formation" in some translations, which also seems > like a yoga breathing exercise in some ways, except that Buddha is > emphasizing the mindfulness involved as samatha is thus developed. > > So that leads to the idea that the "whole body" is being followed > in the movement of the breath, and that bodily samatha is being > developed through this action. Do you have an alternate way of > looking at those passages? > ------- N: I use some old posts on the subject. Co. to the Vis. on the tetrads: One may believe that breath is a concept, but now I will just repeat a Co. passage to the first tetrad: The other three tetrads refer respectively to the contemplation of feelings in feelings, citta in citta, dhammas in dhammas. As we have read, the first three tetrads deal with calm and insight and the fourth deals with insight alone. ------ We should not misunderstand the meaning of contemplating the whole (breathing) body and remember the goal: realizing the three general characteristics of conditioned dhammas: Thus, development: making much of, increase. Not only concentration, but realizing the three charactristics is the goal. Mindfulness of the realities appearing while breathing in order to know their true characteristics.> ------- Nina. #117798 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear pt and Ken H, Op 25-sep-2011, om 10:15 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > Pt: If at all possible, I think development can only be indirect - > due to > accumulation in sanna, which then might be one of conditions for > panna at some > other point. Which reminds me of something i once read from Mahasi > Sayadaw, that > one of the conditions for sati and panna is "strong" sanna. I had > no idea what > that meant at the time, but now, maybe it makes sense in terms of > intellectualising, even if with aksuala citta, leading to panna > eventually? ------- N: Not just Mahasi. Quote from Vis.Ch XIV : Text Vis.: 141. (x) By its means they remember (saranti), or it itself remembers, or it is just remembering (sara.na), thus it is 'mindfulness' (sati). N: As to the words, they remember (saranti), this refers to the accompanying dhammas that are conditioned by sati. Just as the Vis. states in the case of saddhaa: by means of it they have faith. The Tiika explains that the accompanying dhammas are conditioned by the predominant influence of sati. When there is such condition it is said in conventional language (vohaaro) that a person 'remembers'. N: He remembers, is non-forgetful of what is wholesome. Text Vis. : It has the characteristic of not wobbling. [64] Note 64 (from the Tiika). 'Apilaapana' ("not wobbling") is the steadying of an object, the remembering and not forgetting it, keeping it as immovable as a stone instead of letting it go bobbing about like a pumpkin in water'. Text Vis. : Its function is not to forget. N: Sati is steadfast with regard to an object, it is non-forgetful. Whenever there is an opportunity for daana, siila or bhaavanaa, sati is non-forgetful, it does not let such an opportunity pass. Sati prevents us from committing evil deeds. Siila is not only abstention from akusala but it also includes helping others by action or speech. When sati arises we do not neglect the opportunity to help others. There is sati with bhaavanaa. Bhaavanaa includes samatha and vipassanaa. Sati is non-forgetful of the meditation subject of samatha and non-forgetful of the object of vipassanaa: a naama or ruupa appearing at the present moment. Text Vis. : It is manifested as guarding, N: The Tiika refers to Gradual Sayings, Book of the Tens, X, 20: "By guarding mindfulness he is composed of mind" ("Sataarakkhena cetasaa"ti). The Co to this sutta refers to the sati of the arahat who accomplishes the function of guarding the three doors all the time. These are the doors of action, speech and mind. The Co explains that he guards those, no matter he walks, stands, sleeps or is awake. Text Vis.: or it is manifested as the state of confronting an objective field. N: The Tiika explains that sati does not go elsewhere and that by it the object of citta is confronted. When there is sati there is no agitation or distraction from the object that is experienced at that moment. When the object is experienced by kusala citta with sati the citta is intent on daana, siila or bhaavanaa. Text Vis.: Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasaññaa). N: Firm remembrance is the proximate cause of sati. When one listens to the Dhamma and considers it again and again there can be firm remembrance of what one has heard, and thus, there are conditions for the arising of sati which is mindful of the naama or ruupa appearing at the present moment. Text Vis. : or its proximate cause is the foundations of mindfulness concerned with the body, and so on (see M. Sutta 10). N: The four Applications of Mindfulness include all naamas and ruupas that can be the objects of mindfulness. When they have become the objects or bases for sati they are the proximate cause of mindfulness. The four Applications of Mindfulness remind us that naama and ruupa occurring in daily life are the objects of mindfulness. We are reminded to be aware of naama and ruupa no matter whether we are walking, standing, sitting of lying down. Also when akusala citta arises it can be object of mindfulness, it is classified under the Application of Mindfulness of citta. One should learn to see citta in citta and not take akusala citta for self. -------- Nina. #117799 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:49 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Pt, -------- <. . .> pt: ok, so basically, for you saying that "there is no self" is essentially the same as saying that all dhammas have anatta characteristic? Right? -------- KH: Yes, as I understand it, to know one dhamma as anatta is to know all dhammas are anatta. In the same way the other phrase "this is not my self" also means "all dhammas are not my self." But certain people would have us believe differently. Ven Thanissaro, for example, says that any *bound* (conditioned) thing is not fit to be called the self. So we can say "this consciousness that is confined to the conditioned world is not my self," but he says the eventual "unbinding" of consciousness will make it fit to be recognised as the self. ------------------- <. . .> > Pt: In detail though, my objection remains similar - suttas usually use the formulation "khanda is not self". I'd still appreciate if possible a sutta which uses "there is no self" when referring to anatta. This is not to dispute what you say, but just for reference. ------------------- KH: I like the way the suttas tell it. In one where the Buddha is asked `Why didn't you answer Vochagatta (sp?)(the wanderer's) question?" he says something like, `Haven't I made it perfectly plain to you that there are only dhammas, and all dhammas are not self?' -------------------------- > Pt: As I've said, I think suttas predominantly use "khanda is not self" formulation, and now I wonder if that might be because "there is no self" formulation is such a minefield. I mean, most of the people who ever hear "there is no self" automatically assume that it's referring to existence/non-existence issue, and automatically then the discussion is about ditthi, rather than anatta. Therefore, I still maintain that using "khanda is not self" is a more skillful approach to explaining anatta than "there is no self". -------------------------- KH: No, I don't think so. I am sure in the Buddha's day there was detailed discussion of all aspects of Dhamma, and the phrase "there is no self" would have been commonly used. We certainly shouldn't be reluctant to use it. So long as we understand there never was a self we won't be shocked to know there is no self now. Ken H