#121600 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" nilovg Dear Alex, good questions. Op 24-dec-2011, om 18:20 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > > >N:To be aware of the different characteristics that appear. > >========================================================== > > That is how I understand even "formal" meditations. > ------ N: I do not fall over words like meditation. It can have different meanings. I just read about Sariputta's life (Ven.Nyanaponika) that he helped people with different kammathaana, meditation subjects. For one person feeling was suitable. Kammathaana refers not only to samatha but also to vipassanaa. I think in the teachings it all refers to vipassanaa, even if it is also a subject for samatha. We have to think of the purpose of the teachings, the goal. Awareness of feeling: this includes naama and ruupa. Not just naama, then one would not know the difference between naama and ruupa. BTW I was so impressed by Sariputta's patience. He gave he same person hundred or even thousand times an instruction until he could attain enlightenment of the first stage. This is an inspiring example of patience. ---------- > > A: I do have a follow up question: What does it mean to be aware of > different characteristics, and is it alright (in your opinion) to > practice "awareness" ? > > I understand that one cannot control the object of awareness. But > what about developing awareness? --------- N: We may think that 'we' can develop awareness, but *it* develops, by conditions. Listening, considering, more intellectual understanding of what sati is, of naama and ruupa, of the objects of awareness. Besides, it is better to emphasize understanding. How much understanding is there now of visible object appearing right now? To begin with, there should be intellectual understanding of seeing and visible object. Visible object is just what appears through the eyes, no person, no thing. It seems to us that what is seen was there already for some time. This is not so, it arises for a moment and then it is gone forever. To be honest, it still seems that we see a person who was there already and who stays. That is wrong! I better apply that in my situation. One cannot control the object of awareness, as you say. We cannot control any object that appears, let alone the object of awareness. Awareness when it arises is aware of whatever object appears, pleasant, unpleasant, fearsome, gladdening, kusala or akusala. ---------- > > > A: For example I do notice from time to time big difference between > wondering thoughts and awareness of them (without controlling them > in any way). What is the technical name for it? > -------- N: There is a difference between awareness and forgetfulness, but no name. We cannot tell about someone else's mind. One can only know for oneself. One may notice that one had wandering thoughts, but to what extent is that awareness of the characteristic of thinking as only a kind of naama? Hard to tell. Awareness is not mere noticing, that may still be done with some idea of 'I notice', but again, nobody else can tell. What you mention here has fallen away already a long time ago, and now there are other dhammas to be known. Only the present dhamma can be known, but understanding develops very slowly. No expectations. ------ Nina > #121601 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina , Howard and all, you wrote: 'N: I think you do not have to worry so much about the Abhidhamma vocabulary. What I keep foremost in mind are the babysteps, and the examples of daily life. Then the vocabulary will also become clearer. D: it is not worry, Nina. As far as I understand the Matika is the key for Abhidhamma understanding. Ven. Nyanatiloka spoke in high terms of the matrix . Certainly you have been to lot of foreign countries and know the advantage to have at least a base vocabulary in mind to communicate. This seems to be similar with the 122 states listed for the whole of Abhidhamma language /philosophy. I think we must at least try to understand the original first before we consult the commentaries N: If we concentrate too much on classifications, Howard may be disappointed, since he was looking forward to examples from daily life. But of course also when dealing with the Dhammasangani, we can think of examples from daily life. Any part we are dealing with. D:as you say , there may be not much difference when dealing with the matrix. But by choosing the dyads and triads of the Matika instead of the Cetasika list, we start where the Theras obviously wanted us to start : with the preface. ' In Dhammasangani the first 3 realities are treated from the ethical , or more exactly the karmically standpoint and divided accordingly , i.e. kusala dhamma/phenomena , akusala .. avyakatta .. (neutral ).. etc ' , so all possibilities to bring in examples of daily life as before. But the advantage here is that for each state the Dhammasangani provides explanations for comparison ..assumed of course these explanations are available to us. Furthermore it provides the base for the 7th book, Patthana , which deals with the matrix and conditionality. Recalling Howard's favor of ' radical phenomenology ' following must be like music to his ears ;-) ' Dhammasangani together with the 7th book , Patthana, constitutes the quintessence of the entire Anhidhamma , one may say of the entire Buddhist doctrine. Its basic teaching of the egolessness or emptiness, anattata ,sunnata and the conditionality (iddhi papaccayara) of all existence . Dhammasangani proceeds analytically, dissecting existence into its ultimate constituents , which are bare impersonal phenomena (dhamma) . The last book uses the method of synthesis showing that all these phenomena are related and conditioned ...' (V.N.) ..' with the purpose to apply its scheme of 24 condtional realtions to all phenomena incorporated in the Abhidhamma matrix' (V.B.) N:I have no particular wish as to the project. Meanwhile I can quote from my Intro to the Abhidhamma which I wrote besides my Abh in Daily Life: The Dhammasaòganī begins with the Måtika, a table of contents or matrix, which is an introduction. It is more extensive than a table of contents. D: if it proves to be too much I think no problem to return to cetasika . N:This mātikā has been arranged by way of triads and dyads. It is a survey of the contents of the first book and can even serve as an introduction to all seven books. Different groups of defilements have been listed, such as the intoxicants (āsavas), fetters, ties, floods, yokes, hindrances. After the Abhidhamma matrix there is a Suttanta matrix, explaining sutta terms. D: I wonder whether you have looked into the Suttanta matrix ..its ( minor) treatment within Abhidhamma perhaps a consolation for the 'suttanists'? :-) N: The Atthasālinī, the commentary to the Dhammasaṅganī, dedicates a whole chapter to explain the notions of the Mātika. The Mātikā begins with: kusala dhammā, akusala dhammā, avyākata dhammā. In these three terms all that is real has been contained. In avyākata dhammā, indeterminate dhammas, are included all realities that are not kusala or akusala, namely: vipākacittas, kiriyacittas, rūpas and nibbāna. The whole Tipiṭaka is directed towards the liberation from the cycle of birth and death through insight. This appears also in the Mātika, where we read (1013-1015): "Dhammas going to building up; going to pulling down; going to neither." The Atthasālinī elaborates: "... 'accumulation' means that which is accumulated by kamma and corruptions. It is a name for the processes of rebirth and decease. 'Leading to accumulation' are 'those causes which by being accomplished to go to, lead a man, in whom they arise, to that round of rebirth'. It is a name for co-intoxicant moral or immoral states. Nibbāna being free from 'cumulation', which is another word for 'accumulation', is called dispersion. 'Leading to dispersion' is 'going towards that dispersion which he has made his object.' It is a name for the Ariyan Paths. Or, 'leading to accumulation' D: I learned that the D.O. is treated in Abhidhamma in ways of 144 modes , so it not to my surprise anymore that the 4 Noble Truths are as well abhidhammically treated. Text for discussion in coming posting. with Metta Dieter #121602 From: Lukas Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. szmicio Dear Nina and Sarah, Thank you very much. It was very helpful. Lukas ________________________________ From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. Dear Lukas, A good question and it is good to discuss this subject. Do speak more about it if you like. Op 22-dec-2011, om 16:29 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > Can you comment further on this? > > > She said: be aware just a little, be aware even > > though there is not yet clear understanding. > > L: I don't understand what 'be aware just a little' means? > --------- > N: The moment may be so brief and very weak, and after this thinking of realities follow. The moments of thinking seem to cover up a moment of sati that is gone immediately. Or we are likely to confuse awareness and thinking. This happens naturally, but we should not mind at all or become discouraged. Kh Sujin said: When sati is there, the hardness is the same, but there is awareness of it. Usually we touch without sati, but when sati arises there is a slight difference. It does not last long, but the characteristic is there, with sati. A slight difference: because the hardness is the same as when there is no sati. But sati follows the experience of the object by body- consciousness. It is just a very short moment of sati that can 'slip in'. ------- N: A short moment of sati that can slip in, that is the way it happens. I heard yesterday from a Thai recording someone asking what sati is. Kh Sujin explained about forgetfulness and I think this helps to understand the difference between forgetfulness and a moment of sati. Forgetfulness: when hardness appears and no awareness of the characteristic of hardness, a reality that arises and falls away. N: Think of the many moments of touching like the keybord now, and no awareness. Kh S: When seeing visible object no awareness of it as a reality that appears through the eyes, only that. Not a person, not a self. All realities arise because of conditions. Sati is aware of the characteristic of what appears, and this is not merely thinking that everything is anattaa. Quotes from tapes: We discussed about the difference between the moments of awareness and the moments that there is no awareness. Sujin: Pa~n~naa knows when awareness arises. It knows the difference between moments with awareness and moments without awareness. We touch things and body-consciousness experiences hardness without awareness. But sometimes when hardness presents itself there is awareness of hardness. The object is then exactly the same. Reality presents itself now but ignorance cannot understand it. When visible object appears we do not have to call it visible object. It appears and awareness can be aware of it, it does not move away from it. Pa~n~naa can begin to see it as a reality. It takes time to become detached from the story about visible object, from thinking about the name, or about the theory. The development of pa~n~naa can be proven when the effect is letting go, even for a moment, of clinging to visible object. Pa~n~naa passes on to another object, instantly, naturally. Otherwise one may cling with thinking or trying to understand the object. When pa~n~naa develops it can understand instantly and become detached instantly. It is such a short moment and then other realities appear and pa~n~naa can understand these.” There can be understanding of hardness. It is experienced through the bodysense and it is just hardness. Can it be anything else besides hardness? When one has studied the teachings and acquired a firm foundation of Dhamma study, this will condition one day the arising of sati. Instead of ignorance of the characteristic of hardness sati and pa~n~naa can experience hardness after the body-consciousness has experienced it and has fallen away. Then one begins to know hardness as an element. It is also a beginning of knowing when there is sati and when there is not. N: But after a moment of sati we may think of it with attachment. S: We should not have any expectation about sati. Is there anyone waiting for the arising of sati after seeing or after the experience of tangible object through the bodysense? ------- Nina. ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links #121603 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:08 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Bhaavanaa is the development of dhammas. I agree. > Funny stuff, man. I'm glad the Dhamma amuses you. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #121604 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:26 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., Me: "Bhaavanaa is the development of dhammas." R: "I agree..." Scott: Yeah, no you don't, Rob. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Why? Because you will set out to perform some deliberate 'practice' at some point. You will try to 'meditate' at some point. You will try to follow some set of steps designed to set the conditions by will to cause something to happen at some point. You've not wanted to discuss your 'meditation' but you do it, and you do it to cause 'awareness' or whatever to arise. Given that, you absolutely cannot agree with that statement. Your 'deliberate practice' proves otherwise. Scott. #121605 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:36 am Subject: Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Hi all, below from http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Guide-through-the-Abhidhamma-Pitaka.\ pdf (Ven. Nyanatiloka ), which I think coukld be useful to get an idea of the concept and perhaps be of help when path details are discussed ( from an angle of the Sutta Pitaka and that of the Abhidhamma Pitaka). with Metta Dieter IV. THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS pdf page 56 (Sacca-Vibhaòga) Sutta-explanation: Here the Four Noble Truths, constituting the whole teaching of the Buddha—i.e. the truth about suffering or, better said, ‘Unsatisfactoriness’ (of all forms of existence), its Origin (craving), its Extinction (nibbána), and the Path to its extinction—are explained in exactly the same words as in the Mahá-Satipaþþhána Sutta. Abhidhamma-explanation: Here the explanation of the Truths is given in 9 sets of slightly differing definitions, dividing into 3 sections. There are also 2 formal differences from the Sutta-explanation: (1) the truths are called here throughout ‘the four Truths’, and not ‘Noble Truths’; (2) their explanation starts with the second Truth, followed by the first, third and fourth Truths, though in the preceding brief enumeration of the Truths the ordinary sequence is preserved. The first set of explanations has the following wording:— "Four Truths: Suffering, Origin of Suffering, Extinction of Suffering, the Path leading to the Extinction of Suffering." Vibhanga 41 "What here is Origin of Suffering? Craving (tanhā)." "What here is Suffering? (a) The remaining defilements (kilesa), (b) the remaining kammically unwholesome states, (c) the 3 wholesome roots, as far as subject to taints (tīṇi ca kusala-mūlāni sāsavāni), (d) the remaining wholesome states, as far as subject to taints, (e) the kamma-results (vipāka) of wholesome and unwholesome states, (f) the states that are independent of kamma (functional; kiriyā), being neither wholesome nor unwholesome nor kamma-results; and (g) all corporeality." "What is here the Extinction of Suffering? The abandoning of Craving." "What is here the Path leading to the Extinction of Suffering? Whenever the monk develops the supramundane absorption (lokuttarajjhāna) leading to escape (from the round of rebirth) and (its) undoing for the purpose of overcoming all false views and attaining to the first stage of holiness (sotāpatti), and being detached from sensuous things … has entered into the first absorption, with difficult progress and slow comprehension … at such a time there exists the eightfold path: right understanding …right concentration." "What is here Right Understanding … Right Concentration?" (The explanations are given in terms of synonyms, as in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī.) "The other (wholesome) states (present at that time) are associated with the path leading to the extinction of suffering." The first part of this explanation of the 4th Truth corresponds to the basic text for ‘supramundane consciousness’, in Dhs. I. The entire passage explaining the 4th Truth is identical in the following sets of the first section. In the second to fifth set of the first section, the factors (b) to (d) in the definition of the 1st Truth, are successively transposed into the definition of the 2nd Truth, so that in the last, the fifth, set only the factors (e), (f) and (g) remain as the definition of the 1st Truth. Also, the definition of the 3rd Truth varies in accordance with the increasing number of factors given for the 2nd Truth (origin). 42 Guide through the Abhidhamma Piþaka The 5th and last set of this first section of the Abhidhammaexplanation may therefore be summarized as follows: 2nd Truth (Origin) consists here of craving and the remaining defilements as well as all mundane wholesome and unwholesome Kamma. The 1st Truth (Suffering) consists of all remaining mundane (lokiya) states of consciousness (i.e. kamma-results and kammically independent or functional states) and of all corporeality. The permutations between the definitions of the 2nd and 1st Truths indicate that, according to a given case or a chosen viewpoint, these 2 truths may be formulated with certain variations, up to a maximum or down to a minimum of factors. The first set gives the single minimal factor for the 2nd Truth and the maximal number of factors for the 1st; the fifth set gives the maximal number of factors for the 2nd Truth and the minimal for the 1st. The beginning of the second and third section of explanatory sets is marked in the text by the brief enumeration of the Truths, as quoted above: ‘Four truths…’ In both the two sets of the second section, the last portion in the definition of the 4th Truth reads: "at such a time there is a fivefold path: right understanding, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." These are the 5 path factors which are always present, while the other 3 are not constant factors. In the third section, the last portion in the explanation of the 4th Truth reads: "at such a time there is sense-impression … undistractedness," as in Dhs. 277 (PTS). This method is included for indicating that the Noble Eightfold Path consists not only of the 8 or 5 factors usually enumerated, but also of all the other mental states that belong to a moment of consciousness of the respective class which is here supramundane. In the description of the supramundane absorption, only its first type is given in the text. The description has to be thought to continue with the numerous variations or methods (naya) which are elaborated in Dhs. §§277–364. The same holds good for the treatment of supramundane absorption in the Abhidhammaexplanations of the subsequent chapters Vibh. VII-XI. The Vibhanga 43 methods applicable in the individual cases, are mentioned in the Commentary. In the case of the present chapter, the number of variations or methods will, according to the Commentary, amount to no less than 60,000, if fully expanded. Catechetic Section: In the brief introductory enumeration of the Truths, they are called again ‘Noble Truths.’ This is obviously meant to indicate that here the Sutta-explanation of the first 2 truths has to be applied, and not that given in the Abhidhamma-section. This can be seen from the answer to the first question: "How many of the Four Noble Truths are wholesome, how many are unwholesome, how many are neutral? The Truth of Origin (Craving) is unwholesome; the Truth of the Path is wholesome; the Truth of Extinction is neutral; the Truth of Suffering may be either wholesome, unwholesome or neutral." The 4th Truth, however, is considered in its supramundane aspect, as in the Abhidhamma-explanation. This is evident from the following answers: "The Path Truth refers to one in Higher Training (sekha), the other three refer neither those to in Higher Training nor to those who have completed it (n’eva sekha nāsekha)." "Two truths (1, 2) are mundane, two (3, 4) are supramundane." Other answers are:— "Two truths (2, 4) may be accompanied either by pleasant or indifferent feeling; the Truth of Extinction is not classifiable by either of the three feelings; the Truth of Suffering may be accompanied by either of the three feelings."— "The Truth of Origin may have a limited object (paritt’ ārammaṇa) [if one enjoys things of the Sense Sphere] or a developed object [if one enjoys objects of developed consciousness, i.e. of the fine-material or immaterial sphere] or it may have an object not classifiable by either of the two [if one enjoys a conceptual object (paññatti), e.g. a kasiṇa after-image]; it never has an unlimited (=supramundane) object — 44 Guide through the Abhidhamma Piþaka The truth of suffering may have either of the above three objects [limited and developed: see above; unlimited, if one reviews one’s experience of the nine supramundane states]; or it may not be classifiable by either of the three [if reviewing a conceptual object.] The Truth of Extinction has no object; the Path Truth has an unlimited object." "The Truth of Extinction has no object. The [supramundane] Path Truth has an external object [=Nibbāna]. The Truth of Origin may have an internal, external, or internal and external object; the Truth of Suffering may have either of the three, or an object not classifiable by either of the three [at the time of attaining to the sphere of nothingness]." The last two quotations show that a very careful consideration of all possibilities is sometimes required for a correct reply to the questions in the Catechetical Section. snip XI. THE EIGHTFOLD PATH (Magga-Vibhaòga) The Sutta-explanation consists of two expositions of the Path Factors. The first is identical with that given for the 4th Truth in the Sutta-explanation of Vibh. IV. The second exposition refers to the development of the Path Factors, describing them as ‘based on seclusion’ etc. (see previous chapter). Here too the Abhidhamma-explanation refers to supramundane absorption, and the 8- and 5-fold Path (see Vibh. IV) is, in various methods of treatment, shown to be present in it. According to the Catechetic Section the 8 Path Factors may be either wholesome or neutral; they are neutral in the case of kamma-resultant consciousness and in the karmically independent (functional) consciousness of the Arahat. Right Thought (sammá-saòkappa) is accompanied by pleasant feeling; the other Path Factors, with either pleasant or indifferent feeling. Supramundane Right Thought, which alone is relevant here, is identical with Right Thought-conception (vitakka; s. MN 117), and in the first supramundane absorption it is always associated with the jhána-factor joy (sukha).— Right Thought is not associated with Thought-conception (being identical with it), but with Discursive Thinking (vicára). All 8 may belong to one in higher training or one who has completed it. Right Understanding (= undeludedness) is a root cause (hetu) and occurring with (the other) root causes (sahetuka); the other seven occur with root causes but are not root causes themselves. All eight are conditioned, formed, noncorporeal,supramundane, etc. VII. THE FOUR FOUNDATIONS OF MINDFULNESS (Satipaþþhána-Vibhaòga) These are: The contemplation of body, feeling, mind, and mindobjects (káya, vedaná, citta, dhamma). The Sutta-explanation gives extracts from the Satipaþþhána Sutta, with variations, additional comments and abridgements. A characteristic feature here is that each statement on the four Contemplations is repeated with reference to the internal, the external, and internal-external, while, in the Discourse, this application is included in a general statement following each exercise. Our text begins as follows: "Here a monk dwells contemplating the body in the body internally—dwells contemplating the body in the body externally—dwells contemplating the body in the body internally and externally, ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief." And so with feelings, etc. For the contemplation of the body, only the reflection on repulsiveness (i.e. the thirty-one parts of the body) is given here,repeated thrice, with reference to the internal, etc. As a transition to the second and the third repetition, the following sentences are included, so also in the other contemplations with due alterations: "He cultivates that object (of contemplation), develops it, practices it and establishes it firmly. Having cultivated it… he turns his mind to the (contemplation of the) body externally … internally and externally." Now follow explanations of some of the terms in the textual passage quoted first. The treatment of the contemplations of feeling and mind follows the same procedure. From the contemplation of mind-objects only the sections on the hindrances and the enlightenment-factors are selected here. Both in conjunction, are repeated thrice, with reference to the internal, etc. In the Abhidhamma-explanation the presence of the four foundations of mindfulness in the supramundane absorptions is Vibhanga 53 stated in a similar way as exemplified in the case of the Path Truth in the Abhidhamma-explanation of Vibh. IV. Also in the Catechetic Section the reference is to Satipaþþhána in supramundane consciousness only, as indicated by some of the answers. The foundations of mindfulness are said to be wholesome or neutral; associated with pleasant or indifferent feeling; associated with thought-conception and discursive thinking (in the 1st supramundane absorption), or without thought-conception and only with discursive thinking (in the 2nd absorption), or without both (in the 3rd to 5th absorptions); belonging either to one in higher training (sekha) or one beyond it (asekha); they are conditioned, non-corporeal, supramundane, etc.　 VIII. THE FOUR GREAT EFFORTS (Sammappadhána-Vibhaòga) They are: the effort (1) to avoid and (2) to overcome unwholesome states; (3) to develop and (4) to maintain wholesome states. The Sutta-explanation gives the standard text of these four, as in the Suttas, followed by explanations of the principal terms used in it, from which we quote: The ‘unwholesome states’ are the three unwholesome roots, the defilements conjoined with them, the four mental groups (khandha) associated with them, and the bodily, verbal, or mental kamma produced thereby. The ‘wholesome states’ are the three wholesome roots, the four mental groups, etc. The Abhidhamma-explanation refers again to supramundane consciousness and it is stated that each of the four great Efforts is present in the supramundane absorptions. In the Catechetic Section, where reference is likewise to supramundane consciousness, they are said to be always wholesome (not neutral). snip 　unquote 　 　 　 #121606 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:17 am Subject: Cause and Effect.... bhikkhu5 Friends: Cause Entails Effect: Be mindful in all you do! There are some fundamental tenets. One is the universal regime of cause and effect. The second is the idea of interdependence of all phenomena. The third is in understanding that there is a certain dependence in origination itself, that is that which originates, changes, disappears and disintegrates. This idea is inbuilt in origination. The 4th is the impermanence of conditioned things and absence of inherent existence of the cognizer and the cognized. The fifth is the suffering that follows from mistaken perceptions in the permanence of reality. In our social as well as individual lives, we have to encounter suffering caused by false apprehensions of reality and happiness. Buddhism does not believe in mortifying the flesh; it does not believe in ignoring the demands of life, or the potential for expanding knowledge about the universe; it does not deny that knowledge can help to reduce suffering or improve conditions of living. It has therefore no distaste for science or technology. On the contrary, it believes that skillful use of science and technology can improve the quality of our lives. But since technology involves the choice of goals, nature of the goals, as well as the motivation that prompts the choice and pursuit of goals become very important. If they ignore or violate any of the beliefs that listed above, they are bound to increase individual and social suffering, and not welfare. Hence what we believe will contribute to our pleasure sometimes could turn out to be the cause of aggravated suffering. To the Buddhist, ethics and morality are not extraneous to the realm of cause and effect. They are not commandments of one who is the creator, and who functions above the realm of cause and effect. Nor have their observance to be induced by a system of reward and punishment. The belief that actions take place in the realm of cause and effect has turned Buddhism away from the need to look for an external source of authority or reward and punishment administered by an external authority. Actions have their inescapable consequences as they are guided by the law of cause & effect. Thus my motivations and actions will have their effects on me and the social and even natural environment in which I live. I cannot overlook this effect, and therefore, the responsibility to see that my conduct to what creates a conducive effect on me as well as my social and natural environment. Advances in science and technology are not based on an analysis of motives, or the impact and chain-reactions that these are likely to cause on the psyche and environment. The negative consequences of this absence of mindfulness have now been brought to our attention. What do we do? Persist in the mindless pursuit of individual power and material possessions, unconcerned with its consequences -- in other words running the risk of a suicide of the species? The answer lies within us, within our minds. To a believer in Buddha Dharma it is this mindfulness which is the basis on which to choose the path that leads to freedom and fulfillment. Among the most powerful enemies of mindfulness are desire, greed and the ego, the desire to promote one's ego at the cost of others or society or the environment. The answer that Buddha Dhamma clearly gives is mindfulness even to protect mindfulness itself, and the ethics and morality that mindfulness makes imperative in a world governed by cause and effect. by Lama Doboom Tulku, Times of India, Dec 21, 2011 Causes, good as bad, inevitably spread as effects, like rings in water! <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #121607 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:55 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Me: "Bhaavanaa is the development of dhammas." > > R: "I agree..." > > Scott: Yeah, no you don't, Rob. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. > > Why? Because you will set out to perform some deliberate 'practice' at some point. You will try to 'meditate' at some point. You will try to follow some set of steps designed to set the conditions by will to cause something to happen at some point. You've not wanted to discuss your 'meditation' but you do it, and you do it to cause 'awareness' or whatever to arise. > > Given that, you absolutely cannot agree with that statement. Your 'deliberate practice' proves otherwise. That is your opinion. Buddha teaches that the arising of dhammas is not controlled, but is also not chaotic or arbitrary. He also outlined the steps that you are talking about and jeering at. Take it up with him. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - -- #121608 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:10 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Buddha teaches that the arising of dhammas is not controlled, but is also not chaotic or arbitrary. He also outlined the steps that you are talking about and jeering at. Take it up with him." Scott: Rob, the above is replete with loose thinking. First of all, the arising of dhammas is a function of conditionality. That a dhamma is not susceptible to control is the characteristic of anatta. You've conflated these ideas. Secondly, as far as 'chaotic' or 'arbitrary' goes, I suppose you are referring to conditionality in some fashion. I fail to see why you place these two particular adjectives in contradistinction. Dhammas arise and fall away due to conditions and this occurs naturally. I love the way you think that when you do your 'practice' this willful action is someone the antithesis of 'chaotic' or 'arbitrary.' It sounds more 'arbitrary' to me, as in, you arbitrarily decide that because you are deciding to 'practice' that it's right. That's funny. These so-called 'steps' you go on about all the time refer to the natural order of a given series of dhammas, whichever ones are being described I suppose. It is you who gloms onto such a description and turns it into your personal instruction manual. You think you make them happen by 'practicing.' Yeah, while I don't jeer at the Dhamma, I totally think your own take on it is so smug as to be totally amusing to me. I do totally poke fun at you about it for sure. And, by the way, this tendency of yours to refer to 'Buddha' (rather than 'the Buddha') and these ridiculous statements like, 'take it up with him' continue to demonstrate your unique tendency to see yourself as not only being so close to 'Buddha' that you refer to him as 'Buddha,' but to somehow be magically privy to the workings of his mind as to know the real meaning of the Dhamma. I find this very humourous as well. Scott. #121609 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:38 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (121498) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > [RE:] I don't see any inconsistency between the Buddha's pronouncements on striving and the understanding of path factors arising with no control either. All that we disagree about is whether there is efficacy in purposeful sitting practice, or related practices, ie, meditation as a whole. > =============== J: Yes, we disagree on what the Buddha meant when he spoke about, for example, right effort and 'striving', guarding the sense-doors, etc., or about monks going to secluded places in the afternoon, adopting a sitting position and breathing in and out mindfully. > =============== > [RE:] Buddha did not just acknowledge the arising of viriya when he spoke of striving. He said it as an admonition - something that he was telling people to *do.* > =============== J: If you could give a sutta passage which you read as carrying this meaning, I'd be happy to discuss. (But I believe we will find it to be a matter of interpretation rather than of it being the actual words of the Buddha.) > =============== > [RE:] That is where the confusion lies. If you propose that he did not mean for people to *act* on his admonitions to "strive," then you are in effect saying that he was promoting wrong view, because his language has communicated to many, many Buddhists that they should follow his instructions and do something about it, not just promote right understanding through understanding Dhamma, but to practice "as if their hair was on fire." > =============== J: Again, if you could quote a sutta passage to the effect you mention here (i.e., admonitions to "strive", instructions to his followers to do something by way of practice "as if their hair was on fire"), we could discuss. > =============== > [RE:] I know you do not believe that Buddha promoted wrong view in any way, but that is the conclusion for him speaking this way, if this is not what he meant. Otherwise there would be *no* confusion. If Buddha had said, "Striving will arise in the form of viriya and this will lead to development of the path factors" no one would try to practice and no one would be confused. It *is* the Buddha's own words that are causing the conflict or confusion, because you don't want to take them literally. > =============== J: Let's look at an actual sutta passage of your choice with the above comments in mind. > =============== > [RE:] A much more simple explanation of Buddha's talking this way is that such talk would indeed motivate people to practice meditation, and that this practice in turn would promote the development of satipatthana. In the above formulation there is still no control. It comes directly from the Dhamma to the meditator. > > Buddha says "strive" ----> Followers "strive" through meditation practice [and other means, eg, Dhamma study] ----> satipatthana develops. > =============== J: OK, I understand what you're proposing, but let's look at an actual sutta passage. > =============== > [RE:] There is no control, no self-view, no separate volition apart from what is promoted by the Buddha's own words of Dhamma. > =============== J: Not sure what you're saying here. Is it not quite possible that for a person practising in the way you interpret the Buddha to be suggesting there could be a lot of self-view? > =============== > [RE:] I apologize for any seeming attributions towards you personally. I'm only talking that way to make the logical case for what I am saying as clear as possible. > =============== J: Understood as not personal (and the same goes for my comments to you)! Jon #121610 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (121504) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: You read the description of the factor of right concentration as saying that "the 4th jhana is the *culmination* of both equanimity *and satipatthana,*". How are we to understand this? A reading of "jhana as the culmination of satipatthana" seems to suggest that it's satipatthana that leads to 4th jhana (rather than jhana leading to satipatthana, which is the view usually espoused). > > [RE:] That is not the sense of the passage that I quoted, and the verse you have below seems to be from another post or another translation. > =============== J: Well I was really focussing on your own statement in an earlier post where you said: <> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/119643) Wondering what you meant (or understood) by the fourth jhana as the "culmination of equanimity and satipatthana". > =============== > [RE:] The way the passage was written, it was a clear sense that in reaching the 4th jhana, it both included and represented the culmination of equanimity and mindfulness, and that the jhana pathway led to this. > =============== J: The notion that there is a jhana pathway that leads to the culmination of mindfulness is not a notion that is expressly stated in the suttas (it's an interpretation of the words of the sutta). > =============== > [RE:] I don't think it's an interpretation to follow a close description and say that what is being described is what is being described. If Buddha were to say "There is the case where a flute student practices the flute for 4 hours a day and in doing so achieves great skill on the flute," it would be obvious that he was saying that the practice was what led to the skill. > =============== J: Maybe so, but are you saying there's a passage in the suttas, in reference to the development of satipatthana, analogous to "practising the flute leads to great skill in playing the flute"? I don't think so. > =============== > [RE:] It is the same with the many suttas that spell out the detailed pathway of practice that leads to development of satipatthana. It would not start with "There is the case where a monk sits down at the root of a tree," etc., if that was just a coincidence. Everything he describes is part of the practice. > =============== J: In the passage in the Satipatthana Sutta, the 'case' in question is that of a monk who has already developed samatha and awareness to a high degree. So it is not to be taken as a 'pathway' for any case other than that. > =============== > [RE:] If you ask me to go buy eggs and I return with eggs, it would be silly for someone to say "Ah! But you did not follow Jon's real instuctions, for he said to buy eggs and you did buy eggs. What he really meant was *not* to buy eggs. Your saying that buying eggs is buying eggs is an interpretation. That is not a fair reading to say that is an interpretation. > =============== J: Yes, but are you saying that in the suttas there's a passage to analogous to "go and [buy eggs]"? > =============== > [RE:] I've never said there was any other form of control. But there is practice, and it may lead to certain results. It's not control but it's logic. If I drop a glass and it hits the ground it will shatter. It's not control, it's just cause and effect. > =============== J: The idea of a practice is that by doing A, B will result. This differs from the teaching on conditionality, which is that 'conditioned by A, B arises'. Comparing the two, it can be seen that the practice notion involves a certain idea of control (the doing of A). And if the 'A' is a kusala mind-state, well that's just not something that can be 'done'. > =============== > [RE:] If there is some control, or a sense of some ability to do something more or less easily, then there is something that is done and can be done. Practice is just practice. It only yields the results that it can at a given time, nothing more, but also nothing less. > =============== J: But there cannot be practice at having/developing kusala. Either there is kusala or there's not (in which case, there's akusala). Any practice to have (in subsequent moments) kusala could not itself be kusala. > =============== > [RE:] If I do what the words of Buddha say, that is not an interpretation. ... If Buddha says "this is how one practices to develop x" it is not an interpretation to practice that way to develop x. It's an interpretation to say "that's not what the Buddha meant us to do" when it is what he said to do. > =============== J: Well let's have a look at the passage that you think best says "this is how one practices to develop x", and see if that's what is actually being said. To my reading, and in line with the principle of conditionality, what the Buddha describes in the suttas is *what must happen in order for x to develop*. Jon #121611 From: han tun Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sickness. hantun1 Dear Nina, Sarah and all, Nina: I wrote to my Thai friend: ---------- Han: As I have also age-related illnesses, I find your above letter very useful for me. Thank you very much. I pray for Lodewijk's health and your health too. I also wish you and Lodewijk a Happy New Year 2012. Respectfully, Han #121612 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] sickness. nilovg Dear Han, Wonderful to hear from you. We have been thinking of you. Thank you for your good wishes. We wish you all the best for the coming year. Nina. Op 26-dec-2011, om 13:12 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > As I have also age-related illnesses, I find your above letter very > useful for me. Thank you very much. > I pray for Lodewijk's health and your health too. > I also wish you and Lodewijk a Happy New Year 2012. #121613 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 3:52 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > And, by the way, this tendency of yours to refer to 'Buddha' (rather than 'the Buddha') and these ridiculous statements like, 'take it up with him' continue to demonstrate your unique tendency to see yourself as not only being so close to 'Buddha' that you refer to him as 'Buddha,' but to somehow be magically privy to the workings of his mind as to know the real meaning of the Dhamma. I find this very humourous as well. I see that even in this area, I have failed to live up to some special criteria of terminology that would match your understanding of what is correct. I don't mean to say that I am specially familiar by saying "Buddha" instead of "the Buddha" or that we're good pals or anything, just talking normally. No disrespect intended, if any is implied. For someone who speaks disparagingly of most Buddhists most of the time, I find it interesting that you are so sensitive about the supposedly disrespectful lack of a "the." I guess it is that kind of fine detail that makes you the thoughtful dhamma analyst that you are. As for the idea that any activity is conceptual and self-based, and therefore one that is applied to the path must be the expression of wrong view, I think we're revolving around the same dead end and will probably stay there, but we'll see. Merry Christmas in any case. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121614 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Hi all, I thought it may motivate some comments when sharing my thoughts concerning the previous posting.. What here is Origin of Suffering? Craving (tanhā)." "What here is Suffering? (a) The remaining defilements (kilesa), (b) the remaining kammically unwholesome states, (c) the 3 wholesome roots, as far as subject to taints (tīṇi ca kusala-mūlāni sāsavāni), (d) the remaining wholesome states, as far as subject to taints, (e) the kamma-results (vipāka) of wholesome and unwholesome states, (f) the states that are independent of kamma (functional; kiriyā), being neither wholesome nor unwholesome nor kamma-results; and (g) all corporeality." as a) to g) refers to craving I assume suffering is either indirectly addressed or in the sense of 'what is craving in its relation to suffering..' t remaining .....: why remaining? see below a.Kilesa , just to recall: kilesa: 'defilements', are mind-defiling, unwholesome qualities. Vis.M. XXII, 49, 65: "There are 10 defilements, thus called because they are themselves defiled, and because they defile the mental factors associated with them. They are: (1) greed (lobha), (2) hate (dosa), (3) delusion (moha), (4) conceit (māna), (5) speculative views (diṭṭhi), (6) skeptical doubt (vicikicchā ), (7) mental torpor (thīna), (8) restlessness (uddhacca); (9) shamelessness (ahirika ), (10) lack of moral dread or unconscientiousness (anottappa)." For 1-3, s. mūla; 4, s. māna; 5, s. diṭṭhi; 6-8, s. nīvaraṇa; 9 and 10, s. ahirika -anottappa.The ten are explained in Dhs. 1229f and enumerated in Vibh. XII. No classification of the k. is found in the Suttas , though the term occurs quite often in them. For the related term, upakkilesa (q.v.; 'impurities') different lists are given - (App.). http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_k.htm unquote as discussed before, the 10 are identical with 10 out of the 14 akusala Cetasikas, i.e. envy,stinginess,worry and sloth not included b) kammically unwholesome states : I assume the 10 of kamma patha c) 3 wholesome roots : certainly alobha , adosa, amoha but what means 'as far as subject to taints '? obviously what is called below (MN 117) effluents(asava) ? "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. "And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. d) wholesome states, as far as subject to taints .. understood:wholesome kammically states e) and f) clear g) all corporeality .. probably in respect to the 5 senses media (?) quote Dhs "What is here the Extinction of Suffering? The abandoning of Craving." "What is here the Path leading to the Extinction of Suffering? Whenever the monk develops the supramundane absorption (lokuttarajjhāna) leading to escape (from the round of rebirth) and (its) undoing for the purpose of overcoming all false views and attaining to the first stage of holiness (sotāpatti), and being detached from sensuous things … has entered into the first absorption, with difficult progress and slow comprehension … at such a time there exists the eightfold path: right understanding …right concentration." unqote Reference to the supramundané (Noble) path which starts with the sotapatti (who only mastered three of the 10 fetters and still needs training) Interesting to note the connection with the first Jhana , which we find as well in MN 117: "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks replied. The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you noble right concentration with its supports and requisite conditions. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak." "Yes, lord," the monks replied. The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions. Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given etc.. snip " I tell you, o monks, there are 2 kinds of right view: the understanding that it is good to give alms and offerings, that both good and evil actions will bear fruit and will be followed by results.... This, o monks, is a view which, though still subject to the cankers, is meritorious, yields worldly fruits, and brings good results. But whatever there is of wisdom, of penetration, of right view conjoined with the path - the holy path being pursued, this is called the supermundane right view (lokuttara-sammā-diṭṭhi), which is not of the world, but which is supermundane and conjoined with the path." Ven.Nyanatiloka explains with the following the mundane and the surpamundane (Noble ) Path : First of all, the figurative expression 'path' should not be interpreted to mean that one has to advance step by step in the sequence of the enumeration until, after successively passing through all the eight stages, one finally may reach one's destination, Nibbāna. If this really were the case, one should have realized, first of all, right view and penetration of the truth, even before one could hope to proceed to the next steps, right thought and right speech; and each preceding stage would be the indispensable foundation and condition for each succeeding stage. In reality, however, the links 3-5 constituting moral training (sīla), are the first 3 links to be cultivated, then the links 6-8 constituting mental training (samādhi), and at last right view, etc. constituting wisdom (paññā). It is, however, true that a really unshakable and safe foundation to the path is provided only by right view which, starting from the tiniest germ of faith and knowledge, gradually, step by step, develops into penetrating insight (vipassanā) and thus forms the immediate condition for the entrance into the 4 supermundane paths and fruits of holiness, and for the realization of Nibbāna. Only with regard to this highest form of supermundane insight, may we indeed say that all the remaining links of the path are nothing but the outcome and the accompaniments of right view. " (D: compare with MN 117 ..of those right view is te forerunner) "Regarding the mundane (lokiya) eightfold path, however, its links may arise without the first link, right view. Here it must also be emphasized that the links of the path not only do not arise one after the other, as already indicated, but also that they, at least in part, arise simultaneously as inseparably associated mental factors in one and the same state of consciousness. Thus, for instance, under all circumstances at least 4 links are inseparably bound up with any kammically wholesome consciousness, namely 2, 6, 7 and 8, i.e. right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration (M. 117), so that as soon as any one of these links arises, the three others also do so. On the other hand, right view is not necessarily present in every wholesome state of consciousness.Magga is one of the 24 conditions (s. paccaya 18). unquote I assume that Abhidhamma treats the supramundane path only , which indeeds leads to the extinction of suffering with a maximum of 7 rebirthes. So far .. any comments ? with Metta Dieter #121615 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:23 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...any activity is conceptual and self-based, and therefore one that is applied to the path must be the expression of wrong view..." Scott: Correct, more or less. I see that Jon says the same thing to you. Scott. #121616 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:31 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (121498) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > [RE:] I don't see any inconsistency between the Buddha's pronouncements on striving and the understanding of path factors arising with no control either. All that we disagree about is whether there is efficacy in purposeful sitting practice, or related practices, ie, meditation as a whole. > > =============== > > J: Yes, we disagree on what the Buddha meant when he spoke about, for example, right effort and 'striving', guarding the sense-doors, etc., or about monks going to secluded places in the afternoon, adopting a sitting position and breathing in and out mindfully. Are you saying that you don't think the Buddha meant what he said about going to the root of a tree, sitting and breathing? And that such a situation was efficacious to the development of mindfulness? How would you contextualize the first statement - the going to a secluded location, sitting and breathing; and how would you respond to the second part - that such was efficacious for satipatthana? > > =============== > > [RE:] Buddha did not just acknowledge the arising of viriya when he spoke of striving. He said it as an admonition - something that he was telling people to *do.* > > =============== > > J: If you could give a sutta passage which you read as carrying this meaning, I'd be happy to discuss. (But I believe we will find it to be a matter of interpretation rather than of it being the actual words of the Buddha.) Well, to me, if it says very directly, "Monks, strive with all your might, practice continuously as if your hair was on fire," that there is not much interpretation needed. It's very direct. Some statements are more ambiguous but there are very direct statements like the above that are not. I can't find those quotes right now but I will look for them. I did quote and cite the suttas that say those things in our previous exchanges. In my view there are two ways of taking such a direct statement that maintains the integrity of what is said - a direct imperative form, in other words. The second of them is still in line with dhamma theory, though it is a little convoluted. The first is that the Buddha meant what he said, and that there are kusala intentional actions to be taken that will yield kusala results. This would be a very literal interpretation, taking the Buddha at his word, and be in line with ideas such as 'right livelihood' being about what kind of job you have. Let's say that we put aside the super-literal interpretation above, and go to the next one, which is what I think may be correct - that the Buddha understood that by telling people to do certain things, certain conditions would be created, certain dhammas of intention and action would arise, that would lead those who had the correct accumulations to activate other dhammas and that these would lead to the arising and development of the path. In other words, the Buddha did mean what he said, but he meant to communicate to the dhammas that would be thus activated, rather than to the "persons" involved. The statements thus made would serve as a bridge between concepts and dhammas. This interpretation allows both the suttas and the dhamma analysis to make absolute sense, each in their own right, without violating the integrity of either; whereas the first explanation might contradict the dhamma theory, and the more extreme dhamma explanation -- that the literal words don't mean or do anything but are only a kind of conventional code for a very different dhamma analysis which they only imply -- would discount the words of the Buddha, and also fail to explain why the Buddha would ever speak in such conventional language if such language was at best ineffective, and at worst obfuscatory of the real understanding of dhammas. > > =============== > > [RE:] That is where the confusion lies. If you propose that he did not mean for people to *act* on his admonitions to "strive," then you are in effect saying that he was promoting wrong view, because his language has communicated to many, many Buddhists that they should follow his instructions and do something about it, not just promote right understanding through understanding Dhamma, but to practice "as if their hair was on fire." > > =============== > > J: Again, if you could quote a sutta passage to the effect you mention here (i.e., admonitions to "strive", instructions to his followers to do something by way of practice "as if their hair was on fire"), we could discuss. I quoted these and cited them fully when they were mentioned originally, a while back. I should keep records of those cites so I can repeat them. Note to self...: [conventionally speaking...] > > =============== > > [RE:] I know you do not believe that Buddha promoted wrong view in any way, but that is the conclusion for him speaking this way, if this is not what he meant. Otherwise there would be *no* confusion. If Buddha had said, "Striving will arise in the form of viriya and this will lead to development of the path factors" no one would try to practice and no one would be confused. It *is* the Buddha's own words that are causing the conflict or confusion, because you don't want to take them literally. > > =============== > > J: Let's look at an actual sutta passage of your choice with the above comments in mind. Okay. While waiting for such a cite to be relocated, we could look at the passage in the Visuddimagga that we've discussed before about the person seeking meditation instruction finding a teacher and learning the technique. It's at least an example where it seems to say "When you want to learn meditation, get someone to teach you how to do it, and then go practice" from Buddhaghosa, who I think we all trust pretty well. Do you recall where that is in the Vis...? I think when we discussed it before, we got diverted to the point about whether this applied to advanced students or beginners, as with the "counting breaths" section as well. But in either case, it doesn't really settle the point of such instructions appearing to be about "someone doing something," following specific instructions, in order to develop the path - so maybe we could look at that point in particular rather than at who is qualified to do such a thing. > > =============== > > [RE:] A much more simple explanation of Buddha's talking this way is that such talk would indeed motivate people to practice meditation, and that this practice in turn would promote the development of satipatthana. In the above formulation there is still no control. It comes directly from the Dhamma to the meditator. > > > > Buddha says "strive" ----> Followers "strive" through meditation practice [and other means, eg, Dhamma study] ----> satipatthana develops. > > =============== > > J: OK, I understand what you're proposing, but let's look at an actual sutta passage. Okay....how about the satipatthana sutta for this point...: "The Blessed One said this: "This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding in other words, the four frames of reference." This establishes what the path is. "There is the case where a monk having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." Leaving aside whether "always mindful" denotes an advanced practitioner, this appears to begin a set of instructions, or at least a description of how one practices to satisfy the first paragraph's stated subject: "..the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding..." It is logical to think that the paragraphs that follow that first paragraph are describing the attainment of the right method which will lead to the stated realization. A little further on the development of skill in such a method is described in more detail: "He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' ... He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' " If the monk in question is "training himself" to do such as is described, it is clearly not the case that the description is of a totally natural development that just arises. There is training involved. I don't see what else that can mean. In addition, it also shows that the task has not already been accomplished - a fully realized description - but one of the method that is used to further develop satipatthana. At the end, the Buddha says: "Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him..." In other words, having spelled out the correct approach to satipatthana, he then says "if it is developed in this way," in other words, in the way I have just taught or described, "this fruit can be expected," in other words, the result of such practice. > > =============== > > [RE:] There is no control, no self-view, no separate volition apart from what is promoted by the Buddha's own words of Dhamma. > > =============== > > J: Not sure what you're saying here. Is it not quite possible that for a person practicing in the way you interpret the Buddha to be suggesting there could be a lot of self-view? It's always possible. What I'm saying is that it's not necessitated by engaging in practice, not that it's not possible. Most of the dhamma-theory students here have had a firm view that meditation without self-view is *impossible.* That's all I'm seeking to contradict. > > =============== > > > [RE:] I apologize for any seeming attributions towards you personally. I'm only talking that way to make the logical case for what I am saying as clear as possible. > > =============== > > J: Understood as not personal (and the same goes for my comments to you)! Thanks, Jon. I appreciate your patience. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #121617 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:13 am Subject: Aloof is Equanimity bhikkhu5 Friends: Regarding all Phenomena with aloof Equanimity! When one has understood constructions by seeing the three characteristics in them and their voidness, then one can leave both terror & delight by becoming indifferent and neutral to all states, taking them neither to be 'I' nor 'mine'! One becomes like a man who has recently divorced his wife: The man who was married to a lovely, gorgeous, & charming wife & so deeply in love with her as to be unable to bear separation from her for a moment. He would be disturbed & displeased to see her standing, talking & laughing with another man, and would be very unhappy, but later, when he found out that woman's faults, and he divorced her, he would no more take her as 'mine'; and thereafter, even though he saw her doing whatever it might be, with whomsoever it might be, he would neither be disturbed, nor displeased, but only neutral & indifferent! So too with the meditating disciple who wants to get free from all phenomena: He recognizes all constructions as impermanent, and void of pleasure and self, thus seeing that nothing is in reality 'I' or 'mine'. He therefore abandons both terror and delight, and becomes indifferent & neutral towards all phenomena... Vism 656 Divorced from Possessiveness, Egoism, Clinging and Frustration! <...> Equanimity describes the unattached awareness of one's experience as a result of perceiving the impermanence of momentary reality. It is a peace of mind and dwelling in even calmness that cannot be shaken by any grade of both fortunate and unfortunate circumstance. It is a concept promoted by several religions...! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equanimity Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�� hita _/\_ * <...> #121618 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:45 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...the Buddha understood that by telling people to do certain things, certain conditions would be created, certain dhammas of intention and action would arise, that would lead those who had the correct accumulations to activate other dhammas and that these would lead to the arising and development of the path. In other words, the Buddha did mean what he said, but he meant to communicate to the dhammas that would be thus activated, rather than to the 'persons' involved..." Scott: This is beautiful. A magic spell. A secret code. Imbedded in the various English translations of the various versions of the Paa.li canon previously preserved in the oral tradition, persisting and miraculously preserved to this day, are a set of mystical code-words and phrases placed there by the Buddha. These are waiting to be read by the chosen few and, when they are, to function like keys to unlock the mysteries of the Dhamma and cause 'practice' to happen. Right. Scott. #121619 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 3:50 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...any activity is conceptual and self-based, and therefore one that is applied to the path must be the expression of wrong view..." > > Scott: Correct, more or less. E Pluribus Drinkus Koolaidus. > I see that Jon says the same thing to you. Well, I can't account for such coincidences, if that is in fact the case. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #121620 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:06 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...the Buddha understood that by telling people to do certain things, certain conditions would be created, certain dhammas of intention and action would arise, that would lead those who had the correct accumulations to activate other dhammas and that these would lead to the arising and development of the path. In other words, the Buddha did mean what he said, but he meant to communicate to the dhammas that would be thus activated, rather than to the 'persons' involved..." > > Scott: This is beautiful. A magic spell. A secret code. > > Imbedded in the various English translations of the various versions of the Paa.li canon previously preserved in the oral tradition, persisting and miraculously preserved to this day, are a set of mystical code-words and phrases placed there by the Buddha. These are waiting to be read by the chosen few and, when they are, to function like keys to unlock the mysteries of the Dhamma and cause 'practice' to happen. > > Right. The alternative is that the Buddha actually meant what he said, and that his instructions are meant to be followed. Your interpretation is the one in which Buddha is speaking in code. You say that what he says is just conventional language and that he's actually secretly referring to arising dhammas. Please explain why the Buddha speaks in conventional language in the first place if this is the case. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #121622 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, > From: Dieter Moeller >I thought it may motivate some comments when sharing my thoughts concerning the previous posting.. .... [S: Next time you or anyone else quotes from an on-line text, could you quote one or two pages at the very most, rather than half a dozen pages as you've done a couple of times? Just a paragraph would probably be more "motivating" and easier for everyone to read. You could add the link to the entire section. TIA - no need to respond!] > >What here is Origin of Suffering? Craving (tanhā)." "What here is Suffering? (a) The remaining defilements (kilesa), (b) the remaining kammically unwholesome states, (c) the 3 wholesome roots, as far as subject to taints (tīṇi ca kusala-mūlāni sāsavāni), (d) the remaining wholesome states, as far as subject to taints, (e) the kamma-results (vipāka) of wholesome and unwholesome states, (f) the states that are independent of kamma (functional; kiriyā), being neither wholesome nor unwholesome nor kamma-results; and (g) all corporeality." > >as a) to g) refers to craving .... S: Why do "a) to g)" refer to craving? ..... >....I assume suffering is either indirectly addressed or in the sense of 'what is craving in its relation to suffering..' t .... S: I don't follow you. a) to g) are all *directly* referring to what Suffering, Dukkha is in the ultimate sense. ... > >remaining .....: why remaining? .... S: "the remaining defilements" - all defilements apart from tanha just referred to "the remaining wholesome states" - all kusala states other than alobha, adosa and amoha just referred to. ... >c) 3 wholesome roots : certainly alobha , adosa, amoha > >but what means 'as far as subject to taints '? obviously what is called below (MN 117) effluents(asava) ? ... Kusala states - still have the anusayas lying dormant which condition the asavas anytime. > >"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. ... S: The lokuttara cittas - anusayas eradicated at the 4 stages, no longer conditioning the respective asavas to arise. The lokuttara dhammas are not Dukkha ... >"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. > >"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. > >d) wholesome states, as far as subject to taints .. understood:wholesome kammically states > >e) and f) clear > >g) all corporeality .. probably in respect to the 5 senses media (?) .... S: All 28 rupas - including those which are never experienced through the 5 senses. <...> >I assume that Abhidhamma treats the supramundane path only , .... S: No - it explains and elaborates on all kinds of dhammas in fine detail. >...which indeeds leads to the extinction of suffering with a maximum of 7 rebirthes. ... S: You are referring to the sotapatti lokuttara magga citta - just one citta and accompanying cetasikas - just a very small 'dot' amongst all the dhammas described. Perhaps I misunderstand you. ... > >So far .. any comments ? .... S: Another good project. Again, I had to cut a big chunk as it's too long for me to cope with in one post. Just one paragraph with questions comments please! The Abhidhamma is deep and densely-packed:) Metta Sarah ====== #121623 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:35 pm Subject: Re: What I heard. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Nina & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: I heard about these three cariyas the other day. She stressed that "cannot escape" aspect of vinanna cariya, cannot escape the results of deeds. I think reflecting on vinaaana cariya and that inescapable aspect could help condition wise response to vipaka, including the pleasasnt. I read your post when I was at a very cool record store/coffee bar in a trendy part of Tokyo, just surrounded by good vipaka, great sights, sounds, taste (of the coffee), first day of my winter vacation, just feeling great. But you post was a reminder how completely useless all that pleasant vipaka is, it's so natural that many Buddhists make the aim of Dhamma avoidance of unpleasant vipaka, but such a big mistake.... .... S: Yes, impossible to escape the results of kamma or for the vipaka now to be any different from how it is conditioned to be. We have ideas of "avoidance of unpleasant vipaka" or "finding kusala vipaka" only because we are so used to thinking in terms of situations all the time. It's impossible to understand vipaka unless there is an understanding now of seeing, hearing and other vipaka cittas. Even the bhavanga cittas, including death consciousness -- or birth consciousness for that matter -- cannot be controlled in anyway. Like my friend in the coma after planning her enjoyable day - K. Sujin would say that it's impossible to avoid the results of past good and bad kamma. This is why wise reflection on kamma is a condition for more equanimity, more impartiality towards the occurrences and results of kamma . As you say, "all that pleasant vipaka" is "completely useless" - only the present understanding of dhammas is of any value at all. Metta Sarah ===== #121624 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > It's funny. We've been wrestling with ideas about pannati and nimitta lately, and it seems like there is still a lot of confusion, mostly because they have different roles in different contexts. I was going to read about pannati in Survey, and wondering if I would get from the computer to the book! Then while searching for nimitta online I found a complete online version of Survey on the wisdom books site, so I never got over to the bookshelf. There is a quote that I liked and read about 10 times, but it didn't quite seem to apply to the post to Scott at the time. But now I think it applies nicely to what you said above. I think it is very good. Here K. Sujin talks about nimitta as the "outward appearance" of things that fools us into thinking they are whole, lasting objects with bigger identities beyond the moment. I think it also explains nicely how we attach to the idea of "people," both for ourselves and others: ... S: thanks for including the good quotes from Survey and your comments. Yes, in this context nimitta refers to the "signs" or outer appearances which are clung to. Pannatti refer to all kinds of concepts. As we've noted, nimitta may refer just to sankhara nimitta - signs of realities, not concepts. Metta Sarah ====== #121625 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What I heard. sarahprocter... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > very good quotes. I have it all copied, but to which one in > particular you are referring? > Nina. > Op 23-dec-2011, om 8:08 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > > > scroll down to: Kaeng Krajaan (Thailand), September 2006 ... S: Very first part of first section. Metta Sarah ===== #121626 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:08 pm Subject: Re: sickness. sarahprocter... Dear Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I wrote to my Thai friend: > trouble, it is human. ... [S: If it is our Thai friend who lives on a yacht or another one we know, pls send our best wishes. I think that we're so used to thinking of the object of our worries as being the problem - the job, the family, the sickness and so on - that we forget the reality, the problem is just that moment of accumulated dosa conditioned by lobha. We think that if the sickness or other thought about problem is 'solved', then our worries will disappear, but we forget that all kinds of kilesa are accumulated. There will always be more thinking, more objects and ideas to worry about. As you say below, "Life is so short, let us not waste it, but develop understanding now." Worry only lasts a moment and is then gone. If there is no thinking about the idea, there is no worry. At moments of seeing, hearing and kusala, no worry at all. Of course, none of us like the worry because of the unpleasant feeling, but it's conditioned just like the lobha is which we don't mind about. Just passing dhammas - anatta. ... > We also had a tough year, Lodewijk's health is not so good. So many > complaints, several doctors, specialists, and too many medicines. > When swallowing he often has a pain, and a pain in the head. Also his > PSA goes up inspite of the medicin agains prostrate cancer. But then > I remember, a pain is the result of kamma. We receive results of > kamma that we cannot control. Better to have more understanding of > this very moment, there is always a dhamma appearing through one of > the six doors. Worry is akusala, but it is conditioned that we worry. > Best to know it as it is. ... S: Alls so true. As K.Sujin says - all these names and terms are just ideas. ... >We are so lost in stories about sickness, > you are not the only one. Then all these stories seem so big, so > important. ... S: Yes - just kusala, akusala, avyakata dhammas. That's all. ... > But what is life? It is so short, soon there will be a > next life in the endless chain of birth and death, and again birth > and death. Then our stories we are thinking of seem less important. > Life is so short, and let us not waste it, but develop understanding > now. > ... S: You've shared many good reminders. Thank you and best wishes for the friend, for Lodewijk and all in the New Year. Dhamma is the best medicine, worry just leads to more sickness! Metta Sarah ===== #121627 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:01 pm Subject: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 Hi. firstly. I'm a new member here on the boards so just wanted to say hi and it's good to be here. I am spending the christmas period in a kind of 'home-retreat'. i was going to go to a 10 day vipasanna retreat/course but at the last minute, I decided that this was perhaps not what I was really looking for from my time. I have attended one of these courses before so I wasn't looking to 'learn' the technique so much as get a 'refresher'. I have let my practice slip somewhat since. so. what of my 'home-retreat'. Well, I am obviously not only 'sitting' since I am here, typing this. I am, however, devoting all my time for a few days to the dhamma. Beyond the neccesities of life, most of my days are spent sitting, reading and discussing online the dhamma. I am seeking to more fully integrate my 'practice' into my everyday life beyond simply my sitting periods. I found an interesting discussion of this at Abhidhamma.org, taken from this group (and thus my joining) but as it is a very old thread, I have started this new one. The thread was 'Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?)' - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/32401 The thread considers at some length the difference between pariyatti and patipatti and speaks to the distinction and attributes of sitting and of study. As currently my time consists largely of a lot of both, I was very interested to read more. I then found the following at wikipedia - 'In Theravada Buddhism pariyatti is the learning of the theory of buddhadharma as contained within the suttas of the Pali canon. It is contrasted with patipatti which means to put the theory into practice and pativedha which means penetrating it or rather experientially realising the truth of it.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariyatti The contributors at the old thread were equating patipatti with sitting but one also contended that patipatti also equally includes constant mindfulness. My question, I guess, however is more to do with pativedha and how possible is this through the citta and cetasikas? Since all our perceptions, even when sitting, need to come through one of the 6 sense doors, it requires a certain amount of time to be perceived, even when our right-mindfulness is near-perfect. Therefore, since we can only ever truly know anything of the past, how can we truly 'penetrate' or experience the truth of anything? Hopeful of some help with this, it's good to be here and I look forward to getting to know my fellow members. Andy Barnes - moderator Dhamma Discussion A group for the serious student of the Buddhist Dhamma. There are many good and active groups for the student of the dhamma. This group will differ from most in our concentration on one excerpt of text per week. In this way, it is hoped that a deeper understanding of the text may develop. http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammadiscussion #121628 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti nilovg Dear Andy, welcome here. Thank you for your interesting post which contains many items, worth thinking over. Op 27-dec-2011, om 9:01 heeft andyebarnes67 het volgende geschreven: > The thread was 'Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video > Games?)' -http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/32401 > > The thread considers at some length the difference between > pariyatti and patipatti and speaks to the distinction and > attributes of sitting and of study. As currently my time consists > largely of a lot of both, I was very interested to read more. > > I then found the following at wikipedia - > 'In Theravada Buddhism pariyatti is the learning of the theory of > buddhadharma as contained within the suttas of the Pali canon. It > is contrasted with patipatti which means to put the theory into > practice and pativedha which means penetrating it or rather > experientially realising the truth of it.' - ------- N: Pariyatti is understanding of realities (dhammas) that appear at this moment through eyes, ears, through all six doorways. Not only the suttas help us to have more understanding of these, but also the Abhidhamma. Pariyatti pertains to understanding all dhammas of our daily life, occurring now. They appear, no matter in what posture one is, not just sitting. Do we know what visible object is: what appears through the eyes, and it is a kind of ruupa, not a thing, not a person. When we believe that we see a person this is merely thinking of a concept, not a reality. The object of pariyatti are realities, naama and ruupa, not persons or things. Pariyatti can lead to pa.tipatti which is another level. Direct awareness of dhammas can begin and then understanding becomes clearer. There is nobody who can induce awareness, it arises because of its own conditions. The conditions are listening, study, considering, discussion. Pativeda is the direct realization of the truth we understood at first at the level of pariyatti, and then gradually through awareness of all naamas and ruupas of our life. ------ > > A: The contributors at the old thread were equating patipatti with > sitting but one also contended that patipatti also equally includes > constant mindfulness. ------- N: Mindfulness can arise and be aware of whatever reality appears, but we cannot speak of constant awareness. There is also seeing, hearing and during these moments there is no awareness. Moreover, there are bound to be many, many moments with forgetfulness, since we have accumulated a great deal of defilements. Also defilements are realities and they should be known as they are: arising because of conditions, non-self. The whole purpose of our study is understanding the anattaness of dhammas. ------- > A: My question, I guess, however is more to do with pativedha and > how possible is this through the citta and cetasikas? ------ N: Pativedha can be realized, but when time comes! It all depends on the right conditions. The development of understanding is very, very gradual, nobody can hasten its development. Lobha slips in all the time and wants to do certain things to hasten the development. ------- > > A: Since all our perceptions, even when sitting, need to come > through one of the 6 sense doors, it requires a certain amount of > time to be perceived, even when our right-mindfulness is near- > perfect. Therefore, since we can only ever truly know anything of > the past, how can we truly 'penetrate' or experience the truth of > anything? ------ N: When for example dosa arises, there cannot be mindfulness at the same time. When it has just fallen away there can be another process of cittas with mindfulness of the characteristic of dosa that has just fallen away. Cittas arise and fall away so fast, so we can still speak of awareness of what is present. ------ Nina. #121629 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:53 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "The alternative is that the Buddha actually meant what he said, and that his instructions are meant to be followed." Scott: You hold to this merely to justify your 'practice.' You do not consider there to be an 'alternative' to your concrete view. The one you made up recently would be good as part of the plot in a fantasy novel - all the magic and stuff like that. R: "...Please explain why the Buddha speaks in conventional language in the first place if this is the case." Scott: Rob, it is merely convention - common language to express deep, deep Dhamma. You are taking the speech literally. You do not accept that the deeper Dhamma refers to paramattha dhammaa and that these are the only realities. There is but *one* truth. This can be expressed conventionally or this can be expressed explicitly - in terms of paramattha dhammaa (with an understanding of their natural order and function). The latter expression *is* the way things are in actuality. The Dhamma as a whole contains many explanations of realities. The student of the Dhamma is expected to integrate a comprehension of the way things are in reality when it comes to hearing the Dhamma. This depends on pa~n~naa. If pa~n~naa is not developed to a significant enough level, there is no comprehension, even at the level of pariyatti. This is the problem when it comes to getting bogged down in literalness. Scott. #121630 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: thanks for including the good quotes from Survey and your comments. Yes, in this context nimitta refers to the "signs" or outer appearances which are clung to. Pannatti refer to all kinds of concepts. As we've noted, nimitta may refer just to sankhara nimitta - signs of realities, not concepts. I guess you could say that nimitta can go either way - it seems as though they can represent concept or reality, depending on the level of understanding. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #121631 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:31 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "The alternative is that the Buddha actually meant what he said, and that his instructions are meant to be followed." > > Scott: You hold to this merely to justify your 'practice.' You do not consider there to be an 'alternative' to your concrete view. The one you made up recently would be good as part of the plot in a fantasy novel - all the magic and stuff like that. It's no better or worse than the fantasy that the liberating path will arise all by itself with no practice and no consistent effort. Effort arises by itself from the sky, ancient kusala that arose by itself leads by itself to more magical kusala, and at the end the path is fulfilled without it ever being followed. It's also fantasy to take everything the Buddha said about anapanasati, practice of satipatthana, going through all the jhanas as the Buddha did himself many times, and all the other constituents of the practice path, and ignore them all as circumstantial descriptions with no bearing on the "real path," which occurs by doing nothing. Talk about a magical fantasy! You ignore the teaching, invent your own, call it Buddhism and disparage and ridicule everyone who is practicing according to what the Buddha actually said - the unbroken tradition of practice fom the time of the Buddha's enlightenment, which he taught consistently throughout his life. It is possible to see the Abhidhamma as a further elucidation of how the path takes place - which is what I think it was meant to do; but you see it as a replacement for all of the practices that come from the Buddha's own tradition, and then smugly say it was what the Buddha taught, rather than what he said. That is truly fantastical. > R: "...Please explain why the Buddha speaks in conventional language in the first place if this is the case." > > Scott: Rob, it is merely convention - common language to express deep, deep Dhamma. Why did he not teach only Abhidhamma - the true teaching. You are not able to answer that question, just give the same parrot answer that it is "merely conventional speech to express x." He didn't need it! He could have just taught X and avoided all that confusion of speaking conventionally. Why did he not teach directly to everyone that the path is one of dhammas arising due to the conditions, that there is no practice and no one should attempt to practice in a systematic way the way one would practice other skills. Instead one should only cultivate understanding and let the dhammas fall where they may. Why didn't he ever say that? Please answer the question. [You won't, I am sure, because you can't.] > You are taking the speech literally. It is his actual speech. There is no conflict between "literal" and something else. There is no reason to say that the words of the Buddha don't say what they say. What is the "non-literal" alternative? How do you translate what is "literal" into something else? And why is that necessary? If Buddha had said "literally" what you are saying, you wouldn't have to call his words "literal" and say that they mean something else. Most speech is taken literally, unless it is metaphor or an analogy or symbolism. Are yous saying that the Buddha's conventional speech is meant to be taken as metaphor or analogy, not meant to say what he said in literal terms? Take a literal part of the Buddha's speech, for isntance when he says to go through the parts of the body and inspect each part. It is said by some here that what the Buddha meant to say by this is to inspect the rupas of the body, not the literal body parts, as body parts are just conceptual. So tell me how you reach that conclusion? How do you determine that the Buddha did not mean to outline the various body parts but was just saying something more general, "rupas" in general that may arise in the body? I think my view of this kind of thing, which is both "literal" and allows for the dhamma analysis, is that he is saying look at this part of the body and then see the rupas that this so-called body part breaks down into. So both the body part and the rupas are included. We start from concept and get more specific; start from the body-part and go to the rupas. This makes sense and makes Buddhism a systematic study from sutta to Abhidhamma. But you would not be able to accept this, because you would have to accept Buddha's systematic breakdown of the body part by part, just as he breaks down satipatthana foundation by foundation; just as he and the Visudhimagga break down anapansati step by step. > You do not accept that the deeper Dhamma refers to paramattha dhammaa and that these are the only realities. You do not accept that the Buddha taught the way he taught, and have no explanation for why he did so. He did not write the Abhidhamma, he spoke the suttas. Why? You can't answer. Why did he talk about the "less deeper, more literal" level of realities when only dhammas exist? Why? Why is it left for us to argue over whether they are meant to be taken literally or not? Why not just talk directly about the deeper paramatha reality? Can you answer? > There is but *one* truth. Then why does Buddhist scripture speak two ways? You cannot deny that the literal level is the record that the Buddha left us. If there is one truth, why does he speak in this conventional way, and do so throughout his entire career? Just answer the question and let's see where you come down on this question, not by saying "you don't get it, that's not the real level," but why that level even exists at all? The Buddha spent his entire career of 40 years speaking in the way you say is the more "literal, superficial" level. So please explain his reason for doing so, instead of teaching Abhidhamma far and wide. > This can be expressed conventionally or this can be expressed explicitly - in terms of paramattha dhammaa (with an understanding of their natural order and function). The latter expression *is* the way things are in actuality. The Dhamma as a whole contains many explanations of realities. The student of the Dhamma is expected to integrate a comprehension of the way things are in reality when it comes to hearing the Dhamma. This depends on pa~n~naa. If pa~n~naa is not developed to a significant enough level, there is no comprehension, even at the level of pariyatti. > > This is the problem when it comes to getting bogged down in literalness. But you are unable to handle the basic problem that causes all these other problems - that Buddha taught on the conventional, literal level his entire life, since the moment of his enlightenment. You must have an explanation for why Buddha would create this literal, conventional, superficial level that panna would have to see through. You must admit it would be much more direct if Buddha had spent his career speaking of dhammas and explaining how they actually arose, if he had not spoken volumes on conventional practice, volumes on conventional living, volumes of conventional rules for monks and householders, volumes and voluments of conventional, "superficial" speech which you are saying is not the true Dhamma. You must have an explanation for this consistent conventional behavior and language, which the Master spoke for 40 years. I have proposed a reasonable explanation that would work for every type of Dhamma student - that he meant the conventional language to refer to one level of Dhamma that could be practiced and put into operation, and that he also meant for it to be broken down into dhammas and their arising and conditions for those who reached the point of discerning these more detailed understandings. But my explanation does make it necessary to allow for systematic activity and practice in various areas of life, including practice, that would set kusala conditions for further development of the path. It would mean that it does matter whether you drink alcohol or not, murder someone, or whether you practice systematically or not to develop skill at satipatthana. It would allow for the conventional level of Dhamma as well as the paramatha level and see them as interconnected. There is only one truth - that dhammas arise without personal control, due to conditions - but that does not mean that we understand everything that influences these occurrences on both conventional and ultimate levels. It may be that the conventional teachings of the Buddha are very important and that you are ignoring them at the peril of the path as a whole. I accept Abhidhamma and sutta, both as literal expressions and for what they suggest on deeper levels. But you, in essence, only accept Abhidhamma, and calling the Buddha's teachings "merely literal" is a way of ignoring the actual teachings that he espoused during this lifetime. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121632 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:40 am Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "andyebarnes67" wrote: > > Hi. > > firstly. I'm a new member here on the boards so just wanted to say hi and it's good to be here. Hi Andy, I'd like to add my `welcome to the group' and thanks for the invitation to look in at your other group. I won't do so at this stage because I find DSG provides all my needs in that department. However, if you believe your group offers something we are missing please say so, and we can discuss it. You wrote: --- > I am spending the christmas period in a kind of 'home-retreat'. <. . .> > I am seeking to more fully integrate my 'practice' into my everyday life beyond simply my sitting periods. --- KH: That's good to hear. It reminds me of one of Nina's books, Abhidhamma in Daily Life. Right now in our ordinary daily life whatever we are doing - there only the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. There is no self and there are no things to do. So there is no need to "do" anything. Ken H #121633 From: "azita" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:37 am Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti gazita2002 Hallo Nina,Andy and others, Firstly, seasons greetings to all, but really whats another year in the aeons of time that 'we've' lived :) > > A: My question, I guess, however is more to do with pativedha and > > how possible is this through the citta and cetasikas? > ------ > N: Pativedha can be realized, but when time comes! It all depends on > the right conditions. The development of understanding is very, very > gradual, nobody can hasten its development. Lobha slips in all the > time and wants to do certain things to hasten the development. azita: Pativedha is well developed wisdom that knows a reality eg, visible object, and as NIna says, is realized/arises when the conditions are right for it to arise. There is no one who can make wisdom arise, this is an extremely difficult fact to 'swallow', lobha does slip in again and again, wanting to speed things up - but not possible to speed up the development of wisdom if there's a self trying to do so. I suspect that the firmer the pariyatti becomes, there is the knowledge that these realities cannot be controlled, and therefore the letting go of any type of forced practice occurs. Gosh, I feel like I;ve opened up my own can of worms here, sooo much dosa these days and now have no time to continue with this particular post. More later, I hope Patience, courage and good cheer, [another can of worms] azita #121634 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:01 am Subject: The Mind is Naturally Radiant! bhikkhu5 Friends: The 5 Impurities block the Lucidity of Mind: The Blessed Buddha once said: There are five impurities of gold impaired by which it becomes neither pliant nor wieldy, it lacks radiance, is weak & easily broken and cannot be formed... What are these five impurities? They are: Iron, copper, tin, lead and silver. But if the gold has been purified from these five impurities, then it will indeed be pliant and wieldy, radiant and firm, and can be formed well. Whatever kind of jewellery one wishes to make from it, be it a diadem, earrings, a necklace or a golden chain, it will easily serve that purpose well. Similarly, there are five impurities of the mind impaired by which the mind is neither pliant nor wieldy, it lacks radiant lucidity and stability, and cannot concentrate well upon the eradication of the mental fermentations (�sava). What are these five impurities? They are: 1: Sense-Desire, 2: Evil-Will, 3: Lethargy and Laziness, 4: Restlessness and Regret, 5: Doubt and Uncertainty... But if the mind is freed of these five mental hindrances, then it will be plastic, flexible, and wieldy, will be of radiant lucidity and firm calm stability, and will concentrate well upon the elimination of the mental fermentations. Whatever supra-human state realizable by these higher mental abilities one may pursue, one will in each case be able to directly experience it, as an eye-witness... Buddha said: The mind is naturally radiant, but veiled by mental hindrance! <...> Comments: The 4 mental fermentations are wrong, false & hidden assumptions associated with: 1: Sense-desire (k�m�sava). Ex: "Sensing is only & always pleasant. Pain exists not!" 2: Desiring becoming into new existence (bhav�sava): Ex: "All life is good, Death exists not!" 3: Wrong views (ditth�sava): Ex: "I am better, know better & what I think is thus never wrong!" 4: Ignorance (avijj�sava): Ex: "Suffering, craving, ending craving & the Noble Way exists not!" <...> Source (edited extract): The Numerical Sayings of the Buddha. Anguttara Nik�ya. The Book of Fives 23: Four deeds of Merit... [III: 16-7] Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #121635 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:55 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "It's no better or worse than..." Scott: Just the salient points if you please, Rob. This is way too long. Scott. #121636 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:11 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott [and All.] Scott, you asked if I could summarize this long post. I cut this back an awful lot - hope it's short enough! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > R: "The alternative is that the Buddha actually meant what he said, and that his instructions are meant to be followed." > > > > Scott: You hold to this merely to justify your 'practice.' That is not true, Scott. I actually am looking for the truth, even though you may disagree with my conclusions. > You do not consider there to be an 'alternative' to your concrete view. The one you made up recently would be good as part of the plot in a fantasy novel - all the magic and stuff like that. > > It's no better or worse than the fantasy that the liberating path will arise all by itself with no practice and no consistent effort. > Buddha taught meditation practice throughout his life and repeated the description any number of times. So did Buddhaghosa. They never said not to practice, so it seems to me that it is a fantasy to reinterpret these many passages as "too literal." > It is possible to see the Abhidhamma as a further elucidation of how the path takes place, not as a replacement for practice. > > R: "...Please explain why the Buddha speaks in conventional language in the first place if this is the case." > > > > Scott: Rob, it is merely convention - common language to express deep, deep Dhamma. > > Why did he not teach only Abhidhamma - the true teaching. You are not able to answer that question. Saying it is "conventional speech" does not address why he spoke so conventionally for so many years. > > You are taking the speech literally. > > It is his actual speech. There is no conflict between "literal" and an alternative. What is not derived or justified from what is said is a replacement, not an explanation. > Take a literal part of the Buddha's speech when he says to go through the parts of the body and inspect each part. It is said by some here that what the Buddha meant to was to be aware of the rupas of the body, not the literal body parts. So how do you determine that the Buddha did not mean his list of body parts and substances to be taken literally? Why did he list them? I think that conceptual objects break down into rupas, so both the body part and the rupas are included. We start from the body-part and go to the rupas. > > You do not accept that the deeper Dhamma refers to paramattha dhammaa and that these are the only realities. > > You do not accept that the Buddha taught the way he taught, and have no explanation for why he did so. He did not write the Abhidhamma, he spoke the suttas. Why? Can you give an answer, rather than diverting to the "literal" explanation? > > > There is but *one* truth. > > Then why does Buddhist scripture speak two ways? You cannot deny that the literal level is the record that the Buddha left us. If there is one truth, why does he speak in this conventional way, and do so throughout his entire career? > > This can be expressed conventionally or this can be expressed explicitly - in terms of paramattha dhammaa (with an understanding of their natural order and function). The latter expression *is* the way things are in actuality. ... > > This is the problem when it comes to getting bogged down in literalness. > > But you are unable to handle the basic problem that causes all these other problems - that Buddha taught on the conventional, literal level his entire life. It would be much more direct if Buddha had spent his career speaking of dhammas and how they arose, but he spoke volumes on conventional practice, living, rules for monks and householders. Why? What was the purpose? > I think he meant the conventional language to refer to one level of Dhamma that could be practiced, and that he also meant for it to be broken down into dhammas. There is only one truth - that dhammas arise without personal control, due to conditions - but that does not mean that we understand everything that influences these occurrences on both conventional and ultimate levels. It may be that the conventional teachings of the Buddha are very important and that you are ignoring them at the peril of the path as a whole. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121637 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > What I believe that our talk is focusing on is that there is a CONTINUITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS. .... S: Yes! ... > > You misinterpret the meaning of part of my post. I was posing the CONTRADICTION of THEORY and REALITY, when I was speaking of the actual practice, in Tibet, of monks chanting over a corpse before burying the corpse, the issue. Monks chant to the corpse, but the corpse cannot hear or is it somehow possible for the corpse to hear? IF SO, HOW? .... S: Impossible - what is taken for the corpse are just rupas. There is no consciousness anymore that can hear. The reality now is that hearing consciousness arises very, very often, hearing sounds through the ear-door. Such hearing consciousness (and all other kinds of consciousness) only arises in living beings. <....> > Sarah, where do ya think TRANSIENT or TRANSIENCE comes into play here, in coordination with CONTINUUM or CONTINUITY? .... S: There is a continuum or continuity of cittas (consciousness) - like an electric current, each one triggering off the next one - no gaps at all. Each citta falls away as soon as it has arisen, therefore each one is transient. The hearing, seeing and thinking that occurred a moment ago have gone, never to return. At the end of this life, the last citta (the death consciousness) is followed immediately by the next citta (the birth consciousness) of the new life. No gap, no "bardo", no corpse which experiences anything, no beings at all. .... > > SARAH: "...like those of a tree-trunk (apart from rupas still conditioned by past kamma) without any experiencing of any sounds at all." > > > colette: is it ever possible for a tree or a tree trunk to experience SOUND by hearing? ... S: No, not at all. Namas - the dhammas which experience objects - only arise in living beings. They need life-force mentality to arise with them. Trees and corpses have no life-force mentality or any other kind of mentality. Metta Sarah ====== #121638 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:03 pm Subject: Re: Three jokes sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > >S: So much comes down to past kamma and accumulations for kusala/akusala now. As you say "Understanding Dhamma has gotta be best"!! > > >P: Right, I thought about this after recommending a nutritious diet, yoga etc to Lukas. The cittas behind the conventional action of eating healthy food or exercising rise and fall beyond anyone's control so recommending such behaviour is as naive (?) as recommending metta. I guess, maybe it's different... ... S: Why not recommend the nutritious diet and exercise too? What is "sappaya", suitable - like the recommendations of rice congee, avoidance of over-eating and visits from the physician in the texts. Just as we recommend a child eats and behaves in a certain way, we can do so to our friends - recommending metta instead of hostility too! Of course it depends on accumulations and other conditions as to whether the advice is followed, but kusala assistance/advice, even of the conventional kind, may be helpful. If we thought we should not recommend some to watch out for a fast car or a hot stove, there'd be something very wrong with our understanding of dhammas! No conflict with an understanding of paramattha dhammas at all - quite the contrary! Metta Sarah ===== #121639 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths nilovg Dear Dieter, Thank you for all the trouble, but this is a big chunk to digest. Moreover, all this is not theory, we have to relate it to daily life. Even one sentence may be enopugh to consider. If whatever we study is not related to daily life the study is not so useful. Don't you agree? Op 26-dec-2011, om 18:16 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > I assume that Abhidhamma treats the supramundane path only , which > indeeds leads to the extinction of suffering with a maximum of 7 > rebirthes. > > So far .. any comments ? ------- N: Not only the lokuttara magga has been dealt with in the Abhidhamma. See the quote from the Dhs you gave: Thus also five factors or six factors. Only when the Path os lokuttara all eight factors arise: The abstinences which accompany cittas of the sense-sphere arise only one at a time. However, when lokuttara citta arises, all three abstinences accompany the lokuttara citta and nibbna is the object of citta and the accompanying cetasikas. The three abstinences fulfil their functions of path-factors in cutting off the conditions for wrong conduct (Atthaslin, II, Part VIII, Ch 1, 219, 220). When satipatthna is developed five path-factors accompany the citta, and, as the occasion arises, there can, in addition, be one of the three abstinences. Thus, when the eightfold Path is mundane, it has five or six factors. Whereas when it is lokuttara, it has all eight factors. ------ There is hearing of sound time and again. It is conditioned that such or such sound is heard. We are inclined to think, 'I am hearing', but hearing is only a type of citta, vipaakacitta. Conditioned by kamma. Sa"nkhaara conditions vi~n~naa.na. Vi~naa.na conditions naama/ruupa, the accompanying cetasikas and ruupa. Naama/ruupa conditions the aayatanas. The aayatanas are not theory. There are six doorways the inner aayatanas, and there are the objects, the outer aayatanas that can be experienced through these doorways. Because of the aayatanas the result of kamma can be received. This morning I heard on a recording Kh Sujin explaining about the D.O. and I thought of you. So important to relate it to our life now. Otherwise it seems so abstract, so dry. ------ Nina. #121640 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > Again, you mistaken my wording and statement. I CLEARLY REMEMBER A SEPARATE REALITY. In fact, when I came home from the hospital my parents had me immediately attend high school so that I would not lose my Junior yr. and could graduate on schedule. I realized, as I recooperated and went to class, I realized that THERE WAS/IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT THIS IS NOT THE WORLD THAT I WAS IN BEFORE MY ACCIDENT. .... S: It's never the same world. There is "a separate reality", another world experienced at each moment, by each consciousness which arises and falls away instantly. I understand what you're saying about the long period when conventionally we say you were unconscious or in a coma. It seems that there is a complete 'break' in consciousness and that nothing is experienced. In actuality, like now, there are cittas arising and falling away all the time, like in a dream. We live with ignorance, as if in a dream, most of the day. ... > EVERYTHING is the same, however, the people were totally different. I was so shocked by realizing this potential reality that I refused to talk about the NDE. .... S: You must have been very brave to go back to school. I'm sure it was very shocking. Anything can happen anytime. .... > A reality that I could not explain nor did I understand it. ... S: Very difficult. The more we understand about the reality now - what's experienced now and how impermanent such experiences are, the more we begin to appreciate there have only ever been experiences through six doorways. Thx for your other comments. I understand the clarity of your experience. Sometimes we review and cling to past experiences a lot. We have to let go of it all - all gone! Writing to you helps me to remember the same - the past has completely gone. Understanding the present reality appearing now is all that matters. Metta Sarah ===== #121641 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S:... when satipatthana develops, there's more understanding of dhammas, more understanding that there are no people, so less and less idea of 'one's own' or 'other people's' - just realities which are experienced and can be known. > >R: I could see how all cittas could seem to have equal non-association with an individual self for a Buddha who is able to see others minds as clearly as his own, but for the average person some objects of citta will be apparent, and others [those of other people] remain opaque. I guess in satipatthana we would see "other people" as rupas, since others are only experienced through sensory experiences. .... S: For anyone (or what we take for 'anyone'), in fact there is only ever the experiencing of objects through six doorways. So only ever are 7 kinds of rupas experienced through the five sense doorways and through the mind, only ever namas, rupas or concepts. What we take for being the other person is only ever experienced as rupas through the senses or concepts through the mind. When there is understanding of the realities appearing such as sound, visible object, tangible object, feeling, thinking and so on, there's no idea of person - oneself or others - at all. Metta Sarah ===== #121642 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > >S:... when satipatthana develops, there's more understanding of dhammas, more understanding that there are no people, so less and less idea of 'one's own' or 'other people's' - just realities which are experienced and can be known. > > > >R: I could see how all cittas could seem to have equal non-association with an individual self for a Buddha who is able to see others minds as clearly as his own, but for the average person some objects of citta will be apparent, and others [those of other people] remain opaque. I guess in satipatthana we would see "other people" as rupas, since others are only experienced through sensory experiences. > .... > S: For anyone (or what we take for 'anyone'), in fact there is only ever the experiencing of objects through six doorways. So only ever are 7 kinds of rupas experienced through the five sense doorways and through the mind, only ever namas, rupas or concepts. > > What we take for being the other person is only ever experienced as rupas through the senses or concepts through the mind. When there is understanding of the realities appearing such as sound, visible object, tangible object, feeling, thinking and so on, there's no idea of person - oneself or others - at all. That's a very good explanation, and I thank you for it. I wonder though if that settles the question of why different cittas, associated with different "persons" have different experiences, seemingly at the same time. Do we explain this with "multiple simeoltaneous streams of cittas" that exist in parallel, or is there another explanation for how this seeming grouping of cittas that correspond to "this or that person" occur in separate streams? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #121643 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:38 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Sarah: "...The only way to really understand what pariyatti is, is by understanding more about the realities now. Then no doubt." > > Scott: You seem to suggest that pariyatti is to be understood by 'processes' that are *not* pariyatti. If you don't already tire of considering this, could you clarify? .... Sarah: The characteristic of pariyatti (panna) or any other nama or rupa is only directly known when there is understanding of such dhammas when they appear. So if there is wise considering about realities now, that wise considering, the thinking, the panna can be directly known. If there is trying to know what/when panna arises and so on, then of course we go wrong again just as if there were a trying to be aware/know seeing or visible object. ... > > Here is a quote from the Paramatthadiipanii naama Udaana.t.thakathaa - The Udaana Commentary; a discussion of the terms 'eva.m' and 'suta,m' used by Aananda: > > "...And in proclaiming this utterance of eva.m, elucidating the paying of methodical attention in the manner already stated, he elucidates the fact that such things had been carefully considered by him in his mind; that they had been well pierced by (right view). For the Dhamma of the texts, when carefully considered in the mind after the manner of 'In this case it is morality that is talked of, in this case concentration, in this case insight - to such an extent are there sequential teachings here and so on, when pierced by thoroughly investigating - after the manner of 'Such is form; to such extent there is form' (cp DA 462 or D ii 35) and so forth - things formed and formless; spoken of in this place and that, by way of (right) view either consisting of reflection upon, and approval of, Dhamma accompanied by hearsay and the consideration of reasons, or else reckoned as full understanding of the known, is one bringing happiness and well-being to oneself and others. In proclaiming this utterance suta.m, elucidating his link with hearing, he elucidates 'Abundant are the things heard by me; learned by heart, verbally familiarised' (cp M i 213 etc.). For texts are (all) subject to application of the ear. In the complete fulfillment of the meaning and formulation of the Dhamma as a result of its being well proclaimed, he generates regard (concerning same), by saying that the one not hearing, with due regard, Dhamma with its meaning and formulation completely fulfilled becomes one completely excluded from its benefit, that Dhamma is to be heard with care..." > > Scott: In the above, I find 'texts are (all) subject to application of the ear' to be most interesting. Reading is thus equated with hearing, if I'm not mistaken. .... Sarah: a good passage. Yes, it doesn't matter if the teachings are heard and understood or seen and understood or a combination. Of course, in the Buddha's time and for quite a while afterwards, there were no books. "Full understanding of the known" - naatapari~n~naa. This is insight, not just pariyatti. There is the direct understanding of the characteristics of namas and rupas appearing now as anatta. Metta Sarah ==== #121644 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > D: when we consider the use in D.O. ,the term avijja , first place of the links , refers to 'not knowing the 4 Noble Truths', whereas moha to delusion, which is usually connected with the other 2 unwholesome roots as part of tanha. Though they are synonym in a certain way, we can distinguish them. ... S: I think that different terms are used in different contexts, that's all. ... > P.T.S: " Moha [fr. muh, see muyhati; cp. Sk. moha & Vedic mogha] stupidity, dullness of mind & soul, delusion, bewilderment, infatuation D iii.146, 175, 182, 214, 270; Vin iv.144, 145; Sn 56, 74, 160, 638, 847; Vbh 208, 341, 391, 402; Pug 16; Tikp 108, 122, 259. -- Defd as "dukkhe aññāṇaŋ etc., moha pamoha, sammoha, avijj' ogha etc.," > > I could not get the definition of avijja , probably due to missing fonts.. .... S: Already it includes avijja above (avijj') From the Vibhanga, Ch 3, Dhatuvibhanga (Analysis of Elements): "Tattha katamaa avijjaadhaatu? "Ya.m a~n~naa.na.m adassana.m anabhisamayo ananubodho asambodho appa.tivedho asa.ngaahanaa apariyogaahanaa asamapekkhanaa apaccavekkhanaa apaccakkhakamma.m dummejjha.m balya.m asampaja~n~na.m moho pamoho sammoho avijjaa avijjogho avijjaayogo avijjaanusayo avijjaapariyu.t.thaana.m avijjaala.mgii, moho akusalamuula.m: aya.m vuccati avijjaadhaatu." PTS transl: "Therein what is the element of ignorance? That which is absence of knowledge, absence of vision, absence of understanding, absence of wakefulness, absence of enlightenment, absence of penetration, absence of comprehension, absence of scrutiny, absence of discrimination, absence of reflection, absence of perspicacity, stupidity, foolishness, absence of awareness, dullness, denseness, insensibility, ignorance, flood of ignorance, bond of ignorance, latent ignorance, uprising ignorance; the barrier of ignorance, the bad root of dullness. This is called the elements of ignorance." S: Please not the inclusion of moha as a synonym for avijja. Thank you for including the helpful suttas on ignorance and ignorance as leader "in the attainment of unskillful qualities." Much appreciated. Metta Sarah ====== #121645 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! nilovg Dear Sarah, Yeah, good reminder. I am thinking a lot about Lodewijk's complaints and what the doctor said, but it is all gone. Now there is to be understood: sound, visible object, dosa, all that appears now. Nina. Op 28-dec-2011, om 8:16 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > I understand the clarity of your experience. Sometimes we review > and cling to past experiences a lot. We have to let go of it all - > all gone! Writing to you helps me to remember the same - the past > has completely gone. Understanding the present reality appearing > now is all that matters. #121646 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:40 pm Subject: 12 years old today! sarahprocter... Dear Friends, It's DSG's 12th birthday today! Many thanks to all of you for your support, good friendship and excellent Dhamma discussions. We really appreciate it a lot. Metta Sarah (& Jon) =========== #121647 From: han tun Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 12 years old today! hantun1 Dear Sarah and all, Happy Birthday DSG! May you live 120 years! with metta and respect, Han --- On Wed, 12/28/11, sarah abbott wrote: From: sarah abbott Subject: [dsg] 12 years old today! To: "dsg" Date: Wednesday, December 28, 2011, 4:40 PM Dear Friends, It's DSG's 12th birthday today! Many thanks to all of you for your support, good friendship and excellent Dhamma discussions. We really appreciate it a lot. Metta Sarah (& Jon) =========== #121648 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 12 years old today! nilovg Dear Sarah, I am glad you tell me, how time flies. Appreciating your hard work, Nina. Op 28-dec-2011, om 10:40 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > It's DSG's 12th birthday today! Many thanks to all of you for your > support, good friendship and excellent Dhamma discussions. We > really appreciate it a lot. #121649 From: Lukas Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:24 am Subject: Re: 12 years old today! szmicio Dear friends, Happy Birthday and a lot of wisdom in a coming New Year. Best wishes Lukas #121650 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:04 am Subject: Re: 12 years old today! scottduncan2 Dear Sarah and Jon, S: "It's DSG's 12th birthday today!..." Happy Birthday! Thank you. Scott. #121651 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:16 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" nichiconn Dear Sarah, (Dieter, KC, Howard) > c, 12120: > > I think, in the full 17 citta 'very great object' sense door cognitive process (see Table 4.1 CMA), that this is where the 'percept' ("received" by the sampaticchana citta) turns into 'appercept'. What is 'determined' (by the votthapana citta) is whether the 7 javanas ("apperception") are 'appropriate' to be called akusala, kusala or function. So then I guess it is this 'appercept' (nimitta?) that would serve as object for later mind door cognitive processes. (That's 2 or more questions). > ..... > S, 121569: First of all, let's be clear that (as you know, of course), the object of these cittas in the sense-door process remains the same. So if it is an eye-door process, it is the same visible object which is averted to, seen, "received" by sampaticchana citta, "investigated" by santirana citta, "determined" by votthapana citta and then experienced by the 7 javana kusala/akusala cittas (or kiriya in the case of an arahat). > c: right... so the best i can think about 'apperception' as a translation for 'javana' now is that it only means the mind door javanas, but even then, if the object is a concept to begin with ... ?? ... nah, i'll just avoid discussing 'percept/s' and 'appercep/tion' > The votthapana citta, "determining consciousness' is just one ahetuka kiriya citta in the process. It is not the "cause" of whether kusala or akusala cittas arise. That is due to natural decisive support condition (pakatu upanissaya paccaya). > > The visible object seen in this process, the 'very great object' is (after the tadarammana and bhavanga cittas) directly experienced by at least one mind door process. The visible object fell away after being experienced by the 17 cittas in the eye-door process, so although it is the characteristic of the reality of that visible object which is experienced by the mind-door cittas, in fact it is the nimitta or 'sign' of that visible object. For all intents and purposes, it is exactly the same dhamma. In later mind-door processes, it is a concept about the visible object and there are likely to be many mind-door processes thinking about it. > > So, I don't know that it's of much help (any?) to talk about a "percept" "turning into" an 'appercept". It's just the same dhamma experienced by many different kinds of cittas in that sense door process. > > Again, I may have lost your plot - if so, just ignore! > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #121652 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:48 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" nichiconn hi again, Sarah argh... 121651! fumbling on not-my-computer before heading back to the place i'm house-sitting w/out internet. 1a. i give up on trying to understand 'apperception'. it doesn't belong in my vocabulary. it's already easy enough to mix up the cittas of the mind and sense door process. javana is javana, no translation required. the object stays the same throughout the sense door process, whichever citta that might end on. 1b. ap/percept can go, too. 'object' is fine. 2. votthapana / determining. it's my understanding that this is where 'a/yoniso manasikara' comes in - 'determining' or 'making' the following javanas a/kusala or kiriya. 3. long live dsg. best wishes, connie #121653 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:52 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I think that conceptual objects break down into rupas, so both the body part and the rupas are included. We start from the body-part and go to the rupas..." Scott: Without a capacity to differentiate, even only logically, between concept and reality, as the above statement demonstrates amply, no 'meditation' could possibly 'succeed' in anything but foundering. If this is 'meditation' - sitting and thinking about this sort of stuff - I fail to see what it could possible accomplish. Mainly because it is wrong. You suggest that 'conceptual objects break down into rupas' - and this is really quite remarkably wrong-headed. Are you talking about an ordinary activity involving thinking about stuff? Ruupa exists as a reality, while 'conceptual objects' (including the conceptual object known as 'body parts') are conceived within the mind-door. Scott. #121654 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 12 years old today! moellerdieter Dear Sarah (and Jon), congratulation and thank you for keeping this forum lively with admirable diligence. As you know Asian people emphasise the importance of the 12 years life cycle, which for many is based on the myth that the 'Lord Buddha called all the animals to come to him before departing this earth; however, only 12 animals showed up. Thus the 12 animals came to represent the Chinese zodiac cycle, each presiding over one year. The order of the 12 signs was determined by Buddha at the celebration based on the chronology of the animals’ arrival to the meeting: the first was the rat, followed by the ox, tiger, rabbit, dragon, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig successively.' Sounds like originating from the Jatakas , but I suppose that astrologers tried to implement more weight into their concept. (B.T.W. DGS is categorized a Rabbit /Hare .. matrix can be provided ;-) ) Wishing DSG a Happy New Year ! with Metta Dieter #121655 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:32 pm Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: >K. Hi Andy, > > I'd like to add my `welcome to the group' and thanks for the invitation to look in at your other group. I won't do so at this stage because I find DSG provides all my needs in that department. However, if you believe your group offers something we are missing please say so, and we can discuss it. > A. Thanks for the welcome Ken. Your comment about the new group and this one set me thinking. I had actually just set the new group up before I found DSG as I had had difficulty finding a group that was both active and not hijacked by spammers (one had nothing but posts from an evangelical christian!!). Having now found DSG for myself, I tend to agree with you. However, I am finding DSG somewhat of a challenge as I have only in recent months switched my reading from modern interpretation etc to the suttas and other writings themselves. My use of a Pali glossary and other reference material is extensive. This is good for me as I am fairly conversant with the concepts etc, but it occurred to me that a group that catered more to the 'beginner', whilst directing more 'experienced' students here, might be a useful addition. With this in mind, if you, or anyone else, felt inclined to join with a view of being on hand to answer any questions from members who are new to the dhamma, you would all be most welcome. > KH: That's good to hear. It reminds me of one of Nina's books, Abhidhamma in Daily Life. Right now in our ordinary daily life whatever we are doing - there only the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. There is no self and there are no things to do. So there is no need to "do" anything. A: Do you have any information (or if Nina is reading) of how I might be able to get hold of a copy? I would love to read it. Thanx. #121656 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 Thank-you for your welcome Nina. good to be here. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Pariyatti is understanding of realities (dhammas) that appear at > this moment through eyes, ears, through all six doorways. Not only > the suttas help us to have more understanding of these, but also the > Abhidhamma. Pariyatti pertains to understanding all dhammas of our > daily life, occurring now. They appear, no matter in what posture one > is, not just sitting. Do we know what visible object is: what appears > through the eyes, and it is a kind of ruupa, not a thing, not a > person. When we believe that we see a person this is merely thinking > of a concept, not a reality. The object of pariyatti are realities, > naama and ruupa, not persons or things. > Pariyatti can lead to pa.tipatti which is another level. Direct > awareness of dhammas can begin and then understanding becomes > clearer. There is nobody who can induce awareness, it arises because > of its own conditions. The conditions are listening, study, > considering, discussion. > Pativeda is the direct realization of the truth we understood at > first at the level of pariyatti, and then gradually through awareness > of all naamas and ruupas of our life. A: Thanks for clear definitions. always helpful. I am relatively new to a more in-depth and systematic study of the texts so it is great to have such clarification. > N: Mindfulness can arise and be aware of whatever reality appears, > but we cannot speak of constant awareness. There is also seeing, > hearing and during these moments there is no awareness. Moreover, > there are bound to be many, many moments with forgetfulness, since we > have accumulated a great deal of defilements. Also defilements are > realities and they should be known as they are: arising because of > conditions, non-self. The whole purpose of our study is understanding > the anattaness of dhammas. A. Indeed. I should have said moments of awareness. I really meant the effort to remain aware. > > A: Since all our perceptions, even when sitting, need to come > > through one of the 6 sense doors, it requires a certain amount of > > time to be perceived, even when our right-mindfulness is near- > > perfect. Therefore, since we can only ever truly know anything of > > the past, how can we truly 'penetrate' or experience the truth of > > anything? > ------ > N: When for example dosa arises, there cannot be mindfulness at the > same time. When it has just fallen away there can be another process > of cittas with mindfulness of the characteristic of dosa that has > just fallen away. Cittas arise and fall away so fast, so we can still > speak of awareness of what is present. A: so we are first aware of the dosa? then it is possible to kind of go a deeper level to 'mindfulness of the characteristic of dosa'? I think I'm with you so far. I still have some difficulty with the awareness of the present though. I can see that awareness of the relative 'now' is possible, with effort, but I guess I'm really asking about awareness of the 'ultimate' of the 'now'. This is where I can't get my head round off this problem of linear time and all citta being at a, however small, delay. Id this not one of the unavoidable characteristics of perceived reality. That it is always at once 'now' and yet also 'then'? am I to understand that for the most part, the 'ultimate' can only be experienced through the 'relative'? Thanks in advance. A #121657 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:42 pm Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > azita: Pativedha is well developed wisdom that knows a reality eg, visible object, and as NIna says, is realized/arises when the conditions are right for it to arise. A: So does this mean that Pativedha is ONLY possible with regard to this relative reality (visible objects, audible sounds etc) or does it also refer, through a more developed citta, to wisdom that knows an absolute reality? > Azita: There is no one who can make wisdom arise, this is an extremely difficult fact to 'swallow', lobha does slip in again and again, wanting to speed things up - but not possible to speed up the development of wisdom if there's a self trying to do so. A: Absolutely. It can't be forced, yet I do get in such a pickle trying :-( metta. Andy Barnes <....> #121658 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:47 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I think that conceptual objects break down into rupas, so both the body part and the rupas are included. We start from the body-part and go to the rupas..." > > Scott: Without a capacity to differentiate, even only logically, between concept and reality, as the above statement demonstrates amply, no 'meditation' could possibly 'succeed' in anything but foundering. > > If this is 'meditation' - sitting and thinking about this sort of stuff - I fail to see what it could possible accomplish. Mainly because it is wrong. You suggest that 'conceptual objects break down into rupas' - and this is really quite remarkably wrong-headed. Are you talking about an ordinary activity involving thinking about stuff? Ruupa exists as a reality, while 'conceptual objects' (including the conceptual object known as 'body parts') are conceived within the mind-door. No, I don't think you understand what I am saying at all. What we take for objects is actually a succession of rupas. One can start from what is understood as the object, and then se what is actually arising with gradually more understanding. As for meditation, didn't you say you practiced at some point? You don't seem to have the slightest idea of what it is about - I mean even on the level of a magazine article description of meditation. Meditation has nothing to do with "sitting around thinking" about anything. It's not a thought-activity at all. That is contemplation, not meditation. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #121659 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti sarahprocter... Hi Andy, Welcome to DSG from me as well! Why not tell us a little more about yourself and your interest in the Dhamma? Do you live in England? If so where? I come from Sussex in England myself, but haven't lived in England for over 30 years now. >________________________________ > From: andyebarnes67 >I am spending the christmas period in a kind of 'home-retreat'. i was going to go to a 10 day vipasanna retreat/course but at the last minute, I decided that this was perhaps not what I was really looking for from my time. I have attended one of these courses before so I wasn't looking to 'learn' the technique so much as get a 'refresher'. I have let my practice slip somewhat since. ... S: As others have suggested, the only "practice" of any real value is the understanding of dhammas now, at this very moment. All past moments of "pratice" have gone and future moments haven't come. For any practice (patipatti) or development (bhavana), there needs to be a lot of understanding of the realities being experienced now. We can discuss this in more detail. .. >The thread was 'Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?)' - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/32401 > >The thread considers at some length the difference between pariyatti and patipatti and speaks to the distinction and attributes of sitting and of study. As currently my time consists largely of a lot of both, I was very interested to read more. ... S: I'll look forward to reading more of your comments. Please join in any thread (old or new) anytime. What has sitting got to do with either pariyatti or patipatti for a start? Lots of controversy round here as you'll have gathered? ... > >I then found the following at wikipedia - >'In Theravada Buddhism pariyatti is the learning of the theory of buddhadharma as contained within the suttas of the Pali canon. It is contrasted with patipatti which means to put the theory into practice and pativedha which means penetrating it or rather experientially realising the truth of it.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariyatti .... S: That's quite good. Of course, the theory is not the reading and book study of the Pali canon but the understanding, theoretically at first, of the dhammas represented as appearing now in our daily life. ... > >The contributors at the old thread were equating patipatti with sitting but one also contended that patipatti also equally includes constant mindfulness. ... S: You obviously missed the replies to these contributors!! ... > >My question, I guess, however is more to do with pativedha and how possible is this through the citta and cetasikas? .... S: Never any experiencing of any kind through anything but citta and cetasikas. This is why the pariyatti needs to be very firm in the first place. ... >Since all our perceptions, even when sitting, need to come through one of the 6 sense doors, it requires a certain amount of time to be perceived, even when our right-mindfulness is near-perfect. .... S: I'd say this is an illusion and what does it mean to say "when our right-mindfulness is near perfect"? ... >Therefore, since we can only ever truly know anything of the past, how can we truly 'penetrate' or experience the truth of anything? .... S: We cannot know anything of the past - all gone. And no "we" to penetrate or know anything for that matter. Panna (pa~n~naa) understands the truth by beginning to understand what reality appears now. ... > >Hopeful of some help with this, it's good to be here and I look forward to getting to know my fellow members. ... S: Very welcome and glad you've joined us. [Pls sign off with your name, Andy] Metta Sarah p.s. Thx for your off-list note. Good luck with your group. I'm sorry I cannot help with other groups and we discourage advertising by moderators other groups here as you'll have seen in the Guidelines. Whilst we understand the vocabulary may be difficult for new-comers, we're all beginners on the Path here and no one need be put off by the Pali terms. We encourage newcomers to just start their own threads in simple English and we all love the 'basic' questions - often the best! A good idea is to also print out a copy of the glossary in the flies and have it handy for very commonly used Pali terms whilst reading more complex threads. ===================== #121660 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:58 pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) truth_aerator Dear All, >Sukin: What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to >do with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? >And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? >================================================== Ever tried to be mindful of ultimate realities (not concepts) while cooking, cutting carrots, going up the stairs, going through the door (not the wall!), driving car, or doing any other conventional activity that requires being aware of conventional things? This is why it is recommended to sit down in quit and safe place, where one will not get hurt when being aware of ultimates. In daily life we must be aware of concepts rather than ultimates, otherwise we would be tripping over things and running into walls and stuff. Of course it goes without saying that one should understand presently arisen reality as much as one can in intermittent moments. But in sitting one can do it with less distractions and breaks. With best wishes, Alex #121661 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? sukinderpal Hi Alex, > >Sukin: What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to > >do with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? > >And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? > >================================================== > > Ever tried to be mindful of ultimate realities (not concepts) while > cooking, cutting carrots, going up the stairs, going through the door > (not the wall!), driving car, or doing any other conventional activity > that requires being aware of conventional things? > > This is why it is recommended to sit down in quit and safe place, > where one will not get hurt when being aware of ultimates. > > In daily life we must be aware of concepts rather than ultimates, > otherwise we would be tripping over things and running into walls and > stuff. > > Of course it goes without saying that one should understand presently > arisen reality as much as one can in intermittent moments. But in > sitting one can do it with less distractions and breaks. > So you sit down in a safe place in order to avoid otherwise tripping over things and running into walls while trying to be mindful of ultimate realities? ;-) You continue to miss the point Alex. If I were trying to be mindful while cooking, going up the stairs etc. this would make me no different from you, someone who meditates. If I believed that I could make mindfulness and wisdom arise right now while writing this message, this would be no different from you when you decide to say, note the breath during some chosen time. I have no fear of running into walls because I function in the conventional world in the same way as any other human being. The difference between you and me is that, while you think that development of mindfulness and wisdom involves "doing" something, I think that development refers to the arising of a set of impersonal mental phenomena the leader of which is panna cetasika. This and the accompanying right effort constitute a sense of urgency which takes the present moment reality as object, as against being moved by concepts of time, place, posture and object to "do" something in particular. So you are right to advice about sitting in one place, but this is because you are wrong about what constitutes practice. And in trying to justify your chosen activity, what you have done is project your own wrong understanding onto the position held by others. Metta, Sukin #121662 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:44 pm Subject: 1993 K.Sujin talking to Robert K [1] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, A couple of quotes I just heard from an old tape (1993). Robert K is talking to K.Sujin: KS: "The right way is don't expect to be better than we are because people just want to have more sati, more understanding, but what about this moment? Otherwise one is led by lobha all the time. It makes one feel or think "how can I be like that" or "how can I have more understanding", but when there is the understanding, panna just knows this moment as it is and one will come back to realise whether one has enough understanding of this moment to be as good as to have sati all the time or panna all the time. So don't think about the result, otherwise it is a hindrance, a great hindrance and also it will induce one to go away from this moment and that is the worst thing because one will never be able to understand this moment." ****** R: "When you are eating, it occurs to me that awareness of tasting occurs very little - probably because lobha for eating is very strong. Does is just depend on awareness? KS: To me it just depends on how much we have accumulated that's all. Otherwise there would be 'reason' all the time and then you try to get 'reason' to have it. R: We don't have to stop that pleasant feeling.... KS: the kusala vipaka R: We don't really have to stop the lobha - we just have to understand it. KS: Nobody can do anything. ***** Metta Sarah ====== #121663 From: "Christine" Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:53 pm Subject: Re: 12 years old today! christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > > It's DSG's 12th birthday today! Many thanks to all of you for your support, good friendship and excellent Dhamma discussions. We really appreciate it a lot. > > Metta > > Sarah (& Jon) > =========== > Happy Birthday! May there be many more productive decades! With metta Chris #121664 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti nilovg Dear Andy, I shall answer your questions later. If you give me your postal address I can send you Abh in Daily Life. If you like to read online later on, you could go for my writings to: http://www.zolag.co.uk/downloads.html Nina. Op 28-dec-2011, om 12:01 heeft andyebarnes67 het volgende geschreven: > Thank-you for your welcome Nina. good to be here. > #121665 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:37 pm Subject: 1993 K.Sujin talking to Robert K [2] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Another extract from the tape I was listening to: ***** KS: Just this moment if there is understanding it develops, otherwise it (the object) falls away unknowingly with expectation or desire or craving and ignorance. So by having very, very certain understanding of sacca ~naana (knowledge of the Truths), one will not go wrong and that is the development of kicca ~naana. Kicca ~naana is the development, little by little, very naturally and it will lead to kata ~naana, the insight of realities. R: And how does the thinking - the thinking is necessary too to consider the Dhamma, but how can we understand how the thinking conditions the deeper understanding of the present moment? KS: Hmm, I don't want to say that thinking helps or one should think that one should think - just the understanding of realities as realities. Thinking is just a moment that thinks, that's all. Otherwise one will look forward to something again to help, see? One has to come back to realities are realities and what is thinking? Thinking is real and it's a moment which thinks by conditions. By understanding this one doesn't mind whether there's thinking or no thinking. Instead of thinking "Oh we should have thinking first in order to help us as condition for right understanding" - that is all only thinking again and again, again and again. Looking for something instead of just instant awareness of realities. Just a short moment of awareness, that is right. Otherwise when it's long it's motivated by following with the idea of self, so as short as it is. ***** Metta Sarah ===== #121666 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:22 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...What we take for objects is actually a succession of rupas. One can start from what is understood as the object, and then see what is actually arising with gradually more understanding..." Scott: One can? Is this 'practice?' One starts with the way things are - just naamas and ruupas, and then one applies the dhamma known as Self and tries to 'see what is actually arising?' And here you are only referring to visible object (and technically not, since you refer to a 'succession of rupas' which is just another way of referring to the conventional world). I've always thought that meditators are fixated on 'mental experience,' and here is a good example. You are seeking some sort of experiential, phenomenological manifestation. R: "...As for meditation, didn't you say you practiced at some point? You don't seem to have the slightest idea of what it is about - I mean even on the level of a magazine article description of meditation..." Scott: Good one. Coming at the whole 'buddhist' thing cold a few years ago, yeah, I was duped for awhile (as you are to this day). When I realized that I, like most of you meditators, didn't 'have the slightest idea what it was about' I happily didn't bother to fake it, preferring instead to choose the archetypal role of the child in the story of the Emperor's Clothes. I learned about jhaana intellectually and was clear that there was nowhere near enough pa~n~naa in place to be able to correctly discern the very subtle dhammas. It was clear, from interactions with meditators, that is was a religion unto itself, complete with all the cultish devotion to form and ritual, and none of the substance. R: "...Meditation has nothing to do with 'sitting around thinking' about anything. It's not a thought-activity at all. That is contemplation, not meditation." Scott: We've been through this before, Rob. You are saying nothing but 'meditation is meditation.' You continue to rabidly defend 'meditation', while being unable to adequately define it, and while refusing to actually show the nature of your 'practice.' There are enough hints to demonstrate that when it comes to 'meditation' you know nothing same as me - and that's because it's all wrong and not worth knowing. The only difference between what we 'know' about meditation is not in what we know (neither of us know a damned thing about it), it's that you continue to believe in it, pretending that you know what you are doing. Scott. #121667 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti nilovg Dear Andy, Op 28-dec-2011, om 12:01 heeft andyebarnes67 het volgende geschreven: > N: Mindfulness can arise and be aware of whatever reality appears, > > but we cannot speak of constant awareness. > > A. Indeed. I should have said moments of awareness. I really meant > the effort to remain aware. ------- N: Even remaining aware, can we say this? Usually seeing or hearing is followed by attachment, even subtle. We may not know that we like to see, like to hear, like to experience all objects appearing in a day. Conditioned dhammas are rolling on, and we can find out for ourselves whether we can interfere by making an effort not to be forgetful but to be aware. If we can find out ourselves that there is nobody who can cause the arising of sati, it is very useful. We can begin to understand that dhammas arise and fall away because of their own conditions, that they are anattaa. ------- > > > ------ > > N: When for example dosa arises, there cannot be mindfulness at the > > same time. When it has just fallen away there can be another process > > of cittas with mindfulness of the characteristic of dosa that has > > just fallen away. Cittas arise and fall away so fast, so we can > still > > speak of awareness of what is present. > > A: so we are first aware of the dosa? then it is possible to kind > of go a deeper level to 'mindfulness of the characteristic of dosa'? > I think I'm with you so far. --------- N: When dosa has just fallen away there may be conditions to notice it, to think about it, that is different from sati. Or, when dosa has just fallen away there may be conditions for awareness of its characteristic as only a reality, a dhamma, not 'my dosa'. What usually happens is that there is thinking a great deal about the dosa, about the circumstance or person who was so unpleasant. We think in terms of 'me' or 'he'. All this is dependent on conditions. It is not so that there is noticing dosa first and then mindfulness of its characteristic. We never know what will happen, it all depends on accumulated understanding and sati. We cannot force conditioned dhammas to be in this way or that way. ------- > > A: I still have some difficulty with the awareness of the present > though. I can see that awareness of the relative 'now' is possible, > with effort, but I guess I'm really asking about awareness of the > 'ultimate' of the 'now'. This is where I can't get my head round > off this problem of linear time and all citta being at a, however > small, delay. Is this not one of the unavoidable characteristics of > perceived reality. That it is always at once 'now' and yet also > 'then'? > am I to understand that for the most part, the 'ultimate' can only > be experienced through the 'relative'? ------- N: Here the Abhidhamma can help. We learn that when hardness presents itself there is a whole series of cittas (moments of consciousness) that perceive hardness, not just one citta. First a process of cittas experience hardness through the bodydoor and after that through the mind-door. Then there are other mind-door processes of cittas that think about the hardness, for example with dislike. Or with mindfulness of its characteristic. Even now when you touch something hard, you notice hardness without thinking about it. It seems one moment, but in fact there were already many processes of cittas. When there is more understanding of the rapidity of such processes one will not try to catch the now, or think much about it. All we know is: there are characteristics of dhammas appearing and we can become familiar with these without having to think about them. If we try to find out about when the 'now' is, whether it is past or not, it is only thinking and we shall not get very far. When you notice hardness, this is a kind of ruupa (material phenomenon) and it has fallen away, true. But then another unit of hardness impinges on the bodydoor. It is of no use to find out which one is impinging now, impossible to catch it. But what is important: understanding it as only a kind of ruupa, not a thing, not a person. In that way understanding can very, very gradually develop. This kind of understanding leads to detachment from the 'self'. There will be more understanding that there is no self who can make an effort, who can do anything at all. ------- Nina. > > #121668 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:47 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? truth_aerator Hello Sukin, all, >Sukin:So you sit down in a safe place in order to avoid otherwise >tripping >over things and running into walls while trying to be >mindful of >ultimate realities? ;-) >========================================= In sitting position there can be more uninterupted awareness of the realities. Little by little this awareness of realities will accumulate and the process will gain momentum. >If I believed that I could make mindfulness and wisdom arise right >now while writing this message, this would be no different from you >when you decide to say, note the breath during some chosen time. >======================================= That is the straw man that has been pointed out many times. One cannot will wisdom to arise. If I could, I would. If there was control, meditation would be not needed. One could will wisdom to arise. There is observation of presently arisen realities, and little by little gains more knowledge which will turn into wisdom. All of this, as have been said many times, is impersonal process. >I have no fear of running into walls because I function in the >conventional world in the same way as any other human being. >============================== And yet there is from time to time denial that conventional world exists, or that conventional actions exist... >The difference between you and me is that, while you think that >development of mindfulness and wisdom involves "doing" something, >======================== Doing something is learning and being more and more aware of presently arisen realities that arise due to impersonal process without any control. >I think that development refers to the arising of a set of >impersonal mental phenomena the leader of which is panna cetasika. >=============================== Right. Where have I said otherwise. I believe that panna is of highest importance for the maggaphala. > So you are right to advice about sitting in one place, but this is > because you are wrong about what constitutes practice. >=========================================== I am wrong about impersonal no control cause-effect process? Or am I wrong about wisdom eradicating kilesas? Am I wrong about doing learning? With best wishes, Alex #121669 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Dear Sarah, you wrote: (> From: Dieter Moeller >I thought it may motivate some comments when sharing my thoughts concerning the previous posting.. ) .... [S: Next time you or anyone else quotes from an on-line text, could you quote one or two pages at the very most, rather than half a dozen pages as you've done a couple of times? Just a paragraph would probably be more "motivating" and easier for everyone to read. You could add the link to the entire section. TIA - no need to respond!] .... snip S: Another good project.Again, I had to cut a big chunk as it's too long for me to cope with in one post. Just one paragraph with questions comments please! The Abhidhamma is deep and densely-packed:) D: not supposed to be a new project . What I intended to show was the angle of Abhidhamma view concerning the 4 Noble Truths. The material I posted was the minimum I considered to provide a clue , thinking it is up to the reader to pick up all, or this or that passage. As much as I consider it necessary to avoid too long postings , I.M.H.O. there are issues which need context presentation . However respecting the policy I believe it is proper to turn back to comment /questions on messages . Mai mee panha , Sarah ;-) with Metta Dieter #121670 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:28 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...What we take for objects is actually a succession of rupas. One can start from what is understood as the object, and then see what is actually arising with gradually more understanding..." > > Scott: One can? Is this 'practice?' One starts with the way things are - just naamas and ruupas, You mean the idea of namas and rupas, which is a thought-form, since you don't actually experience them. so you're starting from the concept of a reality, and I'm starting from the reality of a concept. We don't see rupas, we seem to see objects. Conceptually we say they are concepts but they are what we experience. So you think that by focussing on what you can't see you will come to see it, and I think that by focusing on what you do see and looking more closely you will come to see what it really is. Your philosophy is not better than mine, just a different approach to the same thing. I think there is a good chance of your way of practicing leaving you with nothing but mental focus your entire life, because you are starting and continuing with ideas of realities, nothing that takes place in actual perception. The meditator observes thought and perception and his seeing gets more refined through practice. For the 4th or so time, it has nothing to do with thinking but with focused attention, which I know you think is an impossibility. But it's not. > and then one applies the dhamma known as Self and tries to 'see what is actually arising?' And here you are only referring to visible object (and technically not, since you refer to a 'succession of rupas' which is just another way of referring to the conventional world). I've always thought that meditators are fixated on 'mental experience,' and here is a good example. You are seeking some sort of experiential, phenomenological manifestation. Meditation has nothing to do with mental experience, except for observing it, like everything else. Meditation is simply observation of what arises, whether physical, sensory or mental experience. It's an equal-opportunity observer of what is. More later - don't want to get "too long" for you to read. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #121671 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:39 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. Part II. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > R: "...As for meditation, didn't you say you practiced at some point? You don't seem to have the slightest idea of what it is about - I mean even on the level of a magazine article description of meditation..." > > Scott: Good one. Coming at the whole 'buddhist' thing cold a few years ago, yeah, I was duped for awhile (as you are to this day). Nope, not duped, different. You think you are right, but you have no way of knowing whether you are or not. It's just your chosen path. Nothing more. > When I realized that I, like most of you meditators, didn't 'have the slightest idea what it was about' I happily didn't bother to fake it, preferring instead to choose the archetypal role of the child in the story of the Emperor's Clothes. I learned about jhaana intellectually and was clear that there was nowhere near enough pa~n~naa in place to be able to correctly discern the very subtle dhammas. It was clear, from interactions with meditators, that is was a religion unto itself, complete with all the cultish devotion to form and ritual, and none of the substance. Over-generalization. You obviously didn't go very far into the meditation community, and still "don't know what you're talking about." Ignorance is bliss I guess. You can rant all day without fear of being ignorant, since most people around here just don't care. > R: "...Meditation has nothing to do with 'sitting around thinking' about anything. It's not a thought-activity at all. That is contemplation, not meditation." > > Scott: We've been through this before, Rob. You are saying nothing but 'meditation is meditation.' Nope, I'm saying meditation is sitting quietly and observing what arises. Let me shout the key word so you will be able to focus on it: OBSERVE. Observation is not a thinking activity. If I am bird-watching I don't spend my time thinking about the bird, I observe it as closely as possible to see its form, markings, coloration, etc. It's not thought. I may think about what I've seen before or after, but observation is a perceptual activity, it's a matter of focus, attention and looking around at what's there. It's what you might call mindful attention, paying attention to what you see. It's not an intellectual activity, in fact it's somewhat anti-intellectual at the moment it is taking place. > You continue to rabidly defend 'meditation', while being unable to adequately define it, and while refusing to actually show the nature of your 'practice.' I've defined/described it above. If you can't understand what it means to observe something, rather than think about it, there's not much point in more detail, not that it would serve anything anyway. It's not personal, and it doesn't matter what "my practice" is like, anymore than you want to talk about yours. What matters is what the path is, and what meditation is. It's just as described by the Buddha in anapanasati sutta: "When observing x, he knows [is aware] that he is observing x." It's focused awareness that takes stock of what is actually taking place, and as it develops it leads to more refined awareness of what is there, its features and characteristics,just by looking and seeing and focusing attention with greater skill as it goes along. Please note that I have not been attempting to talk about meditation, but about Dhamma, but you keep bringing it up so you can claim my interest is only personal. It's an underhanded maneouver. I would rather discuss these points on the merits, but you'd like to use it to slam meditation and discount what I say at the same time. Nice move, since you don't have a leg to stand on in discussing the point - why did the Buddha teach in conventional language? You still have no answer, so you distract and play sleight-of-hand. > There are enough hints to demonstrate that when it comes to 'meditation' you know nothing same as me - and that's because it's all wrong and not worth knowing. The only difference between what we 'know' about meditation is not in what we know (neither of us know a damned thing about it), it's that you continue to believe in it, pretending that you know what you are doing. It's really amazing to ignore and discount the Buddha's teaching on all of this. It's volumes and volumes but you don't care. You act like meditation is nauseating, though it was one of the Buddha's main topics, but you can play pretend and shut your eyes as suits your wrong view. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #121672 From: "azita" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:40 am Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti gazita2002 hallo Andy, > > azita: Pativedha is well developed wisdom that knows a reality eg, visible object, and as NIna says, is realized/arises when the conditions are right for it to arise. > > A: So does this mean that Pativedha is ONLY possible with regard to this relative reality (visible objects, audible sounds etc) or does it also refer, through a more developed citta, to wisdom that knows an absolute reality? azita: if visible object, sounds, flavours etc are relative reality, what do you call absolute reality? Its my understanding that citta does not develop, it is merely that which experiences an object such as visible object, even Nibbana, but it is the cetasikas which arise with citta that develop eg wisdom. patience, courage and good cheer azita #121673 From: "azita" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:03 am Subject: Re: 12 years old today! gazita2002 hallo Sarah and Jon, Anumodana for starting dsg 12 yrs ago. I am sure it has benefited many people, esp myself. Because of conditions :) dsg was one of the reasons for my returning to Bangkok and 'rekindling' interest in dhamma. may all beings be happy, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > > It's DSG's 12th birthday today! Many thanks to all of you for your support, good friendship and excellent Dhamma discussions. We really appreciate it a lot. > > Metta > > Sarah (& Jon) > =========== > #121674 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:39 am Subject: What causes ignorance? bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Causes of Lack of Vision & Wisdom? A prince named fearless once asked the Blessed Buddha: Venerable Sir, what is the conditioning cause for lack of vision & wisdom? Prince, when mind is obsessed, overwhelmed, & dominated by sense-desire, or when mind is beset by evil-will, plagued, enraged & conquered by anger, or when mind is retarded, dimmed, detained & diluted by lethargic laziness, or when mind is agitated, troubled & tyrannized by restlessness & regret, or when mind is perplexed, confused & bewildered by doubt & uncertainty, and one does not understand any safe escape from any of these present mental hindrances, at that moment, one can neither see, nor understand anything of what is advantageous, neither for oneself, nor for others, nor both for oneself & others! These mental hindrances are therefore the conditioning causes for lack of vision and wisdom! It is in exactly this way, that ignorance arises from a cause, and not without a cause... What is this Dhamma explanation called, Sir? These are called the mental hindrances, prince. Surely and unquestionably they are mental hindrances. Blessed One! One overcome by even a single mental hindrance would not know and see things as they really are, not to speak of one overcome by all these 5 mental hindrances... <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nik�ya. Book [V:127] section 46: The Links. 56: To Abhaya... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #121675 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:34 am Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti kenhowardau Hi Andy, --------- <. . .> > A: I am finding DSG somewhat of a challenge as I have only in recent months switched my reading from modern interpretation etc to the suttas and other writings themselves. --------- KH: It's a dilemma: no one can understand the suttas without expert guidance, and yet modern interpretations are invariably wrong. Fortunately there is a solution, and that is to follow the ancient commentaries. -------------- > A: My use of a Pali glossary and other reference material is extensive. This is good for me as I am fairly conversant with the concepts etc, but it occurred to me that a group that catered more to the 'beginner', whilst directing more 'experienced' students here, might be a useful addition. They have a long way to go before they can be regarded as beginners. --------------- KH: In my opinion a beginner is someone who has realised that the Dhamma is unique, deep and profound `understandable only to the wise.' That would exclude almost all of the well-known modern-day commentators. Even they haven't reached beginner status yet. So I don't think anyone should feel unqualified to join DSG. Ken H #121676 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:47 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., Me: "One can? Is this 'practice?' One starts with the way things are - just naamas and ruupas,and then one applies the dhamma known as Self and tries to 'see what is actually arising?'..." Scott: I'm paraphrasing you, Rob. Please try again. You're acting as if I am saying this and commenting on it as if it's my own point. It's what you are saying. I don't agree with your whole meditation thing. Scott. #121677 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:06 pm Subject: want to play? rjkjp1 I saw this on another website http://dharmagames.org/Buddhist%20Games/AbhidhammaPuzzle_1/abhidhammaPuzzle1_10_\ content.html #121678 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:54 pm Subject: Re: 1993 K.Sujin talking to Robert K [2] rjkjp1 Dear Sarah Thanks. I remember taht conversation- at Khun Duang duens house I think. robert Time flies like an arrow (Fruit flies like a banana) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Another extract from the tape I was listening to: > ***** > KS: Just this moment if there is understanding it develops, otherwise it (the object) falls away unknowingly with expectation or desire or craving and ignorance. So by having very, very certain understanding of sacca ~naana (knowledge of the Truths), one will not go wrong and that is the development of kicca ~naana. Kicca ~naana is the development, little by little, very naturally and it will lead to kata ~naana, the insight of realities. > > > R: And how does the thinking - the thinking is necessary too to consider the Dhamma, but how can we understand how the thinking conditions the deeper understanding of the present moment? > > KS: Hmm, I don't want to say that thinking helps or one should think that one should think - just the understanding of realities as realities. Thinking is just a moment that thinks, that's all. Otherwise one will look forward to something again to help, see? One has to come back to realities are realities and what is thinking? Thinking is real and it's a moment which thinks by conditions. By understanding this one doesn't mind whether there's thinking or no thinking. Instead of thinking "Oh we should have thinking first in order to help us as condition for right understanding" - that is all only thinking again and again, again and again. Looking for something instead of just instant awareness of realities. Just a short moment of awareness, that is right. Otherwise when it's long it's motivated by following with the idea of self, so as short as it is. > ***** > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > > #121679 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:03 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > >========================================= > > In sitting position there can be more uninterupted awareness of the realities. Little by little this awareness of realities will accumulate and the process will gain momentum. Dear Alex the 'awareness' you are describing here has little to do with the sati in the satipatthana sutta IMHO. what you are doing is increasing selfview and silabataparamasa IMHO. robert #121680 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:43 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? sukinderpal Hello Alex, > >Sukin:So you sit down in a safe place in order to avoid otherwise >tripping >over things and running into walls while trying to be >mindful of >ultimate realities? ;-) > >========================================= > > In sitting position there can be more uninterupted awareness of the realities. Little by little this awareness of realities will accumulate and the process will gain momentum. So it is not about the risk of bumping into walls etc. then? Because even if someone was involved in the most strange of practices, dhammas being anatta, the suggestion that the practice could lead to driving into trees and falling down the steps is unfounded, don't you think? But let's look at your other reason namely, "In sitting position there can be more uninterrupted awareness of the realities.". What is the theoretical basis for this? Based on the fact of there being so much ignorance and attachment with regard to the realties experienced through all the five senses and the mind, no matter what we do or not do, how is sitting down crossed legged and intending to note the breath different in this regard? The very suggestion comes across to me as motivated by attachment. So when you say that it is about awareness which leads to more awareness, being that the cause does not match with the result, I can only conclude that yours in only wishful thinking. ====== > > >If I believed that I could make mindfulness and wisdom arise right >now while writing this message, this would be no different from you >when you decide to say, note the breath during some chosen time. > >======================================= > > That is the straw man that has been pointed out many times. One cannot will wisdom to arise. If I could, I would. If there was control, meditation would be not needed. One could will wisdom to arise. + You think that it is a straw man only because you fail to recognize that the very decision to sit and meditate *is* aimed at trying to make particular dhammas arise. Certainly you do not think that the sitting down crossed legged etc. is conditioned just as any other activity in your daily life, do you? It does have a particular significance, namely in order to experience states that you think are not possible at other times, is it not? Indeed you are admitting here, that "meditation is needed"! Of course you acknowledge that initially there is no awareness or even that a whole meditation session goes without any. But are you not trying to make it happen? And when it does not happen, do you not judge even this perception as somehow fruitful, because otherwise it must be the same as what happens in daily life and you'd see no reason to continue with the particular activity. So things are happening for you, and you are motivated to repeat the experience in the form of regular sitting do you not? ======= > There is observation of presently arisen realities, and little by little gains more knowledge which will turn into wisdom. All of this, as have been said many times, is impersonal process. What is being suggested here, that there can be awareness of realities without wisdom? Which "impersonal" dhamma exactly are you referring to that can *turn* into wisdom? What function does it perform and in what way is it a cause for panna? ======= > >I have no fear of running into walls because I function in the > >conventional world in the same way as any other human being. > >============================== > > And yet there is from time to time denial that conventional world exists, or that conventional actions exist... As a child, did you ever scream in your sleep when having a bad dream? If so, does this prove that the contents of the dream was real? The difference between dreams and the waking state is that in the latter, intermittently there arise experiences through the five senses. And this points exactly to the fact that while these experiences and the thinking are real and exists, the concepts thought about is the same as what happens during a dream, namely unreal. So indeed the development of understanding must involve making this distinction such that one knows what objects constitute the foundation for mindfulness and what does not. Functioning in the conventional world does not require taking concepts for real. In fact, not taking concepts for reality must come with development of all kinds of kusala, such that this must lead to better functioning in the conventional world. ======= > >The difference between you and me is that, while you think that >development of mindfulness and wisdom involves "doing" something, > >======================== > > Doing something is learning and being more and more aware of presently arisen realities that arise due to impersonal process without any control. Doing what one believes in and insisting that it is good is what people of other religions do, for example "praying to God". People make reference to concepts and insist not only that they are real, but attribute imagined values to them as well. And at some point they use reason to convince themselves and others why they believe what they do. You are doing the same thing here Alex. Stating that "meditation is learning and being more and more aware etc" is insisting a particular value on what is only a concept / conventional activity. As a student of Dhamma you need to be precise and refer instead to functions performed by ultimate realities, otherwise this becomes just something that you believe in, no different from "praying to God". That you try to qualify meditation by referring to Buddhist ideas about "impersonal process" and "no control", is more like hiding behind these concepts and does nothing to change the fact that you do not in fact understand the reality / concept distinction. ====== > >I think that development refers to the arising of a set of >impersonal mental phenomena the leader of which is panna cetasika. > >============ > > Right. Where have I said otherwise. I believe that panna is of highest importance for the maggaphala. Yes you say this again and again, but do you "understand"? Being able to repeat what one has read in the Abhidhamma says nothing about whether there is right understanding or not. To use the knowledge in support of wrong practice, this can only come from wrong understanding ======== > > So you are right to advice about sitting in one place, but this is > > because you are wrong about what constitutes practice. > >=========================================== > > I am wrong about impersonal no control cause-effect process? > Or am I wrong about wisdom eradicating kilesas? > Am I wrong about doing learning? Are we referring to the ability to refer to texts, remembering the concepts and thinking about them, or are we referring to "understanding" as reflected in the application of knowledge? If the former, then you pass with good grades. If the latter, given the lack of interest in understanding the present moment and being moved instead by ideas about another time, place, particular posture and object to focus, then you fail badly as far as I'm concerned. Sorry. ;-) Metta, Sukin #121681 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:20 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I'm saying meditation is sitting quietly and observing what arises...Observation is not a thinking activity...it's a matter of focus, attention and looking around at what's there. It's what you might call mindful attention, paying attention to what you see..." Scott: Funny you should mention bird-watching. Your 'observation,' which you call 'meditation' may as well be bird-watching. I like 'observation is not a thinking activity' - as if you can sit there and not think. This is what I mean. You guys have so many ways of describing what you do it isn't funny. Your 'observation' is nothing more than common, ordinary, sitting and thinking about stuff, maybe thinking about specific stuff for awhile, but nothing at all special. R: "Please note that I have not been attempting to talk about meditation, but about Dhamma, but you keep bringing it up so you can claim my interest is only personal..." Scott: As long as your lack of understanding extends to imagining that there is efficacy in 'meditation' (as you've described above) and that you yourself can direct the 'focus' or the 'attention' - as long as you persist in this belief, nothing you say about anatta or dhammas or the Dhamma will ring true because you are missing the most essential piece. Scott. #121683 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:22 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? truth_aerator Hello Sukin, RobertK, all >Sukin:But let's look at your other reason namely, "In sitting >position there can be more uninterrupted awareness of the >realities.".What is the theoretical basis for this? >======================================= Try to be aware of realities while running or changing lanes in busy and fast going traffic vs being aware of namarupas while sitting and not having to worry about trees, cars, pedestrians, etc. Even the Buddha often recommended going into solitary and secluded places. Between your logic and what the Buddha has said, I side with the Buddha. >Sukin: The very suggestion comes across to me as motivated by >attachment. >======================= One starts where one is at. One uses desire and intent in a proper way, and then gets rid of it. If one could become an Arhat (who has no attachment) prior to development, then development would not be needed. ====================================================================== ""What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?" "Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire.""... Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?" "You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html ================================================================== One abandons desire through proper use of desire! It is like parable of the raft. Your idea is like Advanced Mahayana idea that in order to cross the sea you must abandon the raft. At best one will not even start travelling through the sea, at worst one will jump of the raft (not cling to it!) in the water and drown. >Sukin:...you fail to >recognize >that the very decision to sit and >meditate *is* aimed at >trying to make particular dhammas arise. >====================== And please tell me which action we do does NOT HAVE CETANA. Which citta does not have cetana? Should we should never eat or drink because it is an intentional action aimed at changing something? This is like Jainism where the idea is this: We are reborn due to karma. All actions are karma. Thus to stop rebirth is to stop making karma and to wait for all the past karma to dry out. Ultimately the path culminates in extreme non-doing and waiting for past action (karma) to end, so one doesn't even eat because that is an action creating karma. So the path culminates in death by starvation. Of course nobody can come back and tell us how it worked! >Certainly you do not think that the sitting down crossed legged etc. >is conditioned just as any other activity in your daily life, >====================================================== So is eating. So do you stop eating in order not to develop idea of a Self that does things? Same with awareness. One does it, but without wrong views. This is not so black and white as Jain idea of Karma and path to liberation. >Indeed you are admitting here, that "meditation is needed"! >==================== Yes. Development of wisdom is needed. The Buddha did praise it. >Of course you acknowledge that initially there is no awareness or >even that a whole meditation session goes without any. But are you >not trying to make it happen? >================================== Are you not trying to make hunger go away, and avoid death through starvation when you eat? Is this an obstacle to liberation? Is this Jain forum? Should we stop eating so not to create and solidify the idea of a Self that eats and can stop hunger? >What is being suggested here, that there can be awareness of >realities without wisdom? >===================================== Without wisdom, one will not learn anything and thus not bring awakening. Moreover, more likely one would be aware of wrong things and further the delusion. Intellectual Study is required, and I am against "burn the books!" sort of thing. >Which "impersonal" dhamma exactly are you referring to that can >*turn* into wisdom? What function does it perform and in what way is >it a cause for panna? >=================================== What about Yoniso Manasikaro, for example? Or sutamayapanna->cintamayapanna->bhavanamaya panna? This is getting long. Please tell me if there are other specific issues that I didn't cover. ============================================================ "Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?" "You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html With best wishes, Alex #121684 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:40 am Subject: Re: Desire truth_aerator Dear RobertK, >RobertK:the 'awareness' you are describing here has little to do with >the >sati >in the satipatthana sutta IMHO. >what you are doing is increasing selfview and silabataparamasa IMHO. >robert >=================================== Please explain. Are you against intentional development? Is there non-intentional development? Are there ever any cittas without cetana? What about this sutta? ================================================ "Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire." "Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?" "Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire." "What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?" "Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire." "If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire." "In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?" "Yes, sir." "Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?" "Yes, sir." "Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?" "Yes, sir." "Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?" "Yes, sir." "So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html With best wishes, Alex #121685 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:14 am Subject: Instant Karma! bhikkhu5 Friends: Doing Good gets pleasure. Doing evil gets Pain! Doing evil, bad or wrong actions, returns in resultant pain, while doing good, right and kind actions echoes back as pleasure. Usually there is a long delay between action and resultant karmic effect. Though in rare & strong cases the effect returns immediately. This 'behavioural echo' may be designated: Instant karma. Some illustrative examples are given below: Folly parents made him do this. Cat does not resist since it knows and likes the boy. Therefore it stays dry! Kamma in action! This cat also likes the boy, but teaches him a lesson about not to let own anger drip on others... Kamma in action! This foolish woman is using a far too large gun: A Desert Eagle using .50 Action Express bullets, which can kill an elephant or rhino in one shot, but has a forceful recoil. Her intention with the gun is motivated by hate. She experiences that! Kamma in action! This cat has killed too many mice, eaten far too much, got fat, and thus totally misses an otherwise easy jump. Kamma in action! This guy was a human thief in his prior life. Note how he also now approaches slowly, looks around, and retires quickly. He knows what he is doing from earlier since seagulls cannot be trained! Next rebirth destination for him: Stealing insect or lower. Kamma in action! This boy does good and gets fun! This boy also does good and also gets fun! <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #121686 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What I heard. philofillet Hi Nina > N: Good for all of us to go over these matters again and again. > Appreciating your question. > Sammaa-sati is aware of the characteristics of realities and pa~n~naa > investigates them and understands them. What else sati is aware of > but a characteristic of visible object or hardness? Ph: Good point, what can it be aware of except a characteristic. Well, what if it is just sati that remembers what was read about a characteristic? Is that still awareness of a characteristic? I guess not. It appears > through the eye-door or body-door and instead of forgetfulness, being > absorbed in stories, there can be non-forgetfulness or sati. Ph: Usually thinking about what was read or heard, but sometimes more direct awareness? Is sati of satipatthana always the more direct awareness rather than remembering what was heard or read about? (I know the answer to that already, but it is good to ask...) >Sati does not waste that moment Ph: I like that! Lobha likes that and understanding likes that, moment by moment. Ooops. Only lobha at the moment, I think. But I remember the first time I read it a few days ago there was some kind of understanding that is not here at the moment. Now there is just wanting wanting wanting not to waste opportunities. Desire for progress rooted in lobha and moha instead of the kusala desire for progress accompanied by understanding that can indeed every so rarely arise and provide a hole in the roof of lobha. >but is aware so that there is attention to > that characteristic. When pa~n~naa arises at the same time as sati it > investigates the nature of that reality and it can come to understand > it as not a person, not a thing that is seen or touched but only a > ruupa. > Sati and pa~n~naa have each a different function. There can be sati > without pa~n~naa, but when pa~n~naa arises there has to be sati as well. Ph: Is the way sati is aware of a characteristic a direct condition for the way panna is aware of the same characteristic, like predominant condition of something like that? Thanks Nina, no hurry, back in a week or so. Phil #121687 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: Three jokes philofillet Hi Sarah > S: Why not recommend the nutritious diet and exercise too? What is "sappaya", suitable - like the recommendations of rice congee, avoidance of over-eating and visits from the physician in the texts. Just as we recommend a child eats and behaves in a certain way, we can do so to our friends - Ph: Sure. Why not? Unlikely to have any impact, there are so many countless conditions at work. As long as we understand that we are not going to effect a change, we're all right. We have to understand how complex conditions are, and not expect or want to run against them. But perhaps we can help in a real way, if we are a respected Dhamma friend our word can carry weight, probably, and with understanding involved. A Dhamma friend is a citta with right understnading. Advice from "Dhamma friends" who don't understand the Dhamma is not likely to be helpful. We'd be just as well getting advice from the girl handing out tissues in front of the station. >recommending metta instead of hostility too! Ph: I don't think we should recommend dhammas, metta is a paramattha dhamma that arises due to conditions beyond our control. If you want to recommend friendly behaviour, that is different, friendly behaviour is just a story about people. I'm only interested in metta that arises due to conditions, have mentionned several times the day friendliness towards Alex arose out of nowhere when I was writing a post. I feel a lot of dislike, even hatred at times towards some people here. (Not Alex, usually, I just think he's thick.) I could try to fix that, because hatred is not pleasant, we want to get rid of it. But I will not interfere. I think the power of hatred will weaken, understanding will take care of that as it deepens, I think that is the way it works, but not counting on it. We'll see. Anatta. > Of course it depends on accumulations and other conditions as to whether the advice is followed, Ph: If advice about metta as a paramattha dhamma is followed, there is wrong view involved. We can't have kusala dhammas such as metta by following people's advice, not in a direct way like is exercised here by you (sometimes) and others, pt's attempts were the most overt. I hope he comes back. >but kusala assistance/advice, even of the conventional kind, may be helpful. If we thought we should not recommend some to watch out for a fast car or a hot stove, there'd be something very wrong with our understanding of dhammas! Ph: This sounds Alexian. Why don't you run us into a tree or slam our head into a doorframe? Or, in his latest, strawman, starve us to death? We're talking about much subtler dangers than getting burned by a flame. Getting burned by hatred is much subtler, and getting burned by false metta rooted in lobha for pleasant relations between people is even sutbler. >No conflict with an understanding of paramattha dhammas at all - quite the contrary! Ph: Well, I disagree about recommending metta, the process by which the advantages of metta and disadvantages of hatred are understood should not be forced by our friends, I think. I might feel differently about this later.... I'll be visiting on a weekly basis, I think. Ken H's work ethic seems to be infecting me, a wee bit. I have a hunch what he is inventing, and I'm going to patent it first. Phil #121688 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:49 pm Subject: Re: want to play? philofillet Hi Robert Thanks, very good way to be reminded or learn which cetasikas can accompany which cittas. Perhaps it will be expanded in the future to include a Patthana based game. I guess the computer will shoot out multicoloured rays if that happens. Phil #121689 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:40 pm Subject: Re: Desire scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Please explain. Are you against intentional development? Is there non-intentional development? Are there ever any cittas without cetana? What about this sutta?" Scott: 'Intentional development?' = Self. 'Cetana?' You don't even know the meaning of the term; you take it to refer to that which a person decides to do. So rabid are you, Alex, in your need to justify your 'practice' and your belief in the Self as an active facilitator of bhaavanaa, that you absorb every sutta into your view. Your constant litany of self-view has gone unremitted for years. This misappropriation of yet another sutta is a great example. If you'll study the Paa.li below, you'll see that certain dhammaa and sequences of co-arising dhammaa are mentioned. Like Rob E., you fail to appreciate the manner in which to understand the conventionally worded English translations of a sutta. Note the realities mentioned: citta, chanda, viriya, viima.msaa, samaadhi, sa.nkaara - and note that cetanaa is *not* mentioned anywhere in this sutta, you totally made that up and said that cetanaa was being referred to when it clearly is not in the Paa.li. U.n.naabhabraahma.nasutta.m "Eva.m me suta.m eka.m samaya.m aayasmaa aanando kosambiya.m viharati ghositaaraame. Atha kho u.n.naabho braahma.no yenaayasmaa aanando tenupasa.nkami; upasa.nkamitvaa aayasmataa aanandena saddhi.m sammodi. Sammodaniiya.m katha.m saara.niiya.m viitisaaretvaa ekamanta.m nisiidi. Ekamanta.m nisinno kho u.n.naabho braahma.no aayasmanta.m aananda.m etadavoca 'kimatthiya.m nu kho, bho aananda, sama.ne gotame brahmacariya.m vussatii' 'ti? 'Chandappahaanattha.m kho, braahma.na, bhagavati brahmacariya.m vussatii' 'ti. 'Atthi pana, bho aananda, maggo atthi pa.tipadaa etassa chandassa pahaanaayaa' 'ti? 'Atthi kho, braahma.na, maggo atthi pa.tipadaa etassa chandassa pahaanaayaa' 'ti. 'Katamo pana, bho aananda, maggo katamaa pa.tipadaa etassa chandassa pahaanaayaa' 'ti? 'Idha, braahma.na, bhikkhu chandasamaadhippadhaanasa.nkhaarasamannaagata.m iddhipaada.m bhaaveti, viiriyasamaadhi ... cittasamaadhi ... viima.msaasamaadhippadhaanasa.nkhaarasamannaagata.m iddhipaada.m bhaaveti aya.m kho, braahma.na, maggo aya.m pa.tipadaa etassa chandassa pahaanaayaa' 'ti. 'Eva.m sante, bho aananda, santaka.m hoti no asantaka.m. Chandeneva chanda.m pajahissatiiti neta.m ṭhaana.m vijjati'. 'Tena hi, braahma.na, ta~n~nevettha pa.tipucchissaami. Yathaa te khameyya tathaa ta.m byaakareyyaasi. Ta.m ki.m ma~n~nasi, braahma.na, ahosi te pubbe chando 'aaraama.m gamissaamii' ti? Tassa te aaraamagatassa yo tajjo chando so pa.tippassaddho' 'ti? 'Eva.m, bho'. 'Ahosi te pubbe viiriya.m 'aaraama.m gamissaamii' ti? Tassa te aaraamagatassa ya.m tajja.m viiriya.m ta.m pa.tippassaddha' 'nti? 'Eva.m, bho'. 'Ahosi te pubbe citta.m 'aaraama.m gamissaamii 'ti? Tassa te aaraamagatassa ya.m tajja.m citta.m ta.m pa,tippassaddha' 'nti? 'Eva.m, bho'. 'Ahosi te pubbe viima.msaa 'aaraama.m gamissaamii 'ti? Tassa te aaraamagatassa yaa tajjaa viima.msaa saa pa.tippassaddhaa' 'ti? 'Eva.m, bho'. 'Evameva kho, braahma.na, yo so bhikkhu araha.m khii.naasavo vusitavaa katakara.niiyo ohitabhaaro anuppattasadattho parikkhii.nabhavasa.myojano sammada~n~naa vimutto, tassa yo pubbe chando ahosi arahattappattiyaa, arahattappatte...yo tajjo chando so pa.tippassaddho; ya.m pubbe viiriya.m ahosi arahattappattiyaa, arahattappatte ya.m tajja.m viiriya.m ta.m pa.tippassaddha.m; ya.m pubbe citta.m ahosi arahattappattiyaa, arahattappatte ya.m tajja.m citta.m ta.m pa.tippassaddha.m; yaa pubbe viima.msaa ahosi arahattappattiyaa, arahattappatte yaa tajjaa viima.msaa saa pa.tippassaddhaa. Ta.m ki.m ma~n~nasi, braahma.na, iti eva.m sante, santaka.m vaa hoti no asantaka.m vaa' 'ti? 'Addhaa, bho aananda, eva.m sante, santaka.m hoti no asantaka.m. Abhikkanta.m, bho aananda, abhikkanta.m, bho aananda! Seyyathaapi, bho aananda, nikkujjita.m vaa ukkujjeyya, pa.ticchanna.m vaa vivareyya, muu.lhassa vaa magga.m aacikkheyya, andhakaare vaa telapajjota.m dhaareyya cakkhumanto ruupaani dakkhantiiti; evameva.m bhotaa aanandena anekapariyaayena dhammo pakaasito. Esaaha.m, bho aananda, ta.m bhavanta.m gotama.m sara.na.m gacchaami dhamma~nca bhikkhusa"gha~nca. Upaasaka.m ma.m bhava.m aanando dhaaretu ajjatagge paa.nupeta.m sara.na.m gata' 'nti. Pa~ncama.m." Scott. #121690 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:45 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Me: "One can? Is this 'practice?' One starts with the way things are - just naamas and ruupas,and then one applies the dhamma known as Self and tries to 'see what is actually arising?'..." > > Scott: I'm paraphrasing you, Rob. Please try again. You're acting as if I am saying this and commenting on it as if it's my own point. It's what you are saying. I don't agree with your whole meditation thing. You really try one's patience. I rewrote this whole long post for you to digest it more easily, and you mistakenly pick on one little detail and say nothing in response to the rest. A useless waste of energy on my part. I was objecting to your characterization, not "acting as if" you were saying this. I think your parody is as mistaken as your straight statements on the subject. As to objecting to the "whole meditation thing," I already knew that. You don't know anything about meditation, have no idea what it is or how it works, and your comments in response to anything that is said to you shows your dedication to continued ignorance. Another useless exercise. You are like any person on the street saying "I don't like French fries." Your comments on meditation are unintelligent. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #121691 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:47 pm Subject: Re: Desire scottduncan2 Sorry, this: neta.m ṭhaana.m vijjati'. should be: neta.m .thaana.m vijjati'. I messed up converting into Velthuis. Scott. #121692 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I'm saying meditation is sitting quietly and observing what arises...Observation is not a thinking activity...it's a matter of focus, attention and looking around at what's there. It's what you might call mindful attention, paying attention to what you see..." > > Scott: Funny you should mention bird-watching. Your 'observation,' which you call 'meditation' may as well be bird-watching. I like 'observation is not a thinking activity' - as if you can sit there and not think. This is another one of your usual stupefyingly ignorant comments about meditation. Now you confuse "thinking" with "having thoughts." No one said one does not think, or that thinking is prevented. If you hear traffic sounds when you are driving, are the traffic sounds driving your car? > This is what I mean. You guys have so many ways of describing what you do it isn't funny. Your 'observation' is nothing more than common, ordinary, sitting and thinking about stuff, maybe thinking about specific stuff for awhile, but nothing at all special. It's not thinking at all, and has nothing to do with whether thoughts or present or not. Your problem is you don't know what you are talking about, and have no interest in learning anything. Apparently you don't understand what it means to observe something, pay attention to something, see something in increasingly more detail, etc. All foreign concepts to you. None of these is "thinking." > R: "Please note that I have not been attempting to talk about meditation, but about Dhamma, but you keep bringing it up so you can claim my interest is only personal..." > > Scott: As long as your lack of understanding extends to imagining that there is efficacy in 'meditation' (as you've described above) and that you yourself can direct the 'focus' or the 'attention' - as long as you persist in this belief, nothing you say about anatta or dhammas or the Dhamma will ring true because you are missing the most essential piece. Another foolish set of false assumptions on your part. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about, but that won't stop you from having non-conversations about things where nothing is discussed, because your only interest is in repeating your own point of view like a parrot. Why not just end the conversation and talk to someone who shares your views already? That's what you like. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121693 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:52 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...You don't know anything about meditation, have no idea what it is or how it works..." Scott: Well, your finally starting to get my point, Rob. The whole thrust of my argument is that neither do you. Your 'meditation' is nothing more than a bunch of stuff you are making up - it is a fiction and it doesn't 'work.' The only difference between us, as far as knowing anything about 'meditation' goes, is that you think you know something about it. I know I don't and I know that 'meditation' is a crock. That's two things I know that you ought to catch up with yourself about. Scott. #121694 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:57 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...No one said one does not think, or that thinking is prevented..." Scott: Oh, so 'meditation' is thinking. R: "...It's not thinking at all, and has nothing to do with whether thoughts or present or not..." Scott: Oh, so 'meditation' is not thinking. Make up your mind. Scott. #121695 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:01 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...You don't know anything about meditation, have no idea what it is or how it works..." > > Scott: Well, your finally starting to get my point, Rob. The whole thrust of my argument is that neither do you. Your 'meditation' is nothing more than a bunch of stuff you are making up - it is a fiction and it doesn't 'work.' > > The only difference between us, as far as knowing anything about 'meditation' goes, is that you think you know something about it. I know I don't and I know that 'meditation' is a crock. That's two things I know that you ought to catch up with yourself about. The problems with your stated view are that: 1. Not knowing anything about it, your critique is thus nonsense. 2. Your presumption that meditation is a made up explanation and doesn't do anything is completely untrue. Other than that, it's a great sounding statement that resounds with empty authority. Your view about meditation is complete and utter nonsense - just what you think about meditation. You are too ignorant and dogmatic to investigate further and discover what it really is. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121696 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:07 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...No one said one does not think, or that thinking is prevented..." > > Scott: Oh, so 'meditation' is thinking. Really bad logic. 'Doesn't prevent it' 'is it.' > R: "...It's not thinking at all, and has nothing to do with whether thoughts or present or not..." > > Scott: Oh, so 'meditation' is not thinking. Make up your mind. Please learn how to use your basic intelligence. I haven't changed my mind, or anything I've said, at all. It's just that you can't follow the simplest statements possible. Meditation is not sitting around and thinking about something, like you are doing here. You demonstrate nicely what happens when someone thinks randomly about something they are ignorant about. The result is worthless. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121697 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Three jokes sarahprocter... Hi Phil _______________________________ > From: philip >Ph: I don't think we should recommend dhammas, metta is a paramattha dhamma that arises due to conditions beyond our control. If you want to recommend friendly behaviour, that is different, friendly behaviour is just a story about people. I'm only interested in metta that arises due to conditions... ..... S: When we talk about the value of panna, metta or other wholesome dhammas or recommend the development of such dhammas, it is just a reminder that kusala is always the best tonic. We all need reminders because we forget so often in a day. When friends talk to K.Sujin about their problems with parents or with colleagues, for example, she will often talk at length about metta, advising on the benefit of metta at such times as well as understanding. It's just a way of having a more friendly attitude to other people - instead of thinking of oneself so much or dwelling on the others' shortcomings or failings. When there is metta, we don't hold others responsible for whatever it is we get annoyed about. Life is much more pleasant when there is more consideration of others - one is less disturbed by the worldly conditions, one wishes others well. Hearing more about metta, considering more about its value, understanding its nature when it arises is the condition for metta to develop, not by wishing to have it or trying to make it arise. ... >>S: Of course it depends on accumulations and other conditions as to whether the advice is followed, > >Ph: If advice about metta as a paramattha dhamma is followed, there is wrong view involved. We can't have kusala dhammas such as metta by following people's advice, not in a direct way like is exercised here by you (sometimes) and others, pt's attempts were the most overt. I hope he comes back. .... S: I thought Pt made some excellent comments. He, Nina and I were discussing the value of metta and other wholesome qualities. There has been no suggestion or advice that anyone should 'do' anything or set out to have more metta. It's just the same when the Buddha advised on the value of developing satipatthana or pointed to the knowledge of wholesome and unwholesome states. If the listener misunderstands it as commands or suggestions for wrong view or Self to take action, the problem lies with the wrong view of that listener. ... > >>but kusala assistance/advice, even of the conventional kind, may be helpful. If we thought we should not recommend some to watch out for a fast car or a hot stove, there'd be something very wrong with our understanding of dhammas! > >Ph: This sounds Alexian. Why don't you run us into a tree or slam our head into a doorframe? Or, in his latest, strawman, starve us to death? We're talking about much subtler dangers than getting burned by a flame. Getting burned by hatred is much subtler, and getting burned by false metta rooted in lobha for pleasant relations between people is even sutbler. .... S: There can be friendly assistance of whatever kind is appropriate throughout the day. You started off by saying it would have been wrong to suggest a healthy diet or some exercise to a friend. It just depends on what is appropriate to help with when we have the chance. When there is friendly assistance, we just help. We don't agonise over whether we should be assisting with satipatthana. Most the time, it's not appropriate or not appreciated. At any moment at all, even whilst advising watching out for the hot stove (or not), there can be awareness then and there of seeing, hardness and so on. There's no need at all to separate the understanding of paramattha dhammas from ordinary life, from simple opportunities to help others or not as the case may be. .... > >>No conflict with an understanding of paramattha dhammas at all - quite the contrary! > >Ph: Well, I disagree about recommending metta, the process by which the advantages of metta and disadvantages of hatred are understood should not be forced by our friends, I think. I might feel differently about this later.... .... S: Nothing can be 'forced'. For many of us, hearing about the advantages of metta and disadvantages of hatred is very beneficial. Yes, I think you will feel differently about this later! It's just dosa which doesn't like hearing about metta and the akusala thinking which wishes to justify the dosa. .... > >I'll be visiting on a weekly basis, I think. Ken H's work ethic seems to be infecting me, a wee bit. I have a hunch what he is inventing, and I'm going to patent it first. .... S: Ha! Will be fun to find out! Wishing you both a productive New Year - but much more so, a very wise one! To all, A healthy and very Wise New Year! Metta Sarah ====== #121698 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > D: not supposed to be a new project . What I intended to show was the angle of Abhidhamma view concerning the 4 Noble Truths. > The material I posted was the minimum I considered to provide a clue , thinking it is up to the reader to pick up all, or this or that passage. .... S: I appreciated all your hard work. Do we agree that the first Noble Truth concerns all conditioned dhammas (other than lokuttara dhammas) which arise and fall away and are thus dukkha, unsatisfactory, not worth clinging to? .... > > As much as I consider it necessary to avoid too long postings , I.M.H.O. there are issues which need context presentation . > However respecting the policy I believe it is proper to turn back to comment /questions on messages . ... S: Maybe just broken into contexts of a page or two at most will encourage others to comment more - that's all. I'm rather sorry you're not pursuing the Cetasikas in Daily Life presentations and discussions - I even forget where we got up to with them... hope you change your mind and continue leading the corner! I liked the fresh approach. Metta Sarah p.s Dieter, I'm not sure we have your pic in the members' photo album? As an old-time 'regular', can we encourage you and anyone else, for that matter, to add photos. =========== #121699 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:23 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, I'd also like to pick up on the "bird-watching" comments to Scott below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Nope, I'm saying meditation is sitting quietly and observing what arises. Let me shout the key word so you will be able to focus on it: OBSERVE. Observation is not a thinking activity. If I am bird-watching I don't spend my time thinking about the bird, I observe it as closely as possible to see its form, markings, coloration, etc. It's not thought. .... S: Do we agree that seeing only sees visible object, so that anything seen other than visible object, such as 'form', 'markings' and so on is in fact thought? An experienced bird-watcher, liked an experienced 'meditation observer' will appear to 'observe' far more detail. Surely this is because there is more thinking (not necessarily in words at all) about the markings, the details, the experiences? ... >I may think about what I've seen before or after, but observation is a perceptual activity, it's a matter of focus, attention and looking around at what's there. ... S: Seeing just sees its visual object. Accompanying the seeing and all the many moments of consciousness after it in both the eye-door and mutliple mind-door processes is sanna, perception, marking and remembering what is seen, what is thought about, remembering all the previous 'observations' so that this marking or that experience are identified, remembered, thought about again. .... >It's what you might call mindful attention, paying attention to what you see. ... S: Thinking.... .... >It's not an intellectual activity, in fact it's somewhat anti-intellectual at the moment it is taking place. .... S: Even now as we write, there is remembering, marking, thinking about what is seen, interpreted as particular squiggles, particular letters. Thinking all day in between the sense door processes, usually with lobha, dosa or moha. Metta Sarah ===== #121700 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, [a beautiful evening in Sydney, just stepped out onto the balcony to watch some local fireworks - lots of 'observing', marking and thinking of the colours and shapes. Of course, there can be awareness and understanding slipping in anytime, but at such moments, no idea of shape or colour, just a reality such as visible object or seeing appearing for a moment as they are.] ... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: What we take for being the other person is only ever experienced as rupas through the senses or concepts through the mind. When there is understanding of the realities appearing such as sound, visible object, tangible object, feeling, thinking and so on, there's no idea of person - oneself or others - at all. .. >R: That's a very good explanation, and I thank you for it. I wonder though if that settles the question of why different cittas, associated with different "persons" have different experiences, seemingly at the same time. Do we explain this with "multiple simeoltaneous streams of cittas" that exist in parallel, or is there another explanation for how this seeming grouping of cittas that correspond to "this or that person" occur in separate streams? ... S: We can say there are 'multiple streams of cittas' each citta arising according to accumulated tendencies. However, in truth, at this moment, there is only ever one citta arising, experiencing its object and then falling away. Any ideas of 'multiple streams' are just ideas. The teachings always come back to the reality experienced now, otherwise it's just thinking about different streams, different people and so on and again we get lost in concepts, scientific ideas and so on that don't lead to the understanding of the Truths. Metta Sarah ======= #121701 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:39 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" sarahprocter... Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > argh... 121651! fumbling on not-my-computer before heading back to the place i'm house-sitting w/out internet. > > 1a. i give up on trying to understand 'apperception'. it doesn't belong in my vocabulary. it's already easy enough to mix up the cittas of the mind and sense door process. javana is javana, no translation required. the object stays the same throughout the sense door process, whichever citta that might end on. > 1b. ap/percept can go, too. 'object' is fine. .... S: :) ... > > 2. votthapana / determining. it's my understanding that this is where 'a/yoniso manasikara' comes in - 'determining' or 'making' the following javanas a/kusala or kiriya. .... S: The a/yoniso manasikara refers to the votthapana/determing and subsequent kusala/akusala javana cittas. As I mentioned, votthapana/determing is only one ahetuka kiriya citta - it is the previous accumulations which determine whether the javana cittas are kusala/akusala. Of course it conditions by being the preceding citta for the first javana citta. ... > > 3. long live dsg. ... S: Yeh! Thx to everyone's kind comments. Thanks to all the members and contributors - it's been really wonderful for us. Metta Sarah ==== #121702 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 12 years old today! sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > congratulation and thank you for keeping this forum lively with admirable diligence. ... S: Again, thank you and everyone else for your kind comments and many contributions - we've welcomed them all. ... > > As you know Asian people emphasise the importance of the 12 years life cycle, which for many is based on the myth that the > > 'Lord Buddha called all the animals to come to him before departing this earth; however, only 12 animals showed up. Thus the 12 animals came to represent the Chinese zodiac cycle, each presiding over one year. The order of the 12 signs was determined by Buddha at the celebration based on the chronology of the animals’ arrival to the meeting: the first was the rat, followed by the ox, tiger, rabbit, dragon, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig successively.' > > Sounds like originating from the Jatakas , but I suppose that astrologers tried to implement more weight into their concept. > > (B.T.W. DGS is categorized a Rabbit /Hare .. matrix can be provided ;-) ) ... S: :-)) ... > Wishing DSG a Happy New Year ! ... S: DSG and all it's participants and lurkers too! Metta Sarah ====== #121703 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 1:56 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...'Doesn't prevent it' 'is it.'" Scott: Oh so when you 'meditate' you think but 'meditating' is not thinking. Add this to your overarching definition offered earlier -'observing' - you get: 'meditating is sitting and thinking and observing what your thoughts are.' R: "...Meditation is not sitting around and thinking about something..." Scott: But it is sitting, isn't it? Don't you have to sit in order to 'meditate?' Or I guess you could walk slowly as well, but the idea is to 'observe what arises' if I'm following you. And what constitutes an 'arising?' Thoughts? Images in your mind? Sensations? And what is it, exactly, that is doing all this observing and thinking and whatnot, you know, while you are 'meditating' and all of this is going on? What is doing it? Scott. #121704 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 2:23 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...1. Not knowing anything about it, your critique is thus nonsense. 2. Your presumption that meditation is a made up explanation and doesn't do anything is completely untrue..." Scott: You're funny, Rob. It takes such a wee poke here and there and you're off to the races again. Let's get this straight, though, Rob, shall we? I'm quite comfortable stating that I don't know anything about 'meditation.' You should try letting yourself admit to what you don't know for once. Ha ha. Sure, I've read the books, probably many that you have, so, when I say that I don't know anything about it I don't mean that I'm unfamiliar with the literature - and it's not that anyway. All those books are wrong. They all fill your head with the idea that 'you' can 'meditate' and 'you' can make things happen. This is wrong. When I suggest that 'meditation' is made up, I mean that because, first of all, I'm referring to the whole modern idea of 'meditation' that your 'meditation' religion has come up with; and second of all I'm referring to you and your clear and total lack of knowledge on the subject as well. It's all just a modern invention based on misinformation. I do not refer to jhaana, nor the functioning of developed sati and pa~n~naa. I just say that neither you nor I can force these states to arise; mundane jhaana because it's for those with much greater pa~n~naa and it doesn't matter as far as the Path is concerned, and sati because all dhammaa are anatta and you can't make satipa.t.thaana arise just by sitting and thinking or walking slow and thinking. No, when I say I don't know anything about meditation, I mean that it is clear to me that there is not enough development of the requisite kusala dhammaa to allow for the proper unfolding of that which is described in the suttas and elsewhere as bhaavanaa. I know that empty form - sitting or walking slowly - won't cause the development of these dhammaa. This is why there is no point playing the 'buddhisty' game and acting all 'meditatey' and 'practisy.' Again, if you think you know about 'meditation' and know what you are doing, you haven't demonstrated that to me, leaving me with the very clear impression that we are two peas in a pod. Neither of us can 'meditate' while one of us thinks he knows what it is and what to do (and he'll argue about it 'til the cows come home but will never reveal what it is he does on that cushion of his because the fact that it is empty ritual might come crashing in). Scott. #121705 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 2:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Dear Sarah , Nina, Howard and all, you wrote: S: I appreciated all your hard work. Do we agree that the first Noble Truth concerns all conditioned dhammas (other than lokuttara dhammas) which arise and fall away and are thus dukkha, unsatisfactory, not worth clinging to? D: yes, though I would prefer to state that both, the conventional /lokiya truth as its abstract/lokuttara are involved. Finally the Buddha taught for the suffering being and his /her very worldly suffering. S: Maybe just broken into contexts of a page or two at most will encourage others to comment more - that's all D:as I see it , the problem is that the broken context may trigger comments which the following part will show expendable , one needs to keep the connectedness in mind. Brief (plausible) postings in the frist place for such complex issues are hard work , it would take too long .. So it is easier for me to provide a rough overview , which should be read firstly , before refering to details. S:I'm rather sorry you're not pursuing the Cetasikas in Daily Life presentations and discussions - I even forget where we got up to with them... hope you change your mind and continue leading the corner! I liked the fresh approach. D: as Nina and Howard are/were sorry as well , I may follow your preference , starting with a brief review of the 4 akusala sabbacitta sadharana before going on with lobha,ditthi and mana. ( not without pointing out that the master key is obviously the Matika ..;-) Frankly speaking , Sarah , I felt a bit admonished by your previous message . I would appreciate if anybody else may take the leadership . But if you like me to do it , let me do it my way , I try to keep your reservation in mind. Ok ? ;-) New Year here just 7 1/2 h away... Happy New Year to all of you ! with Metta Dieter #121706 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 2:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 31-dec-2011, om 16:35 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > Frankly speaking , Sarah , I felt a bit admonished by your previous > message . I would appreciate if anybody else may take the leadership . > But if you like me to do it , let me do it my way , I try to keep > your reservation in mind. Ok ? ;-) > > New Year here just 7 1/2 h away... > > Happy New Year to all of you ! ------ N: Happy New year to you and may you continue your good work for the Dhamma. Dieter, you muisunderstood it that Sarah was 'admonishing' you. Sometimes we may misinterprete an Email. On the contrary, you was praising your hard work and your fresh approach to cetasikas and I agree with this. There were just suggestions about the length, and this is concern for the readers. Please continue on. -------- Nina. #121707 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:14 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? sukinderpal Hello Alex, I'll respond to one part at a time so as not to burden myself. And we will come back to discussing the other parts when there is an opportunity, so please remind me about it when the time comes. You wrote: > >Sukin:But let's look at your other reason namely, "In sitting >position there can be more uninterrupted awareness of the >realities.".What is the theoretical basis for this? > >======================================= > > Try to be aware of realities while running or changing lanes in busy and fast going traffic vs being aware of namarupas while sitting and not having to worry about trees, cars, pedestrians, etc. > > Even the Buddha often recommended going into solitary and secluded places. Between your logic and what the Buddha has said, I side with the Buddha. Sukin: Your "trying" to be aware is the problem. Your mind is on the idea of self and situations instead of understanding that the present moment reality has arisen and already fallen away by conditions. Why you think that development of understanding can't happen in daily life situations is due to your own misunderstanding about the nature of reality. It is not unexpected that you go by the kind of observation; it is how all uninstructed worldlings see and I too did before coming to learn something about the nature of realities. What I came to understand is that in truth only dhammas exist, while the conventional world and ideas about different situations are only concepts. How these are thought about depend on the different kusala and akusala dhammas accompanying the citta. When I judge a particular situation as undesirable, I understand that this is aversion and ignorance doing the talking, and when I like it, it is ignorance and attachment. I know also, that these must involve perceptions not only of concepts, but of sense objects as well. For example, if I do not like the situation of my children fighting with each other, there must be aversion to sound and / or visible object at some point also. So apparently the unpleasant situation is more the product of my own imagination when influenced by aversion. And indeed if metta were to arise suddenly, the perception would be quite different. Now like metta, panna can arise at any time too. And what panna knows is something about paramatha dhammas and not concepts. Indeed it must know that concepts are only the product of thinking hence not fooled so to speak, by them. Your idea regarding practice and what you think are the obstacles to it comes across as perception of the uninstructed worldling whose attention constantly darts around concepts not only with ignorance, attachment and aversion but also wrong view. The view which has resulted in the idea one, that awareness can be aroused by "trying". Two, the obstacle for the arising of awareness and wisdom include particular situations. Three, avoiding those situations and being in a better one allows for awareness to arise more easily. With regard to one, how does this match with the understanding that dhammas arise by conditions beyond control? With two, how does this compare with the understanding that all akusala dhammas are to be known as when they arise? With three, how is this in line with the understanding that panna develops little by little such that every time that it arises, not only does understanding about the nature of realities accumulates, but also confidence in the possibility of understanding arising at any time? Regarding the suggestion that the Buddha 'recommended going into solitary and secluded places', this is an example of preferred view reading into the Suttas. If what you say is based on the theory that awareness arises more easily in some situations and that 'practice' involves doing something in particular, why did the Buddha then not recommend meditating in a secluded place to everyone that he talked to? Metta, Sukin #121708 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Sarah & Nina) - In a message dated 12/31/2011 10:36:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Dear Sarah , Nina, Howard and all, you wrote: S: I appreciated all your hard work. Do we agree that the first Noble Truth concerns all conditioned dhammas (other than lokuttara dhammas) which arise and fall away and are thus dukkha, unsatisfactory, not worth clinging to? D: yes, though I would prefer to state that both, the conventional /lokiya truth as its abstract/lokuttara are involved. Finally the Buddha taught for the suffering being and his /her very worldly suffering. ----------------------------------------- HCW: I agree with you on this, Dieter. In fact, I would say that for worldlings, tanha and upadana apply most of all to everyday, conceived-of, macroscopic "things in the world" such as people, homes, jobs, valued possessions, and so on. ------------------------------------------- S: Maybe just broken into contexts of a page or two at most will encourage others to comment more - that's all D:as I see it , the problem is that the broken context may trigger comments which the following part will show expendable , one needs to keep the connectedness in mind. Brief (plausible) postings in the frist place for such complex issues are hard work , it would take too long .. So it is easier for me to provide a rough overview , which should be read firstly , before refering to details. S:I'm rather sorry you're not pursuing the Cetasikas in Daily Life presentations and discussions - I even forget where we got up to with them... hope you change your mind and continue leading the corner! I liked the fresh approach. D: as Nina and Howard are/were sorry as well , I may follow your preference , starting with a brief review of the 4 akusala sabbacitta sadharana before going on with lobha,ditthi and mana. ( not without pointing out that the master key is obviously the Matika ..;-) ------------------------------------------------- HCW: What I have been hoping for in this series is to gain a practical understanding of what the dhammas discussed in Abhidhamma correspond to in experience, in order to better understand the notions presented in Abhidhamma and to then see how such understanding can shed light on what we think we experience and what we actually experience. Whatever approach will best accomplish this will be fine with me, and I have no preconceived view of what that approach might be. ---------------------------------------------------- Frankly speaking , Sarah , I felt a bit admonished by your previous message . I would appreciate if anybody else may take the leadership . But if you like me to do it , let me do it my way , I try to keep your reservation in mind. Ok ? ;-) New Year here just 7 1/2 h away... ----------------------------------------- HCW: 11 1/4 hours for me at this time. :-) ------------------------------------------ Happy New Year to all of you ! ----------------------------------------- HCW: The same from me! ---------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121709 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 6:12 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...'Doesn't prevent it' 'is it.'" > > Scott: Oh so when you 'meditate' you think but 'meditating' is not thinking. Add this to your overarching definition offered earlier -'observing' - you get: 'meditating is sitting and thinking and observing what your thoughts are.' Thought is only one possible object of awareness. Observing thoughts would be a legitimate object, but in that case thinking would not be the meditation activity, but the object of meditation. However, that is only one particular type of meditation, and not the most common one. "Sitting and thinking" would not be the meditation activity in either case. Thoughts arise in many activities without being the main object of attention. > R: "...Meditation is not sitting around and thinking about something..." > > Scott: But it is sitting, isn't it? If you are sitting while you eat, or sitting while you read, those activities are called "eating" and "reading." If you are sitting and meditating, sitting is the position, meditating is the activity. > Don't you have to sit in order to 'meditate?' No, you don't, but it is a preferred position for common types of meditation. > Or I guess you could walk slowly as well, That would be a walking meditation, which is a specialized meditation form that can be done. > but the idea is to 'observe what arises' if I'm following you. That is an important part of meditation, and can define the main action of meditation in many cases. > And what constitutes an 'arising?' Thoughts? Images in your mind? Sensations? Those can be objects of meditation, though they don't necessarily define the main mechanism of meditation. When you pick things out at random it doesn't really give a clear picture of what it is. > And what is it, exactly, that is doing all this observing and thinking and whatnot, you know, while you are 'meditating' and all of this is going on? What is doing it? Citta -- consciousness/awareness -- experiences/observes. I don't see the problem. What other answer could there be? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121710 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 6:24 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...If you are sitting and meditating, sitting is the position, meditating is the activity..." Scott: Right, so 'meditating' is 'meditating.' When you're 'meditating' you're 'meditating.' And it's 'observing' but not thinking. R: "...Those can be objects of meditation, though they don't necessarily define the main mechanism of meditation. When you pick things out at random it doesn't really give a clear picture of what it is." Scott: Right, good point. You're not giving a clear picture of what it is either yet, by the way. You've said that the 'main mechanism' of 'meditating' is 'meditating.' You've revised your statement that it was 'observing things arising.' R: "...Citta -- consciousness/awareness -- experiences/observes. I don't see the problem. What other answer could there be?" Scott: Self, Rob. You are talking about Self. Citta, by the way, is not synonymous with 'awareness' as you imply. That is the characteristic of a separate mental factor. Scott. #121711 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 7:16 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...1. Not knowing anything about it, your critique is thus nonsense. 2. Your presumption that meditation is a made up explanation and doesn't do anything is completely untrue..." > Sure, I've read the books, probably many that you have, so, when I say that I don't know anything about it I don't mean that I'm unfamiliar with the literature - and it's not that anyway. All those books are wrong. They all fill your head with the idea that 'you' can 'meditate' and 'you' can make things happen. This is wrong. > > When I suggest that 'meditation' is made up, I mean that because, first of all, I'm referring to the whole modern idea of 'meditation' that your 'meditation' religion has come up with; and second of all I'm referring to you and your clear and total lack of knowledge on the subject as well. It's all just a modern invention based on misinformation. This is an unfounded opinion - not even your own, but given to you by your current group. There is a particular logic to the way you think, and it makes sense when you think that way, but it doesn't define what is true or what is possible. > I do not refer to jhaana, nor the functioning of developed sati and pa~n~naa. I just say that neither you nor I can force these states to arise; mundane jhaana because it's for those with much greater pa~n~naa and it doesn't matter as far as the Path is concerned, and sati because all dhammaa are anatta and you can't make satipa.t.thaana arise just by sitting and thinking or walking slow and thinking. You continue to mid-define meditation, which is not a thinking activity. Apparently, you cannot wrap your mind around the idea of attention or awareness apart from thought. And you also can't wrap your mind around the idea of natural development and arising of sati and panna with an intentional activity. The activity of meditation doesn't force or cause anything to arise, but it is an activity that allows for that development. I know that you do not believe that conventional activities have any relation to the past, do not cause any conditions, are made-up fictions and don't really exist, so you can't believe that an activity can create conditions. It's against your philosophy of development. Fine. I don't agree with you on any of that. I think Buddha taught a seamless path that takes into account both conventional activities and natural development. There is not much chance that the conversation will progress anywhere beyond this, and I don't have a great interest in continuing to debate this subject. You want to keep investigating how wrong I am, but it is really a waste of my time, and it's truly not going anywhere. > Again, if you think you know about 'meditation' and know what you are doing, you haven't demonstrated that to me, leaving me with the very clear impression that we are two peas in a pod. Neither of us can 'meditate' while one of us thinks he knows what it is and what to do (and he'll argue about it 'til the cows come home but will never reveal what it is he does on that cushion of his because the fact that it is empty ritual might come crashing in). I described the elements of meditation as I have experienced it when you first popped back up in this group to burn down all the infidels who don't subscribe to your radical view. It was a worthless thing to do then, and it still is now. If you want to tear down specific descriptions of meditation, go find one online and tear it to ribbons. Have fun. I would be interested in your personal account of how panna and sati have developed naturally in your experience. Would you like to give a detailed description of the great progress that you have made in Dhamma by not doing anything? I'd love to hear it. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121713 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 7:33 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...If you are sitting and meditating, sitting is the position, meditating is the activity..." > > Scott: Right, so 'meditating' is 'meditating.' When you're 'meditating' you're 'meditating.' And it's 'observing' but not thinking. > > R: "...Those can be objects of meditation, though they don't necessarily define the main mechanism of meditation. When you pick things out at random it doesn't really give a clear picture of what it is." > > Scott: Right, good point. You're not giving a clear picture of what it is either yet, by the way. You've said that the 'main mechanism' of 'meditating' is 'meditating.' You've revised your statement that it was 'observing things arising.' No, I did not. You are taking things out of context, twisting them, then turning them into empty statements. You don't discuss anything as it is said, what the point was, and your goal is not to clarify but malign. Look, meditation is a means by which the meditator develops peacefulness and awareness. Following the breath causes psychophysiological calm and an object to focus on. This combination enhances both concentration and relaxation/peacefulness, and leads to paying closer concentrated awareness on the object of meditation. Breath is the usual starting object for many forms of meditation. It can remain the sole object, with acknowledgment of where the mind goes when it wanders, identifying the object of awareness at that time, or it can be concerned with other objects of awareness, as in the four foundations of mindfulness. When the Buddha says, in sum, he is mindful of the breathing, he knows if he is breathing in long or short, he breathes in calming bodily and mental formations, etc., he is outlining the mechanism of meditation perfectly well. It's not necessary for you to look any further than the Buddha's own words to define meditation, in both anapanasati and satipatthana suttas. More details in the Vis., so why continue to question me about it like it's an unknown? > R: "...Citta -- consciousness/awareness -- experiences/observes. I don't see the problem. What other answer could there be?" > > Scott: Self, Rob. You are talking about Self. Citta, by the way, is not synonymous with 'awareness' as you imply. That is the characteristic of a separate mental factor. You can say what you like, Scott, the fact of what takes place remains. Consciousness is aware of its object at any given moment, whether awareness is a separate factor or not. Are you saying citta, consciousness, is unconscious? If citta is conscious through another mental factor, fine, I'm not discussing those technicalities right here. If you want to say what exact mental factors arise when citta is aware of an object, be my guest. It doesn't change the point. And no, I am not talking about Self, you are. Self is not aware of anything, as it is not an existent dhamma that can experience anything. You can impugn anything you like, but it's not correct. To repeat, no I am not talking about Self - you are. You brought it up, it's your implication, it's your theme. You are playing with yourself here. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121714 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 9:07 am Subject: Re: Desire truth_aerator Scott, >A: "Please explain. Are you against intentional development? Is there >non-intentional development? Are there ever any cittas without >cetana? What about this sutta?" > > Scott: 'Intentional development?' = Self. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott, you are putting incorrect words into my mouth and deliberately add wrong things to refute the point. You totally ignore valid question with your strawman. Alex #121715 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 9:43 am Subject: What I Mean by Meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and any interested) - What I mean by 'meditation', a matter which is not to be disputed, because it IS what I mean by the word ;-), can be given as a one-liner: "Any mental process during which the hindrances are suspended". (Note: Any sequence of activities that lead to this but during which some hindrances are present is preliminary and not yet meditation proper.) With metta, Howard Hindrances /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #121716 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 9:47 am Subject: Re: Desire epsteinrob Hi Alex, and Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Scott, > > >A: "Please explain. Are you against intentional development? Is there >non-intentional development? Are there ever any cittas without >cetana? What about this sutta?" > > > > Scott: 'Intentional development?' = Self. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Scott, you are putting incorrect words into my mouth and deliberately add wrong things to refute the point. That's what he does. It seems to be a self-satisfying way to have a debate, without ever considering the other person's actual points. How convennnnnient... > You totally ignore valid question with your strawman. And that is the best weapon in the arsenal of someone who doesn't want to discuss actual ideas, but wants the satisfaction of successful point-scoring, even if the points scored are empty of merit. Scott, there is no doubt left in my mind that your conversations with those who disagree with your views are being conducted in bad faith, and that your intention is to invent one mischaracterization after another in order to malign them. It is dirty pool, and not the way you should conduct yourself in this group. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #121717 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 9:49 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Hello Sukin, >Sukin: >Your "trying" to be aware is the problem. Your mind is on the idea >of self and situations instead of understanding that the present >moment reality has arisen and already fallen away by conditions. Why >you think that development of understanding can't happen in daily >life situations is due to your own misunderstanding about the nature >of reality. >=============================================== The Buddha, and commentaries such as VsM did talk about the need of going into the seclusion. You can't deny what is all over the suttas. Even metta development requires going into seclusion as stated in VsM "A meditator who wants to develop firstly lovingkindness among these, if he is a beginner, should sever the impediments* and learn the meditation subject. Then, when he has done the work connected with the meal and got rid of any dizziness due to it, he should seat himself comfortably on a well-prepared seat in a secluded place." [detailed instructions follow]... VsM IX,1 >S:When I judge a particular situation as undesirable, I understand >that this is aversion and ignorance doing the talking, >====================================== It DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT. Kilesas are undesireble, while wisdom is. There is nothing bad in accumulating wisdom and eliminating kilesas. "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." - AN 6.20 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html > Now like metta, panna can arise at any time too. Only if there are proper conditions set for it to arise. WE are not Ugghatitannu, Vipancitannu. Listening and considering by itself won't work. If it would, we would be arahants by now. Intense development of Vipassana is required, and there is nothing to do with Self. If there was any control, development would not be needed. One could just wish to be Awakened and control reality that way. >Your idea regarding practice and what you think are the obstacles >to it comes across as perception of the uninstructed worldling >=========================================== Tell that to Venerable Buddhaghosa about obstacles to meditation: As to unfavourable monastery VsM - IV,2 : "Herein, one that is unfavourable has any one of eighteen faults. These are: largeness, newness, dilapidatedness, a nearby road, a pond, [edible] leaves, flowers, fruits, famousness, a nearby city, nearby timber trees, nearby arable fields, presence of incompatible persons, a nearby port of entry, nearness to the border countries, nearness to the frontier of a kingdom, unsuitability, lack of good friends. [119] One with any of these faults is not favourable. He should not live there. " Ten Impediments: VsM III, 29 A dwelling, family, and gain, A class, and building too as fifth, And travel, kin, affliction, books, And supernormal powers: ten." An Arahant, sure, will not ever be moved by external circumstances according to Theravada. But we are not there, and what the Arahant is invulnerable to, we are not. >S:With regard to one, how does this match with the understanding that dhammas arise by conditions beyond control? >==================== So no control means that one lives life normally and don't follow the suttas and VsM? >Regarding the suggestion that the Buddha 'recommended going into >solitary and secluded places', this is an example of preferred view >reading into the Suttas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what the Buddha recommended. >If what you say is based on the theory that awareness arises more >easily in some situations and that 'practice' involves doing >something in particular, why did the Buddha then not recommend >meditating in a secluded place to everyone that he talked to? >========================================= Not everyone who talked to the Buddha intended to reach Nibbana, so He taught accordingly. I would have no problem with what you and others say if it was explicit in the suttas and VsM. But when you read what the suttas and VsM say it is clear. With metta, Happy New Year, Alex #121718 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 9:55 am Subject: Re: What I Mean by Meditation epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and any interested) - > > What I mean by 'meditation', a matter which is not to be disputed, > because it IS what I mean by the word ;-), can be given as a one-liner: "Any > mental process during which the hindrances are suspended". (Note: Any > sequence of activities that lead to this but during which some hindrances are > present is preliminary and not yet meditation proper.) Personally, I include the processes that lead to suspension of the hindrances, and in addition, that lead to development of satipatthana, but I certainly respect your definition and it's good to have things that clear. I wonder whether you think that well-developed sati and panna would be present in any state from which the hindrances have been suppressed or removed, or would you consider the development of such awareness and understanding to be separate from suppression of the hindrances? In other words, would sati necessarily be present if the hindrances are absent? In addition, I look at such a state as the result of meditation, rather than as the definition of meditation. Again, I respect your definition, just comparing notes. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #121719 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 10:09 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > I'd also like to pick up on the "bird-watching" comments to Scott below: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > Nope, I'm saying meditation is sitting quietly and observing what arises. Let me shout the key word so you will be able to focus on it: OBSERVE. Observation is not a thinking activity. If I am bird-watching I don't spend my time thinking about the bird, I observe it as closely as possible to see its form, markings, coloration, etc. It's not thought. > .... > S: Do we agree that seeing only sees visible object, so that anything seen other than visible object, such as 'form', 'markings' and so on is in fact thought? An experienced bird-watcher, liked an experienced 'meditation observer' will appear to 'observe' far more detail. Surely this is because there is more thinking (not necessarily in words at all) about the markings, the details, the experiences? I would not look at it that way. There is observation of detail, and there is thought about it, and they are not the same thing. If I see more details of something, I am seeing it more clearly, more closely. In Abhidhamma terms, my guess would be that seeing in more detail would be becoming aware of more of the rupas involved, rather than seeing one here and one there and letting many others pass without any observation or attention. Whether or not this takes place in nimitta form, or as actual rupas in the moment, I would say that the more detail, the more one is seeing clearly the actual arising moments that are associated with that object. Of course it is possible to be seeing some visual objects and filling in with an awful lot of thinking. That is very possible. But in the ideal case that would not be what is taking place. Or at least the thoughts would be distinguished from what is actually seen. In meditation, one notices if the attention has moved from the object -- let's say the breath [or associated rupas] -- to thoughts, and that is acknowledged as well. So it shouldn't be a matter of getting a bunch of thoughts about visual object confused with the visual rupas. That could happen, and probably would a lot for a while, but as understanding developed the actual objects would become more clear. In satipatthana, I understand the Buddha to advise us to be aware of whatever the object is and to identify the type of object it is, from whatever level of experience. In that case one would be attentive to whatever the object is and be aware of it as such. > >I may think about what I've seen before or after, but observation is a perceptual activity, it's a matter of focus, attention and looking around at what's there. > ... > S: Seeing just sees its visual object. Accompanying the seeing and all the many moments of consciousness after it in both the eye-door and multiple mind-door processes is sanna, perception, marking and remembering what is seen, what is thought about, remembering all the previous 'observations' so that this marking or that experience are identified, remembered, thought about again. > .... > >It's what you might call mindful attention, paying attention to what you see. > ... > S: Thinking.... > .... > >It's not an intellectual activity, in fact it's somewhat anti-intellectual at the moment it is taking place. > .... > S: Even now as we write, there is remembering, marking, thinking about what is seen, interpreted as particular squiggles, particular letters. Thinking all day in between the sense door processes, usually with lobha, dosa or moha. Well the question is what is being done with the objects that are discerned? If physical object is seen clearly as physical object, if a thought is seen as a thought, then that is mindful awareness to whatever extent. If more of the attendant factors that arise are seen, that is greater mindfulness and understanding. I'm not saying that all of that will be clear at any given moment, but "thinking about" the object is not the activity of meditation. There's a difference between looking at something and seeing what it is and what its characteristics and features are, and having a thought-stream of tangential thoughts about it. I'm simply saying that the latter is not meditation. The purpose of meditation is to develop sati and samatha of the arising object in the moment. Whether or not you agree that this can be done through meditation, as I know you do not, that is what it's about. I do think there's a difference between mental factors arising to discern what the nature of visible object is, those that arise naturally with citta, and thinking that is discursive thought about something, which is fully in the realm of concept. Of course mental processes are taking place, but that is not what is normally meant by "thinking" and that is not what I mean by it either. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121720 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 10:16 am Subject: Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > [a beautiful evening in Sydney, just stepped out onto the balcony to watch some local fireworks - lots of 'observing', marking and thinking of the colours and shapes. Of course, there can be awareness and understanding slipping in anytime, but at such moments, no idea of shape or colour, just a reality such as visible object or seeing appearing for a moment as they are.] Nice description. Being able to see that there is observing, marking, thinking as well as seeing visual object, does give you an edge in developing and noticing moments of understanding or direct awareness, I am sure. Where it comes from is of course accumulations of understanding, I would agree with that. ... > > >S: What we take for being the other person is only ever experienced as rupas through the senses or concepts through the mind. When there is understanding of the realities appearing such as sound, visible object, tangible object, feeling, thinking and so on, there's no idea of person - oneself or others - at all. > ... > S: We can say there are 'multiple streams of cittas' each citta arising according to accumulated tendencies. However, in truth, at this moment, there is only ever one citta arising, experiencing its object and then falling away. Any ideas of 'multiple streams' are just ideas. The teachings always come back to the reality experienced now, otherwise it's just thinking about different streams, different people and so on and again we get lost in concepts, scientific ideas and so on that don't lead to the understanding of the Truths. That may be the case, but I think it's sometimes good to understand and dispense with these issues. It may make other things more clear, and perhaps keep the mind from dwelling on things that are distractions. And then back to "now" which is already in progress... Happy New Year! And Happy Birthday dsg. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #121721 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 10:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I Mean by Meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 12/31/2011 5:55:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and any interested) - > > What I mean by 'meditation', a matter which is not to be disputed, > because it IS what I mean by the word ;-), can be given as a one-liner: "Any > mental process during which the hindrances are suspended". (Note: Any > sequence of activities that lead to this but during which some hindrances are > present is preliminary and not yet meditation proper.) Personally, I include the processes that lead to suspension of the hindrances, and in addition, that lead to development of satipatthana, but I certainly respect your definition and it's good to have things that clear. I wonder whether you think that well-developed sati and panna would be present in any state from which the hindrances have been suppressed or removed, or would you consider the development of such awareness and understanding to be separate from suppression of the hindrances? In other words, would sati necessarily be present if the hindrances are absent? --------------------------------------------- HCW: I think that a degree of sati is a condition for suspending the hindrances, and, yes, once the hindrances are suspended I believe that sati will be in effect quite strongly - and some degree of insight will occur as well. ---------------------------------------------- In addition, I look at such a state as the result of meditation, rather than as the definition of meditation. Again, I respect your definition, just comparing notes. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Whatever one means by a term, so long as that is known to others, communication is possible. One bit of difficulty that I see in your definition is some vagueness as to what is to be included in the preliminary process that you consider to be officially a part of meditating. Consider the following: Obtaining a quiet environment is conducive. Is that looking for seclusion part of meditating? Getting oneself reasonably comfortable is conducive if not requisite. Is that also part of meditating? (You see what I mean?) If what constitutes the preliminaries could be made precise, well, then, of course, the "difficulty" I see would disappear. Of course, not all definitions are perfectly precise delineations. Fuzzy definitions often work quite well for many notions. Maybe I'm just being anal! ;-) ----------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121722 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 11:13 am Subject: What I Mean by Meditation: Blind Men Describe An Elephant scottduncan2 Howard, Rob E., This is beautiful. Already bogged down, eh boys? But oh so careful about it. Thanks for making my point about meditators right here live and in person. H: "What I mean by 'meditation'...can be given as a one-liner: 'Any mental process during which the hindrances are suspended'. (Note: Any sequence of activities that lead to this but during which some hindrances are present is preliminary and not yet meditation proper.) R: "Personally, I include the processes that lead to suspension of the hindrances, and in addition, that lead to development of satipatthana..." HCW: "I think that a degree of sati is a condition for suspending the hindrances, and, yes, once the hindrances are suspended I believe that sati will be in effect quite strongly - and some degree of insight will occur as well." R: "In addition, I look at such a state as the result of meditation, rather than as the definition of meditation. Again, I respect your definition, just comparing notes." HCW: "...One bit of difficulty that I see in your definition is some vagueness as to what is to be included in the preliminary process that you consider to be officially a part of meditating." Scott: I particularly enjoy the artfully tautological part about how sati is a condition for suspending hindrances, which, when suspended allow sati to be really in effect except that didn't sati suspend hindrances when it arose in the first place and did you do that with sati as part of actual 'meditation' or was it done as a preliminary step prior to actual 'meditation' except maybe sati is a result of meditation? Keep up the good work, fellas. Scott. #121723 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 11:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I Mean by Meditation: Blind Men Describe An Elephant upasaka_howard Don't worry about it, Scott - I wasn't particualrly talking to you. In a message dated 12/31/2011 7:13:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, Rob E., This is beautiful. Already bogged down, eh boys? But oh so careful about it. Thanks for making my point about meditators right here live and in person. H: "What I mean by 'meditation'...can be given as a one-liner: 'Any mental process during which the hindrances are suspended'. (Note: Any sequence of activities that lead to this but during which some hindrances are present is preliminary and not yet meditation proper.) R: "Personally, I include the processes that lead to suspension of the hindrances, and in addition, that lead to development of satipatthana..." HCW: "I think that a degree of sati is a condition for suspending the hindrances, and, yes, once the hindrances are suspended I believe that sati will be in effect quite strongly - and some degree of insight will occur as well." R: "In addition, I look at such a state as the result of meditation, rather than as the definition of meditation. Again, I respect your definition, just comparing notes." HCW: "...One bit of difficulty that I see in your definition is some vagueness as to what is to be included in the preliminary process that you consider to be officially a part of meditating." Scott: I particularly enjoy the artfully tautological part about how sati is a condition for suspending hindrances, which, when suspended allow sati to be really in effect except that didn't sati suspend hindrances when it arose in the first place and did you do that with sati as part of actual 'meditation' or was it done as a preliminary step prior to actual 'meditation' except maybe sati is a result of meditation? Keep up the good work, fellas. Scott. #121724 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 11:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I Mean by Meditation: Blind Men Describe An Elephant scottduncan2 Howard, H: "Don't worry about it, Scott - I wasn't particualrly talking to you." Scott: I'm not worried at all, Howard. I'm appreciating the classic meditator imprecision. You two are totally making the case that meditators don't have a clue but can totally do a lot of talking about it. Do carry on, I'm enjoying it. Scott. #121725 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 12:00 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...The activity of meditation doesn't force or cause anything to arise, but it is an activity that allows for that development..." Scott: Classic, Rob. So it's a benevolent, open-minded sort of activity then, this 'meditation'. This is one of my absolute favourite meditator arguments: The initial, self-fraught decision made by a person to 'meditate' endows any and all subsequent 'meditation' with kusala and re-instates the characteristic of anatta which the meditator temporarily suspended in order to decide to 'meditate' for a particular purpose in the first place. It doesn't get any better than this. And of course I disagree with you. You have yet to demonstrate to me any modicum of credibility. Scott. #121726 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 12:38 pm Subject: Desire for results is the active ingredient in 'meditation.' scottduncan2 Rob E., Alex, R: "...Scott, there is no doubt left in my mind that your conversations with those who disagree with your views are being conducted in bad faith, and that your intention is to invent one mischaracterization after another in order to malign them. It is dirty pool, and not the way you should conduct yourself in this group." Scott: Oh gosh, Rob. 'Bad faith' is it? 'Dirty pool.' Don't I get to disagree with you? It's not my fault that you talk in circles. I simply have to place one part of your reply against another part of the same reply where you contradict yourself and the debate virtually has itself. Even if you *ever* manage to state your case with clarity and precision, if it's still about 'meditation,' I'll disagree with you. It's funny too, Rob, because when it comes to 'meditation' I'd hazard that Nina, Jon, Sarah, Rob K., and Sukin (Phil will 5 or 6 times out of ten over a 12 month period) at least will all disagree with you too - just not as well as I do it. Why don't you have a hissy fit with one of them once in awhile? Scott. #121727 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 1:40 pm Subject: Flash in, splash out... bhikkhu5 Friends: Only Momentary Causes & Effects passes by... Life, person, pleasure, pain, just these join in a conscious moment that flicks by. Even gods, that live for 84.000 aeons, are not the same even for 2 such moments! Ceased aggregates of those dead & alive are all alike, gone for never to return... And those states and accumulations that break up meanwhile, and in any future, have no traits different from those ceased before. All states are equally brief! No world is born if consciousness is not produced! When consciousness is present, then the world appears as living! When consciousness dissolves, the world is dead! This is the highest sense, this concept of ever blinking re-becoming, can justify... No store of broken states exist anywhere, & no future stock of states to come! Those phenomena that are momentarily born balance like seeds on a needle point. Fall and breakup of all states is surely foredoomed, even at their fleeting birth... Those present states decay now, unmingled with those past states, just gone by. They come from nowhere, break up, & back to nowhere they inevitably then go... Reality flash in & then flash out, as a lightning in the sky... Not ever to be kept!!! Even for a single moment! Vism 625, Nd I 42 Momentary states flashes in and then immidiately flashes out! <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #121728 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 1:59 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...The activity of meditation doesn't force or cause anything to arise, but it is an activity that allows for that development..." > > Scott: Classic, Rob. So it's a benevolent, open-minded sort of activity then, this 'meditation'. > > This is one of my absolute favourite meditator arguments: The initial, self-fraught decision made by a person to 'meditate' endows any and all subsequent 'meditation' with kusala and re-instates the characteristic of anatta which the meditator temporarily suspended in order to decide to 'meditate' for a particular purpose in the first place. > > It doesn't get any better than this. > > And of course I disagree with you. You have yet to demonstrate to me any modicum of credibility. Likewise. You can't answer my central question of why Buddha spoke conventionally instead of teaching Abhidhamma, and you can't find a single quote that says that meditation is a wrong view of practice. You've got nothing. Unless you have something to offer towards the above, I'm out of this thread, which is going nowhere. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #121729 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 3:05 pm Subject: Re: Desire for results is the active ingredient in 'meditation.' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., Alex, > > R: "...Scott, there is no doubt left in my mind that your conversations with those who disagree with your views are being conducted in bad faith, and that your intention is to invent one mischaracterization after another in order to malign them. It is dirty pool, and not the way you should conduct yourself in this group." > > Scott: Oh gosh, Rob. 'Bad faith' is it? 'Dirty pool.' Don't I get to disagree with you? Wow Scott, nice sidestep. That's another straw man. I don't object to you disagreeing with me at all. I just don't expect you to make stuff up about me with every sentence that has nothing to do with what I said, draw wild conclusions that I haven't said, ignore what I actually say, and never address any of my points. Hope that's clear enough. > It's not my fault that you talk in circles. I do not talk in circles, you mischaracterize what I say. > I simply have to place one part of your reply against another part of the same reply where you contradict yourself and the debate virtually has itself. No, your comparisons of what I have said are not contradictory, you simply claim they. There is no contradiction between the statements "meditation is not a form of thinking" and "thinking is not necessarily absent." You considered this a contradiction, but I explained why it is not. Explanation not received! In each of my statements that you challenged I explained what I was talking about. In every case you either ignored what I said or made another unjustified statement about it. You just cannot have a straightforward conversation where your statements are actually based on what's there. It's amazing. > Even if you *ever* manage to state your case with clarity and precision, if it's still about 'meditation,' I'll disagree with you. I'm not expecting agreement from anyone. This is another straw man in your continuing series. > It's funny too, Rob, because when it comes to 'meditation' I'd hazard that Nina, Jon, Sarah, Rob K., and Sukin (Phil will 5 or 6 times out of ten over a 12 month period) at least will all disagree with you too - just not as well as I do it. Yeah, that's cute. What you do better than them is make stuff up and then pretend that it is actually true or that someone actually said it. That's a skill alright - but not a useful one. > Why don't you have a hissy fit with one of them once in awhile? They don't twist the conversation into a knot the way you do while mischaracterizing the other person's view. Regards - and Happy New Year, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121730 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 5:56 pm Subject: Re: 12 years old today! glenjohnann Congratulations one and all - on our continuing discussions, which always provide good reminders and food for thought and understanding. And many, many thinks to all regular contributors, all contributors actually, for propelling the momentum that keeps DSG going. May the next year be one of many reminders and opportunities for the development of understanding and good friendship in the Dhamma. Ann #121731 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 6:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths glenjohnann Dear Dieter and Sarah I really liked Dieter's approach with the cetaska's - feel as if I have learned as much from these discussions as I have from any other attempts I have made at looking at this subject. Please do continue, if you have the inclination! Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Dieter, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > > D: not supposed to be a new project . What I intended to show was the angle of Abhidhamma view concerning the 4 Noble Truths. > > The material I posted was the minimum I considered to provide a clue , thinking it is up to the reader to pick up all, or this or that passage. > .... > S: I appreciated all your hard work. Do we agree that the first Noble Truth concerns all conditioned dhammas (other than lokuttara dhammas) which arise and fall away and are thus dukkha, unsatisfactory, not worth clinging to? > .... > > > > As much as I consider it necessary to avoid too long postings , I.M.H.O. there are issues which need context presentation . > > However respecting the policy I believe it is proper to turn back to comment /questions on messages . > ... > S: Maybe just broken into contexts of a page or two at most will encourage others to comment more - that's all. > > I'm rather sorry you're not pursuing the Cetasikas in Daily Life presentations and discussions - I even forget where we got up to with them... hope you change your mind and continue leading the corner! I liked the fresh approach. > > Metta > > Sarah > p.s Dieter, I'm not sure we have your pic in the members' photo album? As an old-time 'regular', can we encourage you and anyone else, for that matter, to add photos. > =========== > #121732 From: Andrew Barnes Date: Sun Jan 1, 2012 9:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 Hi Sarah, and a very warm wish for a good new year to all. Metta. S: >Welcome to DSG from me as well! Why not tell us a little more about yourself and your interest in the Dhamma? Do you live in England? If so where? I come from Sussex in England myself, but haven't lived in England for over 30 years now. A: Thanks Sarah. Well, at 44, I suppose I really started following the path about 8 years ago. I had always been interested in spirituality and so was familiar with the basic Buddhist concepts from childhood. During an intensive but unsatisfying sojourn with the Baha'i faith, I had begun again to read more fully into Buddhism and found that it spoke more fully to me than other paths. 18 months ago I attended a vipassana retreat and so bagan a more fully engaged emersion in the dhamma. I'm not sure which 'school' of Buddhism will eventaully speak to me more fully, or if indeed I will find a need to identify with any in particular at all. Currently, I am concentrating my reading on the Pali tipitaka as the logical starting point and my meditation practice is confined to vipassana, ending in metta and recently I am considering adding a session of samatha to the mix. Yes. I live in Britain, near Gloucester. Where are you living now? S: >As others have suggested, the only "practice" of any real value is the understanding of dhammas now, at this very moment. All past moments of "pratice" have gone and future moments haven't come. For any practice (patipatti) or development (bhavana), there needs to be a lot of understanding of the realities being experienced now. We can discuss this in more detail. .. A: I have noticed the emphasis from most, as you mention, on the understanding of dhammas when speaking of meditation. I read, therefore, vipassana when most say meditation. Might I suggest to the community generally that it may be helpful to be more specific as to which type of practice they refer. Metta meditation, for instance, is completely different. S:> I'll look forward to reading more of your comments. Please join in any thread (old or new) anytime. A: Expect more questions than answers or opinions. Unknowledgable opinion would be of no use. A:>I then found the following at wikipedia - >'In Theravada Buddhism pariyatti is the learning of the theory of buddhadharma as contained within the suttas of the Pali canon. It is contrasted with patipatti which means to put the theory into practice and pativedha which means penetrating it or rather experientially realising the truth of it.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariyatti .... S:> That's quite good. Of course, the theory is not the reading and book study of the Pali canon but the understanding, theoretically at first, of the dhammas represented as appearing now in our daily life. A: This is my current objective. I am fairly well versed in the theory, and I'm sure the DSG will help towards the understanding. A:>My question, I guess, however is more to do with pativedha and how possible is this through the citta and cetasikas? .... S: >Never any experiencing of any kind through anything but citta and cetasikas. This is why the pariyatti needs to be very firm in the first place. A: Clear. Thank-you. A:>Since all our perceptions, even when sitting, need to come through one of the 6 sense doors, it requires a certain amount of time to be perceived, even when our right-mindfulness is near-perfect. .... S:> I'd say this is an illusion and what does it mean to say "when our right-mindfulness is near perfect"? A: Please explain more your meaning of illusion here. When I refer to 'mindfulness' I am referring to awareness of things as they really are. As we are therefore 'aware' that a perception, at these moments, is just that, a perception, and therefore only fleeting, we must also, surely, be aware that it is also only a representation of that which has past. Caused by the object of the perception, the perception, now as an object itself is a poor representation of the original causative factor. Of course, now that the perception is the object, for this to be observed, it is also of the past, and so, surely, it goes on. So is pativedha really possible through any perceptions? S:>We encourage newcomers to just start their own threads in simple English and we all love the 'basic' questions - often the best! A: Glad to oblige :: Un-discussed portions of quoted text removed. metta Andy Hi Andy, #121733 From: Andrew Barnes Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 3:03 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna andyebarnes67 Rob E & Scott, clipped from 'The Buddha and His Teachings Ed S Bercholz & Sherab Chodzin Kohn Speech must be pure and wholesome. Purity is achieved by removing impurity, and so we must understand what constitutes impure speech. Such acts include telling lies, that is, speaking either more or less tha the truth; carrying tales that set friends at odds; backbiting and slander; speaking harse words that disturb others and have no beneficial effect; and idle gossip, meaningless chatter that wastes one's own time and the time of others. Abstaining from all such impure speech leaves nothing but right speech. Nor is this only a negative concept. One who practices right speech, the Buddha expalined, 'speaks the truth and is steadfast in truthfulness, trustworthy, dependable, straightforward with others. He reconciles the quarreling and encourages the united. He delights in harmony, seeks after harmony, rejoices in harmony, and creates harmony by his words. His speech is gentle, pleasing to the ear, kindly, heart-warming, courteous, agreeable, and enjoyable to many. He speaks at the proper time, according to the facts, according to what is helpful, according to the Darma and the Code of Conduct. His words are worth remembering, timely, well-reasoned, well-chosen and constructive. metta Andy #121734 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 3:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Hi Howard (Ann , Nina ,Sarah,..) you wrote: HCW: What I have been hoping for in this series is to gain a practical understanding of what the dhammas discussed in Abhidhamma correspond to in experience, in order to better understand the notions presented in Abhidhamma and to then see how such understanding can shed light on what we think we experience and what we actually experience. Whatever approach will best accomplish this will be fine with me, and I have no preconceived view of what that approach might be. D: I am pondering about what Abhidhamma is aiming at .. there is a strong relation with satipatthana, in particular due to the emphases is on the citta , the momentary consciousness. Seen this way , Abhidhamma extends the framework provided by the Maha Satipatthana Sutta. Its goal the same : to provide, lay down a matrix , a schedule for insight/vipassana . A schedule in that respect , that re-cognition(awareness) can take place, when the element (state) of the matrix is met by actual experience . We may have the possibility to link a mentioned state with our memory of life events and by penetrating each classification of the table, installation or memory of the framework /matrix could be achieved (i.e.towards 'skillful mindfulness, samma sati) So far my idea and its relation to practise..comments wellcome with Metta Dieter #121735 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Dear Nina (and Sarah), you wrote: N: Happy New year to you and may you continue your good work for the Dhamma. Dieter, you muisunderstood it that Sarah was 'admonishing' you. Sometimes we may misinterprete an Email. On the contrary, you was praising your hard work and your fresh approach to cetasikas and I agree with this. There were just suggestions about the length, and this is concern for the readers. Please continue on. -------- D: thanks , Nina. You are right , misinterpretations are happening and it is good when they are clarified . I wrote already about the length , overview a bit longer ,then briefly with the bits ..(ideally). Would be nice to learn what you are thinking about my idea of approach , I wrote about in my previous mail to Howard and.. with Metta Dieter #121736 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 4:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What I Mean by Meditation epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Whatever one means by a term, so long as that is known to others, > communication is possible. > One bit of difficulty that I see in your definition is some vagueness > as to what is to be included in the preliminary process that you consider > to be officially a part of meditating. Consider the following: Obtaining a > quiet environment is conducive. Is that looking for seclusion part of > meditating? Getting oneself reasonably comfortable is conducive if not requisite. > Is that also part of meditating? (You see what I mean?) If what > constitutes the preliminaries could be made precise, well, then, of course, the > "difficulty" I see would disappear. > Of course, not all definitions are perfectly precise delineations. > Fuzzy definitions often work quite well for many notions. Maybe I'm just > being anal! ;-) > ----------------------------------------------- I think those are good questions. I would consider getting comfortable and settling down "preliminary" rather than meditating, and everything after that as "meditating." It's kind of like sitting down to a meal and arranging your silverware as opposed to picking up a fork or chopsticks and actually eating. Anyway, I hesitate to go much further with this discussion on-list. Scott is already jeering and making up new fantasy critiques, so I'll probably leave it there, unless you want to continue, that is fine too... Remember to use the high sign so we can recognize each other as "meditators" in a crowd. The glowing around the head is also a good indicator. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #121737 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 1/1/2012 11:27:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard (Ann , Nina ,Sarah,..) you wrote: HCW: What I have been hoping for in this series is to gain a practical understanding of what the dhammas discussed in Abhidhamma correspond to in experience, in order to better understand the notions presented in Abhidhamma and to then see how such understanding can shed light on what we think we experience and what we actually experience. Whatever approach will best accomplish this will be fine with me, and I have no preconceived view of what that approach might be. D: I am pondering about what Abhidhamma is aiming at .. there is a strong relation with satipatthana, in particular due to the emphases is on the citta , the momentary consciousness. Seen this way , Abhidhamma extends the framework provided by the Maha Satipatthana Sutta. Its goal the same : to provide, lay down a matrix , a schedule for insight/vipassana . A schedule in that respect , that re-cognition(awareness) can take place, when the element (state) of the matrix is met by actual experience . We may have the possibility to link a mentioned state with our memory of life events and by penetrating each classification of the table, installation or memory of the framework /matrix could be achieved (i.e.towards 'skillful mindfulness, samma sati) So far my idea and its relation to practise..comments wellcome ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Much of the Buddhist world, especiallyin Burma/Myanmar I think, views this as you do. I would also like to see this as the case myself, but for that to happen, I need to view it from the experiential, "Abhidhamma in daily Life" manner. I need to see it in a very practical and "practicable" light. ---------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121738 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 4:29 am Subject: Re: What I Mean by Meditation: Blind Men Describe An Elephant epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Howard, Rob E., > > This is beautiful. Already bogged down, eh boys? But oh so careful about it. Thanks for making my point about meditators right here live and in person. Not really a problem, Scott. Have you ever looked at your own mental state when you say things like this? > Scott: I particularly enjoy the artfully tautological part about how sati is a condition for suspending hindrances, which, when suspended allow sati to be really in effect except that didn't sati suspend hindrances when it arose in the first place and did you do that with sati as part of actual 'meditation' or was it done as a preliminary step prior to actual 'meditation' except maybe sati is a result of meditation? Keep up the good work, fellas. I think the Buddha's meditation method does develop sati and samatha and suppression of the hindrances in conjunction with each other, and that they do each allow for further development of the other. It's not contradictory, Scott, or difficult to understand. Sometimes the people who are laughing the loudest are the biggest clowns. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121739 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 4:34 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Andy. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Barnes wrote: > > Rob E & Scott, > > clipped from 'The Buddha and His Teachings Ed S Bercholz & Sherab Chodzin Kohn > > Speech must be pure and wholesome. Purity is achieved by removing impurity, and so we must understand what constitutes impure speech. Such acts include telling lies, that is, speaking either more or less tha the truth; carrying tales that set friends at odds; backbiting and slander; speaking harse words that disturb others and have no beneficial effect; and idle gossip, meaningless chatter that wastes one's own time and the time of others. Abstaining from all such impure speech leaves nothing but right speech. > Nor is this only a negative concept. One who practices right speech, the Buddha expalined, > > 'speaks the truth and is steadfast in truthfulness, trustworthy, dependable, straightforward with others. He reconciles the quarreling and encourages the united. He delights in harmony, seeks after harmony, rejoices in harmony, and creates harmony by his words. His speech is gentle, pleasing to the ear, kindly, heart-warming, courteous, agreeable, and enjoyable to many. He speaks at the proper time, according to the facts, according to what is helpful, according to the Darma and the Code of Conduct. His words are worth remembering, timely, well-reasoned, well-chosen and constructive. Thanks for the reminder. It can be difficult to debate contentious subjects and maintain pleasant and harmonious speech. In any case, this is good to see and consider. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #121741 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I Mean by Meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/1/2012 12:23:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Whatever one means by a term, so long as that is known to others, > communication is possible. > One bit of difficulty that I see in your definition is some vagueness > as to what is to be included in the preliminary process that you consider > to be officially a part of meditating. Consider the following: Obtaining a > quiet environment is conducive. Is that looking for seclusion part of > meditating? Getting oneself reasonably comfortable is conducive if not requisite. > Is that also part of meditating? (You see what I mean?) If what > constitutes the preliminaries could be made precise, well, then, of course, the > "difficulty" I see would disappear. > Of course, not all definitions are perfectly precise delineations. > Fuzzy definitions often work quite well for many notions. Maybe I'm just > being anal! ;-) > ----------------------------------------------- I think those are good questions. I would consider getting comfortable and settling down "preliminary" rather than meditating, and everything after that as "meditating." It's kind of like sitting down to a meal and arranging your silverware as opposed to picking up a fork or chopsticks and actually eating. Anyway, I hesitate to go much further with this discussion on-list. Scott is already jeering and making up new fantasy critiques, so I'll probably leave it there, unless you want to continue, that is fine too... ---------------------------------------------- HCW: No, we can leave it there, I think. :-) -------------------------------------------- Remember to use the high sign so we can recognize each other as "meditators" in a crowd. The glowing around the head is also a good indicator. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: There is a Hasidic tale of a king and his wise adviser who were aware that a grain organism affecting all the grain in the kingdom was overcoming the entire populace, making them all insane. The two agreed to put a sign on their foreheads so that when the craziness would come to them, seeing these signs would at least serve to remind them that they were insane. :-) ----------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121742 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 5:07 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., Rob, old bean, sometimes you're just so silly, the way you get so worked up and stuff... R: "...You can't answer my central question of why Buddha spoke conventionally instead of teaching Abhidhamma..." Scott: You've been given countless answers to this question by me and others, Rob. You just don't like them - messes with the 'meditation' and the lack of requisite abstract thinking. Try this, Rob (and let's see how you end up saying that it's not Abhidhamma or it's not a real sutta or some other thing); this extends my original answer to your original and dumb 'challenge' in which I gave you the 'one word' - anattaa: SN 22 59 (7) The Characteristic of Nonself [Anattalakkha.nasutta.m] "Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Baara.naasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five thus: 'Bhikkhus!' 'Venerable Sir!' those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this: 'Bhikkhus, form is nonself [Ruupa.m, bhikkhave, anattaa]. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form be not thus.' But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form be not thus.' "Feeling is nonself [Vedanaa anattaa]...Perception is nonself [Sa~n~naa anattaa]...Volitional formations are nonself [Sa"nkhaaraa anattaa]...Consciousness is nonself [Vi~n~naa.na.m anattaa]. For if consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.'... "Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever...Any kind of feeling whatsoever...Any kind of perception whatsoever...Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever...Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'[Ya.m ki~nci vi~n~naa.na.m atiitaanaagatapaccuppanna.m ajjhatta.m vaa bahiddhaa vaa o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m vaa ya.m duure santike vaa, sabba.m vi~n~naa.na.m 'neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attaa'ti evameta.m yathaabhuuta.m sammappa~n~naaya da.t.thabba.m.]..." R: "...and you can't find a single quote that says that meditation is a wrong view of practice..." Scott: The above cited sutta covers all the bases, Rob; I can guarantee your lack of satisfaction, though. In the sutta we see Abhidhamma clearly being taught (the 'why' should be obvious, Rob); we see the reason why 'meditation' - the modern DIY boodist 'practice' - is untenable; we see the Buddha teaching that things 'should be seen as [they] really [are]' - so much for concreteness, Rob. Like I said: Anattaa. You won't get any of this though. Scott. #121743 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 5:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: 'HCW: Much of the Buddhist world, especiallyin Burma/Myanmar I think, views this as you do. I would also like to see this as the case myself, but for that to happen, I need to view it from the experiential, "Abhidhamma in daily Life" manner. I need to see it in a very practical and "practicable" light. D: what I can do is , to provide a base so that we discuss the framework and the definition of a,b,c,d,.. ,. Each participant may be a 'practicable light ' by sharing respective experiences and discussing the issues coming up, i.e. possible benefit to learn from eachother .. what more could such project offer? with Metta Dieter #121744 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 5:59 am Subject: Re: What I Mean by Meditation: Blind Men Describe An Elephant scottduncan2 Rob E., I like how you so conveniently provide both sides of any debate in nearly every post you write: R: "...Sometimes the people who are laughing the loudest are the biggest clowns." R: "...Have you ever looked at your own mental state when you say things like this?..." It's silly, Rob. Just discuss already. Scott. #121745 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 6:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What I Mean by Meditation epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Remember to use the high sign so we can recognize each other as > "meditators" in a crowd. The glowing around the head is also a good indicator. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > There is a Hasidic tale of a king and his wise adviser who were aware > that a grain organism affecting all the grain in the kingdom was overcoming > the entire populace, making them all insane. The two agreed to put a > sign on their foreheads so that when the craziness would come to them, seeing > these signs would at least serve to remind them that they were insane. :-) > ----------------------------------------------- That is a damned good analogy! The difference between us and most others is that we know we're crazy! :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #121746 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 6:51 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. [And to Sarah and All for my question on conventional speech of the Buddha.] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Rob, old bean, sometimes you're just so silly, the way you get so worked up and stuff... I know, I know, and it is so silly and funny the way everything just makes you laugh and laugh. It's all so funny! > R: "...You can't answer my central question of why Buddha spoke conventionally instead of teaching Abhidhamma..." > > Scott: You've been given countless answers to this question by me and others, Rob. You just don't like them - messes with the 'meditation' and the lack of requisite abstract thinking. Okay, first of all, the quote below may answer the second question -- of an adequate quote -- but doesn't answer the first question as to why the Buddha taught conventionally, in conventional language, his entire career. Actually that has not been answered. Instead the answer is given that for those with understanding it is "just conventional language and is really referring to dhammas," but that does not explain why he taught in conventional language at all and why he did not teach Abhidhamma instead. I would love an answer to that question, sincerely. What is your view of why he would teach "indirectly" so to speak instead of just talking about dhammas? At times it has been said that the Buddha would speak in terms that his audience could understand, rather than directly in terms of ultimate realities. But if that is the case, then one is left with the notion that such indirect teaching was appropriate for those people. If so, then such conventional teachings must have had a kusala effect or led to kusala accumulations or the Buddha would not have taught in such terms. He would not have taught in terms that would not have a positive impact on the path. That would not make sense nor do any good. So why? If conventional language can have a kusala effect, then what is that effect? What does conventional language do for those who do not yet understand paramatha dhammas that would make it worthwhile to teach that way, even though in ultimate terms it is inaccurate and refers to conventional actions and objects? I would dearly appreciate a cogent explanation of the above. > Try this, Rob (and let's see how you end up saying that it's not Abhidhamma or it's not a real sutta or some other thing); this extends my original answer to your original and dumb 'challenge' in which I gave you the 'one word' - anattaa: What was dumb about a challenge to find scriptural authority for your contention that the Buddha's conventional teachings in sutta are not meant to be taken literally? In general, one takes a person at their word unless there is some reason to doubt what they are saying. If a great teacher, a teacher of the true Dhamma, speaks in conventional language for much of 40 years, and you say not to take what he says literally, because he is really referring indirectly to ultimate realities, shouldn't we have direct scriptural authority to make such a leap? How is this 'dumb?' Doesn't one want to have the imprimateur of the Buddha himself to interpret his words through an alternate system that explains things differently than the way he explained them himself? Seems like a worthwhile precaution to me. > SN 22 59 (7) The Characteristic of Nonself [Anattalakkha.nasutta.m] > > "Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Baara.naasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five thus: > 'Bhikkhus!' > 'Venerable Sir!' those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this: > 'Bhikkhus, form is nonself [Ruupa.m, bhikkhave, anattaa]. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form be not thus.' But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form be not thus.' > "Feeling is nonself [Vedanaa anattaa]...Perception is nonself [Sa~n~naa anattaa]...Volitional formations are nonself [Sa"nkhaaraa anattaa]...Consciousness is nonself [Vi~n~naa.na.m anattaa]. For if consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.'... > "Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever...Any kind of feeling whatsoever...Any kind of perception whatsoever...Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever...Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'[Ya.m ki~nci vi~n~naa.na.m atiitaanaagatapaccuppanna.m ajjhatta.m vaa bahiddhaa vaa o.laarika.m vaa sukhuma.m vaa hiina.m vaa pa.niita.m vaa ya.m duure santike vaa, sabba.m vi~n~naa.na.m � 'neta.m mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attaa'ti evameta.m yathaabhuuta.m sammappa~n~naaya da.t.thabba.m.]..." > > R: "...and you can't find a single quote that says that meditation is a wrong view of practice..." > > Scott: The above cited sutta covers all the bases, Rob; I can guarantee your lack of satisfaction, though. Well, you are right Scott, that it does not satisfy the challenge that I put forth to you. I agree with both you and the sutta that all namas and rupas are non-self and that they cannot be controlled by thought, intention or action. No willful action, such as wishing something to arise or meditation or anything else, will directly cause a particular rupa or nama to arise just because one wants it to arise. And conventionally speaking, one cannot control either objects or experiences, so we start from the truth of this sutta, that everything is anatta and out of direct control. That does not demonstrate however that the activities and lifestyle choices outlined by the Buddha in great detail do not create conditions for the development of kusala dhammas. The above does not make that leap from non-control to "no importance of kusasla activities or actions" and neither should you. You have not created the bridge between non-control of dhammas and equality of all actions and thought-processes. Buddha says quite directly that one should guard the senses, attempt to be mindful at all times, practice anapanasati and satipatthana and have the right actions and livelihood in everyday life to promote the development of kusala. Now you say that this is all nonsense and that nothing one does in life will influence what dhammas will develop or arise, and this is a different, secondary point, from the true, primary point that dhammas are not amenable to control. The Buddha taught a path to be followed that included livelihood, action and meditation, not just correct understanding of dhammas, and the above sutta does not say in any way, shape or form that the actions and choices that are made in life have no influence on the development of kusala. In fact, many of his suttas do say directly that such actions and intentions that are promoted and held do influence the development of kusala or akusala, and there is still nothing in sutta or, I think, in Abhidhamma, to contradict this. You said that in the extreme case there is no difference between an ordinary person and a mass murderer, and this may be theoretically true in terms of the arising of this or that dhamma, but in terms of the development of kusala and the "critical mass" of kusala that must accumulate to move consciousness to a higher level, this is not correct. Wrong action will create akusala and vice versa, and this is the point where the real disagreement lies. You claim that if I believe that activities such as meditation can promote kusala then I don't understand anatta or really believe in non-control. I think you are the one who has it wrong, and that conventional actions and choices have an effect on the path. You have no quote so far to do what I actually asked - to say that meditation is "wrong practice." That is what is needed to make your point, and it doesn't exist as far as I know. The Buddha taught the opposite. > In the sutta we see Abhidhamma clearly being taught (the 'why' should be obvious, Rob); we see the reason why 'meditation' - the modern DIY boodist 'practice' - is untenable; Not so, you fail completely on this point. > we see the Buddha teaching that things 'should be seen as [they] really [are]' - so much for concreteness, Rob. Like I said: Anattaa. > > You won't get any of this though. No, Scott, you make logical leaps as they suit you. You do not have a way to bridge the gap between anatta and all actions, such as meditation, right livelihood and rules for monks that the Buddha taught in great detail, actually not being part of the path. THat is the connection that is needed, and you do not have it. In fact the opposite is the case - Buddha taught that these things are most important for promoting kusala and mindfulness and understanding and his statements to this effect have never been contradicted. Your view of this is a fringe view, a radical view. It takes away most of the major body of the Buddha's teachings on how one should live and act and calls it all conventional conceptual talk that is not part of the path. But Buddha was very clear that such things were most important parts of the path, and when you say otherwise you are contradicting many of the Buddha's core teachings. You call them modern new age interpretations of Buddhism despite the fact they are recorded from his talks in black and white in almost every sutta of the Buddha's entire career. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121747 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 6:54 am Subject: Re: What I Mean by Meditation: Blind Men Describe An Elephant epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > I like how you so conveniently provide both sides of any debate in nearly every post you write: > > R: "...Sometimes the people who are laughing the loudest are the biggest clowns." > > R: "...Have you ever looked at your own mental state when you say things like this?..." > > It's silly, Rob. Just discuss already. Sure, Scott, you too. Please refrain from making comments on how excited you think I am, what my "real beliefs" are, my secret motivations for saying something, or what you think is in my mind. Thanks. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121748 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 8:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I Mean by Meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/1/2012 2:26:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Remember to use the high sign so we can recognize each other as > "meditators" in a crowd. The glowing around the head is also a good indicator. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > There is a Hasidic tale of a king and his wise adviser who were aware > that a grain organism affecting all the grain in the kingdom was overcoming > the entire populace, making them all insane. The two agreed to put a > sign on their foreheads so that when the craziness would come to them, seeing > these signs would at least serve to remind them that they were insane. :-) > ----------------------------------------------- That is a damned good analogy! The difference between us and most others is that we know we're crazy! :-) -------------------------------------------------- HCW: :-) Actually, independent of any nonsense going on at the moment on the list, I think of this tale generally as a description of the state of all worldlings, all of us (as you say) being insane and such that any sign even suggesting the fact of our craziness is the beginning of wisdom. Before we find the way out, we need to know that we are lost. ------------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121749 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 12:36 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., Long diatribe again, Rob. Mostly incorrect. R: "...I agree with both you and the sutta that all namas and rupas are non-self and that they cannot be controlled by thought, intention or action. No willful action, such as wishing something to arise or meditation or anything else, will directly cause a particular rupa or nama to arise just because one wants it to arise. And conventionally speaking, one cannot control either objects or experiences, so we start from the truth of this sutta, that everything is anatta and out of direct control..." Scott: The fact that a 'but' is coming nullifies everything you have just claimed to agree with in the above. R: "...That does not demonstrate however that the activities and lifestyle choices outlined by the Buddha in great detail do not create conditions for the development of kusala dhammas." Scott: Kusala dhammaa *are* the conditions for these so-called 'activities and lifestyle choices' that you, as a religionist, are fixated upon. R: "...You have not created the bridge between non-control of dhammas and equality of all actions and thought-processes." Scott: There is no 'bridge' Rob. Anattaa is total, not partial. And who knows what 'equality of all actions and thought-processes' is supposed to refer to. R: "...one should guard the senses, attempt to be mindful at all times, practice anapanasati and satipatthana and have the right actions and livelihood in everyday life to promote the development of kusala. Now you say that this is all nonsense and that nothing one does in life will influence what dhammas will develop or arise, and this is a different, secondary point, from the true, primary point that dhammas are not amenable to control..." Scott: When kusala arises, the senses *are* guarded. I say your belief in the Religion of Meditation is unfounded, that this Religion of Meditation is nonsense. Scott. #121750 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 2:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What I Mean by Meditation epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Actually, independent of any nonsense going on at the moment on the > list, I think of this tale generally as a description of the state of all > worldlings, all of us (as you say) being insane and such that any sign even > suggesting the fact of our craziness is the beginning of wisdom. Before we > find the way out, we need to know that we are lost. Very true. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #121751 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 2:35 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: When kusala arises, the senses *are* guarded. The question remains whether what we do in our lives does or does not create conditions for kusala to arise. > I say your belief in the Religion of Meditation is unfounded, that this Religion of Meditation is nonsense. Then why does the Buddha talk so extensively about formal sitting meditation, describe it, promote it and laud it in any number of suttas? Can you answer this question? The Buddha says, to paraphrase, 'there is the case where a monk goes to sit at the root of a tree or in a quiet place, sits cross-legged and puts mindfulness to the fore, knows whether the breath is long or short, pacifies the bodily and mental formations while doing so, and if practiced this way, this will lead to the consummation of enlightenment,' but you say that I have invented this religion of Meditation. If that is the case, what is the purpose of the Buddha talking about this specific meditation regimen and saying that it will lead to enlightenment? I mean, you can interpret it as you wish, but this is an accurate summary of what the Buddha said, so on what basis do you dispute it and call it a false 'religion of meditation?' What is the status of the Buddha's words here? And why did the Buddha talk so extensively about what activities and involvements to avoid or to more actively engaged, from the monk's robes to the drinking of liquor. What is your understanding of why he spoke about these things at so much length? BTW, Scott, if you're going to characterize my post as a 'long diatribe' please don't object when I make similar types of comments about your writing. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #121752 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 3:26 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...you say that I have invented this religion of Meditation..." Scott: Hardly, Rob. Is that wishful thinking? No, I consider you to be a mere and well-addled acolyte in the Religion of Meditation but in no way it's founder. You've just bought it all like the guy who was sold the Brooklyn Bridge. Scott. #121753 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 3:44 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 sukinderpal Hello Alex, > The Buddha, and commentaries such as VsM did talk about the need of going into the seclusion. You can't deny what is all over the suttas. Suk: Just because the label "meditation" is used for both, this does not mean that you can use what is described with regard samatha / jhana to defend your position regarding vipassana. You do this all the time Alex, and this muddles up the issue. ---- > Even metta development requires going into seclusion as stated in VsM > > "A meditator who wants to develop firstly lovingkindness among these, if he is a beginner, should sever the impediments* and learn the meditation subject. Suk: *Learn the meditation subject* means understanding its nature. And even then, this is not about the development of metta, but how for someone who has much metta, he can use the particular subject to achieve jhana. Metta starts now with the perception of other beings, and is developed by virtue of being understood for what it is, and seeing the harm in aversion and attachment. So metta is not developed because one wants it, let alone sitting in quiet place and particular posture. To think that it does would be a huge mistake resulting in more akusala rather than any kusala. And when it comes to Jhana, it is panna (of samatha) which leads the way. All that has been pointed out in the VsM as conditions for successful practice, requires panna to understand exactly *how* they are. To follow the suggestion without any understanding and with the false belief that by doing so, either that metta develops or that jhana can be attained is to be on the path of ever increasing delusion. -------- > >S:When I judge a particular situation as undesirable, I understand >that this is aversion and ignorance doing the talking, > >====================================== > > > It DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT. Kilesas are undesireble, while wisdom is. > There is nothing bad in accumulating wisdom and eliminating kilesas.+ Suk: What context, the one which calls for a need to "avoid" a particular situation in fear that some kilesas might arise? You mean wisdom is not wisdom which understands the kilesas, but one which seeks instead a different situation in order to experiencing something else? Is this is not ignorance now and being motivated by 'self' and the concept of time? From what I can see is that while trying to avoid a particular set of kilesas, you inadvertently fall prey to the more dangerous one namely, self-view. This then makes your second statement, not only empty and meaningless, but in fact very misleading. -------- > "Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, .. Suk: So why the movement away from this present moment into ideas about another time, place, posture and object!!!? ---------- > > Now like metta, panna can arise at any time too. > > Only if there are proper conditions set for it to arise. Suk: Yes, and wanting to have it and doing something about it, are instances of attachment. And attachment being the Second Noble Truth stands in direct contrast to the N8FP, the Fourth Noble Truth. One is the cause for samsara, the other is the way out. ====== > WE are not Ugghatitannu, Vipancitannu. Listening and considering by itself won't work. If it would, we would be arahants by now. Suk: This is yet another way you muddle the issue. You do know that none of us deny the role of practice and what we should be discussing is whose idea about practice is correct, yours or ours. Two, what do you understand about the relationship between suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna and bhavanamaya panna and pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha? And what is your understanding regarding the Noble Eightfold Path and it being the One Path leading to enlightenment? Three, why do you need to measure the worth of intellectual understanding in terms of whether this in itself can lead to enlightenment? Four, do you think that the Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu did not experience patipatti but only pariyatti and pativedha while listening to the Buddha teach? ====== > Intense development of Vipassana is required, and there is nothing to do with Self. If there was any control, development would not be needed. One could just wish to be Awakened and control reality that way. Suk: But don't you see that you ARE trying to control in thinking that you need to *do* something else other than what you are doing now with regard to the development of understanding!!? -------- > >Your idea regarding practice and what you think are the obstacles >to it comes across as perception of the uninstructed worldling =========================================== > > > Tell that to Venerable Buddhaghosa about obstacles to meditation: Suk: No, the Venerable would say that you are reading him wrong and tell you the same thing that I am telling you. -------- > As to unfavourable monastery VsM - IV,2 : > "Herein, one that is unfavourable has any one of eighteen faults. > These are: largeness, .. > Ten Impediments: VsM III, 29 > A dwelling, family, and gain, A class, and building too as fifth, > And travel, kin, affliction, books, And supernormal powers: ten." Suk: Yes, a description of what someone with much wisdom with regard to the development of samatha / jhana would think. And if he were then to think in terms of the development of vipassana, he'd point to the need to understand realities and not suggest moving away from those that appear "now". --------- > An Arahant, sure, will not ever be moved by external circumstances according to Theravada. But we are not there, and what the Arahant is invulnerable to, we are not. Suk: So what is the lesson that you get from this? That because we have all the kilesas that we allow these to dictate what is and what is not the Path? --------- > >S:With regard to one, how does this match with the understanding that dhammas arise by conditions beyond control? > >==================== > > So no control means that one lives life normally and don't follow the suttas and VsM? Suk: Isn't studying the Suttas and VsM the normal lives of some people here, for example Jon, Sarah, Nina, Rob K, Connie and Alex? ;-) The difference between the first five people and the last is that the former hear from these two sources the message regarding 'Anatta' and no control, whereas the latter keeps hearing 'self' and control. ---------- > >Regarding the suggestion that the Buddha 'recommended going into >solitary and secluded places', this is an example of preferred view >reading into the Suttas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This is what the Buddha recommended. Suk: No, he taught understanding the Five Khandhas to his audience no matter what they were doing, listening to his discourse, sweeping the floor, lying sick in bed or practicing Jhana. --------- > >If what you say is based on the theory that awareness arises more >easily in some situations and that 'practice' involves doing >something in particular, why did the Buddha then not recommend >meditating in a secluded place to everyone that he talked to? > >========================================= > Not everyone who talked to the Buddha intended to reach Nibbana, so He taught accordingly. Suk: Most of those who became enlightened did not have Nibbana in mind, but came to hear him only to "understand". But for all, he taught with the long terms goal in mind. Whether or not the audience could become enlightened in that life, the Buddha taught about the development of Right Understanding. In any case, you appear to be suggesting here that those who have the goal of attaining Nibbana are those who are more advanced and it is to them that the Buddha taught meditation. So you are saying now then, that you are at an advanced level since you think that you should be meditating? But in another context you have said that you are not! So what is it, are you advanced or are you a beginner? At least make up your mind. ======= > I would have no problem with what you and others say if it was explicit in the suttas and VsM. But when you read what the suttas and VsM say it is clear. Suk: I would suggest you to drop all your previous ideas about Dhamma and practice and begin again with a clean slate, but I know this is an impossible situation. What you need rather, is to recognize wrong view as wrong view and that would be your first step in the right direction. So don't say that you would agree with us if the Suttas didn't say what you think they say. It is because you do not understand our position that you continue reading the Suttas and VsM the way you do. Metta, Sukin #121754 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 4:06 pm Subject: Re: Desire rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear RobertK, > > > >RobertK:the 'awareness' you are describing here has little to do with >the >sati >in the satipatthana sutta IMHO. > >what you are doing is increasing selfview and silabataparamasa IMHO. > >robert > >=================================== > > Please explain. Are you against intentional development? Is there non-intentional development? Are there ever any cittas without cetana? Dear Alex, In the satipatthana sutta sati is always conjoinend with sampajjana , satisampajana. There are 4 types of sampajanna (clear comprehension,) 1puposefulness, 2suitabilty, 3resort, and 4non-delusion. In bodhis Brahamjala sutta translation it says aboutvthe 4thb type " Clear comprehension of non-delusion here is understanding thus "internally there is no self which looks ahead and looks aside. When the thought 'let me look ahead' arises , the mind -originated air element arise together with the thought, producing intimation....." It carries on giving more and more details about mind processes, all to show that there is no-self, only fleeting coditioned phenomena. This is comprehension as non-delusion, asammoha-sampajanna. According to the commentary in the satipatthana sutta this 4th meaning of sampajana in meant: that of the anattaness of realities. On page 88 the commentary says "since this Dhamma is deep in doctrine and deep in teaching, listen carefully. Since it is deep in meaning and deep in penetration, attend to it carefully". The characteristic of anatta is uncontrollability- every reality arises only due to conditions, and when conditions are present the reality must arise. Sati is also completely uncontrollable and must arise when it os conditioend to arise. Unfortunately wanting it to arise, or focuusing on certain objects are not conditions for its arising. When there is seeing or hearing these are miraculous processess that need countless conditions, nevertheless they occur again and again. In the same way the sati of satipatthahan is equally miraculous - the reason it does not arise as often as say desire or seeing is that wrong view- such as the belief that one can make it arise by continualy concentarting on an object- is a condition that prohibits genuine sati. One can go through life after life without even one momnet of actual satipatthana, and yet believe that one is having continual sati! Robert #121755 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 4:56 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 rjkjp1 ALEX: Ever tried to be mindful of ultimate realities (not concepts) while cooking, cutting carrots, going up the stairs, going through the door (not the wall!), driving car, or doing any other conventional activity that requires being aware of conventional things? This is why it is recommended to sit down in quit and safe place, where one will not get hurt when being aware of ultimates. In daily life we must be aware of concepts rather than ultimates, otherwise we would be tripping over things and running into walls and stuff."" Dear Alex This whole idea of trying to be aware of realities shows a misuderstanding of the nature of reality. Concentrating on say hardness or feeling is not at all an indication of sati being present. And if one thinks that when one, by concentraing on certain "present moment realties" is "aware" of feelings in the body, or hardness or heat etc., then that is wrong view supporting wrong practice. To help understand this try now not to see, or not to feel. In fact no one can stop seeing occuring if conditions are present and so to no one can stop genuine sati, genunie awareness occuring if conditions are present. One doesnt need to sit down in a safe place to have seeing occur - nor for sati to arise. Ronald Graham, a well-known mathematician, and amateur gymnast said "You can do mathematics anywhere. I once had a flash of insight into a problem in the middle of a back somersault with a triple twist on my trampoline ( in the "The man who loved only numbers"). Of course panna (wisdom ) of satipatthana is much faster than that as it is seeing dhammas directly (not conceptualizing about them). Is it useful to be in quite place where one can ponder at leisure? Perhaps but it can also be a trap where one is unknowingly trying to focus without realising that dhammas have already gone while one is trying to see them. There needs to be at least the basic theoretical understanding of just how fast realities arise and pass away: In the Book of Causation (Nidaanavagga) VII The Great Subchapter 61 (1) Uninstructed (1) p. 595 Samyutta Nikaya Vol 1 (translated by Bodhi) " But that which is called 'mind' and 'mentality' and consciousness' arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called 'mind' and 'mentality' and 'consciousness' arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. [note 157] " [note 157: Spk: 'By day and by night (rattiyaa ca divasassa ca): This is a genitive in the locative sense, i.e., during the night and during the day. Arises as one thing and ceases as another (annadeva uppajjati, anna.m nirujjhati): The meaning is that (the mind) that arises and ceases during the day is other than (the mind) that arises and ceases during the night. The statement should not be taken to mean that one thing arises and some thing altogether different, which had not arisen, ceases. "Day and night" is said by way of continuity, taking a continuity of lesser duration than the previous one (i.e. the one stated for the body). But one citta is not able to endure for a whole day or a whole night. Even in the time of a fingersnap many hundred thousand kotis of cittas arise and cease (1 koti=10 million). robert #121756 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 5:06 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 rjkjp1 Dear Alex, I wrote this a while back based on the Dhammapada: The Buddha said (my translation): 279: "Sabbe dhamma anattati, yada paaya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya"ti." All dhammas are not-self: when one sees this with insight then one is detached (or disenchanted, nibbindati) from dukkha, This is the Path (magga)to Purity (visuddhi). The commentary says: Tattha sabbe dhammati pacakkhandha eva adhippeta. Here(tattha)by all (sabbe) phenomena (dhammati), five aggregates (pancakkhandha) is meant (adhippeta). Anattati "ma jiyantu ma miyantu"ti vase vattetum na sakkati avasavattanatthena anatta attasua assamika anissarati attho. Are not-self (anattati) because Birth(jiyantu), decay and death (miyantu) are not able to have power exercised over them (vase vattetum na). In the sense of powerlessness (avasavattanatthena) anatta, void of self (attasu~n~na). In the "Dispeller of Delusion"(PTS) p 137 paragraph 564 it says "In respect of the classification of the Foundations of Mindfulness. And this also takes place in multiple consciousness in the prior stage (prior to supramundane). For it lays hold of the body with one consciousness and with others feeling etc." As the quote from the "Dispeller" indicates at one moment sati takes feelings as an object and at another rupa. We will perhaps see that trying to make sati go to certain objects does not lead to detachment from the idea of self. We might also remember that sati is just a cetasika, itself conditioned by various factors, and so ephemeral. If we have understood Abhidhamma correctly we know that each moment is conditioned by different conditions and that not even one of those conditions is controllable even for an instant. robert #121757 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti nilovg Dear Andy, Op 1-jan-2012, om 23:08 heeft Andrew Barnes het volgende geschreven: > all the very best for your new year, moment upon moment. ------- N: The same to you. Right, moment upon moment. Life exists only in one moment, citta experiencing one object through one of the six doors. We forget when we are absorbed in thinking stories about sickness or other problems. This happens so often, and therefore, I am grateful for each reminder. Thinking is only one moment but it seems to last and we take it for very important, for my thinking. No, no payment, it is a Dhamma gift. In the course of this week Lodewijk, my husband, will go to the post office. Looking forward to further correspondance, Nina. #121758 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths nilovg Hi Howard, I hope you had a good Chanuka festival and you must have been busy, being a cantor. I thought of you. Best wishes for the New Year. I like very much what you wrote about Abhidhamma, this is the right approach. We read about many classifications, but we have to see through them. Otherwise they are meaningless. The aim of the Abhidhamma is seeing the anattaness of realities, as you also know. Therefore, Abhidhamma and satipa.t.thaana go together. We need reminders all the time. Nina. Op 1-jan-2012, om 18:24 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > HCW: > Much of the Buddhist world, especiallyin Burma/Myanmar I think, views > this as you do. I would also like to see this as the case myself, > but for > that to happen, I need to view it from the experiential, > "Abhidhamma in > daily Life. #121759 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths nilovg Dear Dieter, see my mail to Howard, I was partly repeating what you said about the relationship with satipa.t.thaana. Let us not forget to understand this very moment! Nina. Op 1-jan-2012, om 17:56 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > Would be nice to learn what you are thinking about my idea of > approach , I wrote about in my previous mail to Howard and.. #121760 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 6:48 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...you say that I have invented this religion of Meditation..." > > Scott: Hardly, Rob. Is that wishful thinking? No, I consider you to be a mere and well-addled acolyte in the Religion of Meditation but in no way it's founder. You've just bought it all like the guy who was sold the Brooklyn Bridge. A minimal hair-splitting point, avoiding everything else I said. Nice move, as usual. Try answering my points, thanks. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - -- #121761 From: Andrew Barnes Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 8:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 Thank-you Nina. Not sure if you meant your reply to go to whole group or not, but no worry. My wish for your new year, I extend to the whole group. metta Andy #121762 From: Andrew Barnes Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 8:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 >>________________________________ > From: Nina van Gorkom > > > >Dear Andy, >Op 28-dec-2011, om 12:01 heeft andyebarnes67 het volgende geschreven: > >> A. Indeed. I should have said moments of awareness. I really meant >> the effort to remain aware. >------- >>N: Even remaining aware, can we say this? Usually seeing or hearing >is followed by attachment, even subtle. We may not know that we like >to see, like to hear, like to experience all objects appearing in a >day. Conditioned dhammas are rolling on, and we can find out for >ourselves whether we can interfere by making an effort not to be >forgetful but to be aware. If we can find out ourselves that there is >nobody who can cause the arising of sati, it is very useful. We can >begin to understand that dhammas arise and fall away because of their >own conditions, that they are anattaa. > >A: During vipassana practice, I do have increasingly longer periods where I am able to simply observe and not seek to control. Eventually though, I find I can then go into observing the observing, if that makes sense. I loose the equanimity and again identify as the observer and hence the observing becomes the object of observation. Back to the breath.... > >>N: When dosa has just fallen away there may be conditions to notice >it, to think about it, that is different from sati. Or, when dosa has >just fallen away there may be conditions for awareness of its >characteristic as only a reality, a dhamma, not 'my dosa'. What >usually happens is that there is thinking a great deal about the >dosa, about the circumstance or person who was so unpleasant. We >think in terms of 'me' or 'he'. All this is dependent on conditions. >It is not so that there is noticing dosa first and then mindfulness >of its characteristic. We never know what will happen, it all depends >on accumulated understanding and sati. We cannot force conditioned >dhammas to be in this way or that way. > >A: This is one reason why I decided to have a 'home retreat' over the holidays rather than going to an organised one. I wanted to give myself space to try to cultivate more my awareness in everyday life. I am still very conscious that I haven't gotr out of 'I' in this, but not to worried at this time. Pleased I am training this 'I' to consciously, deliberately, make the effort to more fully apply the 8fold path to day to day life. hope is that this will prove a firm foundation to then begin to loosen the hold of ego and discover deeper awareness. > >> >> A: I still have some difficulty with the awareness of the present >> though. I can see that awareness of the relative 'now' is possible, >> with effort, but I guess I'm really asking about awareness of the >> 'ultimate' of the 'now'. This is where I can't get my head round >> off this problem of linear time and all citta being at a, however >> small, delay. Is this not one of the unavoidable characteristics of >> perceived reality. That it is always at once 'now' and yet also >> 'then'? >> am I to understand that for the most part, the 'ultimate' can only >> be experienced through the 'relative'? >------- >N: Here the Abhidhamma can help. We learn that when hardness presents >itself there is a whole series of cittas (moments of consciousness) >that perceive hardness, not just one citta. >First a process of cittas experience hardness through the bodydoor >and after that through the mind-door. Then there are other mind-door >processes of cittas that think about the hardness, for example with >dislike. Or with mindfulness of its characteristic. >Even now when you touch something hard, you notice hardness without >thinking about it. It seems one moment, but in fact there were >already many processes of cittas. When there is more understanding of >the rapidity of such processes one will not try to catch the now, or >think much about it. All we know is: there are characteristics of >dhammas appearing and we can become familiar with these without >having to think about them. If we try to find out about when the >'now' is, whether it is past or not, it is only thinking and we shall >not get very far. >When you notice hardness, this is a kind of ruupa (material >phenomenon) and it has fallen away, true. But then another unit of >hardness impinges on the bodydoor. It is of no use to find out which >one is impinging now, impossible to catch it. But what is important: >understanding it as only a kind of ruupa, not a thing, not a person. >In that way understanding can very, very gradually develop. This kind >of understanding leads to detachment from the 'self'. There will be >more understanding that there is no self who can make an effort, who >can do anything at all. >------- >Nina. > >A: Thank-you Nina. I think I thought myself into a bit of a cul-de-sac with this one and thank-you for helping me see this. This train of thought began with my considering stars, or more accurately, star-light. As we all know, we are only ever looking at the stars how they were millions (or however many years) ago. Then I took that thought and brought it closer to home to the point where I found myself. I'm mindful of the warning of the Noble One that there are somethings that it doesn't do to consider too much as they are unimportant to our progress and distract us. I think I may have found one here. > >metta >Andy > > > > #121763 From: Andrew Barnes Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 8:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 >________________________________ > From: azita > >Hi Azita, > > > >> > azita: Pativedha is well developed wisdom that knows a reality eg, visible object, and as NIna says, is realized/arises when the conditions are right for it to arise. >> >> A: So does this mean that Pativedha is ONLY possible with regard to this relative reality (visible objects, audible sounds etc) or does it also refer, through a more developed citta, to wisdom that knows an absolute reality? > >>azita: if visible object, sounds, flavours etc are relative reality, what do you call absolute reality? > >Its my understanding that citta does not develop, it is merely that which experiences an object such as visible object, even Nibbana, but it is the cetasikas which arise with citta that develop eg wisdom. > >patience, courage and good cheer >azita >A: 'Ultimate reality' - I guess I'm meaning that which is without the perceiver. This may be a wrong-view. Is there anything at all without the perceiver (except everything, with no seperateness)? >To clarify (for my own benefit) - citta is a consciousness (of an object) and cetasika is the perception or knowledge of that object. Right or wrong? >If the above is correct, then rather than 'develop' then, a citta passes as another arises. Yes? So I should have been thinking in terms of a new citta arising that is of a wiser kind. > > >metta >Andy > > > > #121764 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 9:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti rjkjp1 ANDY: I am training this 'I' to consciously, deliberately, make the effort to more fully apply the 8fold path to day to day life. hope is that this will prove a firm foundation to then begin to loosen the hold of ego and discover deeper awareness."" Sounds like wrong practice to me Andy. Robert #121765 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 10:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti moellerdieter Hi Andy (and Robert) you wrote: training this 'I' to consciously, deliberately, make the effort to more fully apply the 8fold path to day to day life. hope is that this will prove a firm foundation to then begin to loosen the hold of ego and discover deeper awareness."" Sounds like wrong practice to me Andy. Robert D: keep the path training in mind ,Andy, i.e. Sila , Samadhi and Panna , so that the path links can support eachother. Robert stumbled obviously upon 'the training of the I' , with which we must work with but towards ' none I ' (anatta) . You will find plenty of material,discussion about that within the archive.. with Metta Dieter #121767 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 11:05 am Subject: Entering the Stream Supreme! bhikkhu5 Friends: What can enable an Entering into the Stream? The Blessed Buddha once explained how to Enter the Stream to Nibbna Bhikkhus & friends, these 4 states, when developed & made much of leads to the realization of the fruit of Stream-entry (sotpatti-phala )! Which four? 1: Meeting, visiting and waiting on Great Men... 2: Hearing and studying the true Dhamma Doctrine... 3: Practice in accordance with this genuine Dhamma... 4: Rational and careful Attention to cause and effect... These 4 states, when developed & made much of leads to the fruition of Once-returning (sakadagami-phala ) or further to Non-return (anagami-phala ). These 4 states, when developed & made much of leads finally to the fruition of Arahat-ship, the Awakening that is Enlightenment (arahatta-phala )! Bhikkhus these 4 states, when developed & made much of leads directly to the reaching, attaining & realizing of genuine and liberating Understanding; To the state of Awakening of Understanding; To the state of Wealth of Understanding; To the state of Great Understanding; To the state of Open Understanding; To the state of Wide Understanding; To the state of Profound Understanding; To the state of Deep Understanding; To the state of Unequalled Understanding; To the state of Universal Understanding; To the state of Extensive Understanding; To the state of Quick Understanding; To the state of Instant Understanding; To the state of Light Understanding; To the state of Laughing Understanding; To the state of Acute Understanding; To the state of Penetrative Understanding! To the state of Ultimate and Absolute Understanding! What four? 1: Meeting, visiting and waiting on great men... 2: Hearing and reading the true Doctrine of the Dhamma... 3: Practice in accordance with this genuine & righteous Dhamma Law... 4: Careful and rational Attention to what is cause and what is effect... <....> Source: The Path of Discrimination XXI The canonical Patisambhidamagga [ii 189] The Essay on Great Understanding. By Venerable Sriputta. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=133494 Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #121768 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 10:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Barnes wrote: > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: rjkjp1 > > > >Hi Robert > > > > > >ANDY: > >I am > >training this 'I' to consciously, deliberately, make the effort to more fully > >apply the 8fold path to day to day life. hope is that this will prove a firm > >foundation to then begin to loosen the hold of ego and discover deeper > >awareness."" > > > >Sounds like wrong practice to me Andy. > >Robert > >A: Sorry. I don't see how consciously watching that I don't lie or backbite (right speech) or that I don't squat a fly, for instance, constitutes wrong practice. as Buddha teaches, it is the morality that forms the backbone of any fruitful 'practice' anjd is itself part of the practice. without it, all other effort is pointless. all limbs of the 8fold are just as important as the others. > >Andy fair enough Andy, sounds like you have it all sorted. robert #121769 From: Andrew Barnes Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 12:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 >________________________________ > From: rjkjp1 > > > > >ANDY: > >> >I am >> >training this 'I' to consciously, deliberately, make the effort to more fully >> >apply the 8fold path to day to day life. hope is that this will prove a firm >> >foundation to then begin to loosen the hold of ego and discover deeper >> >awareness."" >> > >> >Sounds like wrong practice to me Andy. >> >Robert >> >A: Sorry. I don't see how consciously watching that I don't lie or backbite (right speech) or that I don't squat a fly, for instance, constitutes wrong practice. as Buddha teaches, it is the morality that forms the backbone of any fruitful 'practice' anjd is itself part of the practice. without it, all other effort is pointless. all limbs of the 8fold are just as important as the others. >> >Andy >fair enough Andy, sounds like you have it all sorted. >A: I wouldn't go as far as to say I had 'it all sorted', Robert :-) >Andy > > > > #121770 From: "andyebarnes67" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 12:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti andyebarnes67 Hi Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > Robert stumbled obviously upon 'the training of the I' , with which we must work with but towards ' none I ' (anatta) . > You will find plenty of material,discussion about that within the archive.. Thank-you Dieter. I just sent reply to Robert along the same vein. Of course I am conscious of working towards anatta, but as you say, to do so at the expense of cultivating right conduct of the 'I', to my mind, would be counter-productive. As I understand it, the suttas point out that we shouldn't ever deny the presence of the 'I' but rather to, as noted, train it towards anatta. >I do wonder if too much emphasis on the more subtle concepts of the dhamma at the expense of the more mundane can so easily become itself a troublesome attachment. Sadly, we don't all have a secluded spot in a forest to which we can retire. metta Andy #121771 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 1:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti moellerdieter Hi Andy, you wrote: 'As I understand it, the suttas point out that we shouldn't ever deny the presence of the 'I' but rather to, as noted, train it towards anatta.' D: yes, keeping the presence of delusion (moha) in mind , a cetasika common to all unwholesome states. A: >I do wonder if too much emphasis on the more subtle concepts of the dhamma at the expense of the more mundane can so easily become itself a troublesome attachment. D: that may be not accepted by all of our friends , but as Nyanatiloka Maha Thera already said: "I wish to point out that the study of the Abhidhamma requires a previous thorough acquaintance with the fundamental teachings and ethical aims of Buddhism; and it is only to those who have fulfilled this preliminary condition that, by thus recapitulating their learning and by philosophically deepening their insight, the Abhidhamma may prove to be of real benefit." A:Sadly, we don't all have a secluded spot in a forest to which we can retire. D: well for our purpose a quite spot in the house may do , not all have the strength so that "the wilderness may not take over " , though it is an interesting experience. Something else is of course the retreat in rather protected place of a forest monestary. with Metta Dieter . #121772 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 2:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Hi all, following a review of the discussed 4 cetasikas ( YMBAS table): Akusala sabbacitta sadharana – 4 These are common to all akusala consciousness. 1. Moha – Delusion This is also known as avijja or ignorance. It is the root of all that is unwholesome preventing us from seeing the true nature of existence, kamma and the 4 Noble Truths. 2. Ahirika – Shamelessness This is the absence of disgust at bodily and verbal misconduct. 3. Anottappa – Fearlessness of wrong This causes us not to shrink away from evil. 4. Uddhacca – Restlessness This causes the mind to be agitated and in turmoil so that confusion can arise According to Mendis : There are fourteen unwholesome mental factors. The first four listed below are present in all unwholesome states of consciousness. The others are variable.Delusion (moha) is synonymous with ignorance regarding the Four Noble Truths. Shamelessness of evil (ahirika) is lack of conscience, not as a mysterious inner voice, but as an abhorrence towards evil. Fearlessness of evil (anottappa) is moral recklessness resulting from ignorance about the moral law.Restlessness (uddhacca) is a state of excitement that characterizes all unwholesome acts, contrasting with the peace that accompanies wholesome acts Another list provided by U Kyaw Min does not separate the 14 unwholesome states into the above mentioned 4 universals and 10 occasionals, avoiding by that the question why e.g. ditthi and mana are occasionals whereas ahirika and anottappa are not. We discussed the definition of moha and its equation with avijja, which may be canonical in some cases (context ?). However , though obviously being alone , I still see it as an advantage to consider moha to be a subcategory of avijja , pointing to the I-delusion (as synonym of bhava tanha), whereas the latter emphases the more fundamental lack of knowledge of the 4 Noble Truths. By that the corresponding links of D.O. process are easier to understand. But U.K.M.'s definition : "16. Moha means dullness or lack of understanding in philosophical matters. It is also called avijjhā (ignorance), annana (not knowing) and adassana (not-seeing.) The above three just mentioned are called the three akusala-mula, or the three main immoral roots, as they are the sources of all immoralities" seems to me confusing , as the three akusala -mula usually mentioned, refer to the tanha categories lobha, dosa and moha. further U.K.M.: "22. Ahirika means shamelessness. When a sinful a is about to be committed, no feeling of shame, such as "I will be corrupted if I do this", or "Some people and Devas may know this of me", arise in him who is shameless." I think not rarely associated with the lack of 'others may know this of me ' . "23. Anottappa means utter recklessness as regards such consequences, as Attan-uvadabhaya (fear of self-accusations like: "I have been foolish; I have done wrong", and so forth,) Paranuvadabhaya (fear of accusations by others): Dandabhaya (fear of punishments in the present life inflicted by the rulers:) Apayabhaya (fear of punishments to be suffered in the realms of misery)." both appear often as a pair in the texts. "24. Uddhacca means distraction as regards an object." I.M.H.O. too rough as a definition for restlessness,being part of the 5 hindrances and as fetter completely abolished only by Arahatship. We talked about the 'monkey- mind state ' , this nature of continuous wandering 'by day and night' In case of no further comments , I may go on with lobha , dosa , ditthi and mana . with Metta Dieter #121773 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 2:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti nilovg Dear Andy, Op 2-jan-2012, om 10:43 heeft Andrew Barnes het volgende geschreven: > > >Op 28-dec-2011, om 12:01 heeft andyebarnes67 het volgende geschreven: > > >A: During vipassana practice, I do have increasingly longer > periods where I am able to simply observe and not seek to control. > Eventually though, I find I can then go into observing the > observing, if that makes sense. I loose the equanimity and again > identify as the observer and hence the observing becomes the object > of observation. > ------- N: So long as the idea of self has not been eradicated it is likely that there is an idea of 'I' who is observing. Or there may be just attachment to the idea of observing. Observing can be done with so many kinds of cittas and it is not easy to know the truth. I do not believe there is a set time for vipassanaa, I do not think of a specific time. Sati and pa~n~naa can arise in their own time, not by anyone's will or intention. I know that there should be first sufficient intellectual understanding of naama and ruupa, and it seems that this never is enough. But one day, we do not know when, intellectual understanding can be a condition for a moment of awareness and direct understanding now and then. > ------- > >A: This is one reason why I decided to have a 'home retreat' over > the holidays rather than going to an organised one. I wanted to > give myself space to try to cultivate more my awareness in everyday > life. I am still very conscious that I haven't gotr out of 'I' in > this, but not to worried at this time. Pleased I am training this > 'I' to consciously, deliberately, make the effort to more fully > apply the 8fold path to day to day life. hope is that this will > prove a firm foundation to then begin to loosen the hold of ego and > discover deeper awareness. > ----- N: We can gradually learn that it is right understanding, a type of naama, that works its way, when the right conditions are there: right friendship, listening, considering the Dhamma. We should not try to have many moments of sati, or think much about it, because then there can so easily be attachment to 'my sati'. It is really understanding that is the most important factor. When studying and considering the Dhamma there can be a little more understanding of the reality appearing at this moment and this understanding can grow. We are also sending you Kh Sujin's book on the Perfections. All good qualities such as patience, mettaa, siila, daana, etc. should be developed together with satipa.t.thaana so that there will be less preoccupation with 'self'. As Kh Sujin reminded us, we are like sick people and we need medicine to have strength to travel on the Path. When we see the value of the perfections there are conditions for developing them, but no self who develops them. Understanding of realities above all is the condition for the development of all good qualities. Nina. #121774 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 2:51 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Try answering my points, thanks." Scott: Easy does it, lad. What about this one: R: "...The question remains whether what we do in our lives does or does not create conditions for kusala to arise..." Scott: 'What we do.' You see, Rob, you're so caught up in convention that you don't even think about what it is you are saying. So, no, of course not Rob. 'What we do' does not 'create conditions.' 'We' can't do that. It is the naama that is the condition, not this nebulous and totally misconstrued something you refer to as 'what we do.' No, this quaint, childish, Sunday school notion that 'what we do' creates conditions is nothing more than a total belief in the efficacy of Self in the end. You totally advocate, in this ongoing and persistent attempt to convince people that the Self can indeed create conditions for kusala, a staunch Puggalavadin view. When you posit that one can *create conditions for kusala* by merely adopting certain postures and making certain wishes, you are positing that it is the Self - atta, satta, puggala, whatever - that is efficacious. The 'Self' doesn't exist, it is a mere convention of speech, but in your concreteness and incapacity to deal with the conventional, you wind up believing in it. Look again at the sutta: "...'Bhikkhus, form is nonself [Ruupa.m, bhikkhave, anattaa]. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form be not thus.' But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form be not thus.' "Feeling is nonself [Vedanaa anattaa]...Perception is nonself [Sa~n~naa anattaa]...Volitional formations are nonself [Sa"nkhaaraa anattaa]...Consciousness is nonself [Vi~n~naa.na.m anattaa]. For if consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.'..." Scott: As a 'meditator' you are, without a doubt, in deciding to sit with the goal of causing this or that to arise, acting as if none of the above is relevant. A meditator decides on a posture, believing in the efficacy of the posture, a meditator decides on the dhamma he or she wants to have arise. As noted in the sutta, 'it is not possible to have it of consciousness [form, feeling, perception, volitional formations] 'Let my consciousness be thus and so...' And you, Mr. Puggalavadin, think it is. I rest my case. Scott. Scott. #121775 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 4:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Vibhanga and 4 Noble Truths upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/2/2012 1:53:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I hope you had a good Chanuka festival and you must have been busy, being a cantor. ---------------------------------------- HCW: Thanks. We had a lovely Chanukah. We also had three Christmas celebrations with Christian friends and relatives! (Very ecumenical! LOL!) I hope you had a very pleasant holiday season. ---------------------------------------- I thought of you. Best wishes for the New Year. --------------------------------------- HCW: Thanks, Nina! You and Lodewijk have my warmest wishes for a peaceful and healthy 2012. ----------------------------------------- I like very much what you wrote about Abhidhamma, this is the right approach. We read about many classifications, but we have to see through them. Otherwise they are meaningless. The aim of the Abhidhamma is seeing the anattaness of realities, as you also know. ------------------------------------------ HCW: Any means leading to such wisdom is welcome to me! :-) ------------------------------------------ Therefore, Abhidhamma and satipa.t.thaana go together. We need reminders all the time. ------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, reminders are essential! Reality is right here, always, but we are usually blind to it. ------------------------------------------ Nina. ============================= With metta, Howard Look! Look! /What's the need for a well if water is everywhere? Having cut craving by the root, One would go about searching for what?/ (From the Udapana Sutta) #121776 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti upasaka_howard Hi, Andy (and Dieter) - In a message dated 1/2/2012 8:19:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, andyebarnes67@... writes: Hi Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > Robert stumbled obviously upon 'the training of the I' , with which we must work with but towards ' none I ' (anatta) . > You will find plenty of material,discussion about that within the archive.. Thank-you Dieter. I just sent reply to Robert along the same vein. Of course I am conscious of working towards anatta, but as you say, to do so at the expense of cultivating right conduct of the 'I', to my mind, would be counter-productive. As I understand it, the suttas point out that we shouldn't ever deny the presence of the 'I' but rather to, as noted, train it towards anatta. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Andy, mental and physical phenomena (the so-called namas and rupas) arise interrelatedly in streams that are distinguishable one from another, and all cases of speaking and thinking within a stream of "I" - for example as in "I like him" or "I dislike radishes" - is with reference to that stream. However, there is nothing within any psychophysical stream that endures, there is no core of identity, and there is no agent of action. So, to speak of "the I" is to speak of a fiction. Now, people do speak of fictions all the time, but it isn't useful to do so, because as we habitually speak, so do we tend to think. ----------------------------------------------- >I do wonder if too much emphasis on the more subtle concepts of the dhamma at the expense of the more mundane can so easily become itself a troublesome attachment. Sadly, we don't all have a secluded spot in a forest to which we can retire. metta Andy ============================ With metta, Howard /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #121777 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 5:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter and all) - In a message dated 1/2/2012 10:23:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi all, following a review of the discussed 4 cetasikas ( YMBAS table): Akusala sabbacitta sadharana – 4 These are common to all akusala consciousness. 1. Moha – Delusion This is also known as avijja or ignorance. It is the root of all that is unwholesome preventing us from seeing the true nature of existence, kamma and the 4 Noble Truths. 2. Ahirika – Shamelessness This is the absence of disgust at bodily and verbal misconduct. 3. Anottappa – Fearlessness of wrong This causes us not to shrink away from evil. 4. Uddhacca – Restlessness This causes the mind to be agitated and in turmoil so that confusion can arise ====================================== One question occurs to me about this: When sloth & torpor is present, is it possible that there not be restlessness? (It seems to me that any state in which there is sloth & torpor is akusala yet it is possible that restlessness be absent. In fact, strong sloth & torpor and restlessness strike me as possibly incompatible.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121778 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 6:10 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 truth_aerator Dear RobertK2, all interested, I have no problem with idea of no-free-will. This doesn't mean that one drops like a log of wood and does nothing. Conditions force realities to occur in the only possible way and not otherwise. The problem I disagree with is the idea that: Intentional action always equals growing Self View thus bringing further from awakening. Meditation is intentional action, thus wrong Reading and studying Abhidhamma & Co. is intentional action. Stretching the arm to get food from the fridge is also intentional action. So should one STOP reading Abhidhamma & Co. , stop eating food and thus stop doing any actions, wait for conditions to work themselves out, and die of starvation? Of course not. The problem is with WRONG VIEWS and lack of understanding. I believe that wisdom is a must. One can have as much Self View doing Taxes as studying Abhidhamma. With best wishes, Alex #121779 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 6:24 am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...I believe that wisdom is a must..." Scott: Yeah. Tell us how to get it, now. Scott. #121780 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 7:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: 'One question occurs to me about this: When sloth & torpor is present, is it possible that there not be restlessness? (It seems to me that any state in which there is sloth & torpor is akusala yet it is possible that restlessness be absent. In fact, strong sloth & torpor and restlessness strike me as possibly incompatible.) D: right, Howard. I consider the categorization questionable too , pls compare with my previous message : " Another list provided by U Kyaw Min does not separate the 14 unwholesome states into the above mentioned 4 universals and 10 occasionals, avoiding by that the question why e.g. ditthi and mana are occasionals whereas ahirika and anottappa are not. " To question restlessness as common with any unwholesome state is similarly justified . Taking the Niravana simile :(A. V, 193) sensuous desire is compared with water mixed with manifold colours, ill-will with boiling water, sloth and torpor with water covered by moss, restlessness and scruples with agitated water whipped by the wind, skeptical doubt with turbid and muddy water. Just as in such water one cannot perceive one's own reflection, so in the presence of these 5 mental hindrances, one cannot clearly discern one's own benefit, nor that of others, nor that of both. As you said ' strong sloth & torpor and restlessness strike me as possibly incompatible' : the agitation of water covered by plenty of moss may be prevented . I wonder whether the cetasika subgrouping (akusala sabbacitta sadharana ) is originated by Dhammasangani (then we may find an explanation there ) or it stems from a commentary .. VisM or others with Metta Dieter #121781 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 7:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Nina) - In a message dated 1/2/2012 3:09:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: 'One question occurs to me about this: When sloth & torpor is present, is it possible that there not be restlessness? (It seems to me that any state in which there is sloth & torpor is akusala yet it is possible that restlessness be absent. In fact, strong sloth & torpor and restlessness strike me as possibly incompatible.) D: right, Howard. I consider the categorization questionable too , pls compare with my previous message : " Another list provided by U Kyaw Min does not separate the 14 unwholesome states into the above mentioned 4 universals and 10 occasionals, avoiding by that the question why e.g. ditthi and mana are occasionals whereas ahirika and anottappa are not. " ------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, I saw that. -------------------------------------------- To question restlessness as common with any unwholesome state is similarly justified . ------------------------------------------ HCW: It seems so to me. ------------------------------------------- Taking the Niravana simile :(A. V, 193) sensuous desire is compared with water mixed with manifold colours, ill-will with boiling water, sloth and torpor with water covered by moss, restlessness and scruples with agitated water whipped by the wind, skeptical doubt with turbid and muddy water. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, good similes. --------------------------------------------- Just as in such water one cannot perceive one's own reflection, so in the presence of these 5 mental hindrances, one cannot clearly discern one's own benefit, nor that of others, nor that of both. As you said ' strong sloth & torpor and restlessness strike me as possibly incompatible' : the agitation of water covered by plenty of moss may be prevented . I wonder whether the cetasika subgrouping (akusala sabbacitta sadharana ) is originated by Dhammasangani (then we may find an explanation there ) or it stems from a commentary .. VisM or others ----------------------------------------------- HCW: I imagine Nina would know for sure. Nina? ---------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121782 From: "azita" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 11:02 am Subject: Re: Pativedha, pariyatti & patipatti gazita2002 hallo Andy, > >A: 'Ultimate reality' - I guess I'm meaning that which is without the perceiver. This may be a wrong-view. Is there anything at all without the perceiver (except everything, with no seperateness)? azita: I agree with Nina here in that knowledge of Abhidhamma is helpful, in that we get a clearer idea of what ultimate reality is. Briefly, ultimate reality consists of citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana. > >To clarify (for my own benefit) - citta is a consciousness (of an object) and cetasika is the perception or knowledge of that object. Right or wrong? > >If the above is correct, then rather than 'develop' then, a citta passes as another arises. Yes? So I should have been thinking in terms of a new citta arising that is of a wiser kind. azita: citta - translated into English as consciousness - arises, experiences an object and then falls away, jst one citta,one object. Only ever one citta at a time, but as it falls away it is a condition for another to arise, as you have mentioned above. However, in abhidhamma terms, its not the citta that becomes wiser, it is the cetasika panna -wisdom- that knows. In fact, there are 52 cetasikas all having their own function and characteristic. For example, attachment -lobha- has the characterisic of sticking' to an object or liking the object. I really recommmend getting into some abhidhamma study while you are doing yr home retreat Andy. It is helpful and it will give you an idea of what some people are writing about here at dsg. cheers, azita #121783 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 2:20 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Try answering my points, thanks." > > Scott: Easy does it, lad. What about this one: > > R: "...The question remains whether what we do in our lives does or does not create conditions for kusala to arise..." > > Scott: 'What we do.' > > You see, Rob, you're so caught up in convention that you don't even think about what it is you are saying. So, no, of course not Rob. 'What we do' does not 'create conditions.' 'We' can't do that. It is the naama that is the condition, not this nebulous and totally misconstrued something you refer to as 'what we do.' > > No, this quaint, childish, Sunday school notion that 'what we do' creates conditions is nothing more than a total belief in the efficacy of Self in the end. You totally advocate, in this ongoing and persistent attempt to convince people that the Self can indeed create conditions for kusala, a staunch Puggalavadin view. > > When you posit that one can *create conditions for kusala* by merely adopting certain postures and making certain wishes, you are positing that it is the Self - atta, satta, puggala, whatever - that is efficacious. The 'Self' doesn't exist, it is a mere convention of speech, but in your concreteness and incapacity to deal with the conventional, you wind up believing in it. > > Look again at the sutta: > > "...'Bhikkhus, form is nonself [Ruupa.m, bhikkhave, anattaa]. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form be not thus.' But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form be not thus.' > "Feeling is nonself [Vedanaa anattaa]...Perception is nonself [Sa~n~naa anattaa]...Volitional formations are nonself [Sa"nkhaaraa > anattaa]...Consciousness is nonself [Vi~n~naa.na.m anattaa]. For if > consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.'..." > > Scott: As a 'meditator' you are, without a doubt, in deciding to sit with the goal of causing this or that to arise, acting as if none of the above is relevant. A meditator decides on a posture, believing in the efficacy of the posture, a meditator decides on the dhamma he or she wants to have arise. As noted in the sutta, 'it is not possible to have it of consciousness [form, feeling, perception, volitional formations] 'Let my consciousness be thus and so...' > > And you, Mr. Puggalavadin, think it is. I rest my case. Great, Scott, enjoy your victory. Meanwhile, you can't address either of my questions, still: Why did the Buddha teach meditation and all the other conventional subjects he addressed in sutta? Why didn't he just teach Abhidhamma? And: can you give me a quote from Buddhist scripture that states that meditation is wrong practice, from *any* legitimate source including commentary and subcommentary. You are neatly avoiding these issues, which you cannot address, and instead making stuff up about what I am, what I know, what I think, or where I am coming from, including calling me various names. Enjoy your wrong view, wrong speech and wrong understanding for as long as it serves you. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121784 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 3:41 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...can you give me a quote..." Scott: Tedious. I've lost interest, Rob. Very disingenuous of you. Scott. #121785 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 6:22 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Really, Scott? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...can you give me a quote..." > > Scott: Tedious. I've lost interest, Rob. Very disingenuous of you. You gave me your usual quote on anatta - no mention of meditation being wrong to do or wrong practice or wrong view - nothing. Why don't you just admit that there is no direct quote from anyone with authority saying that the Buddha did not mean his teaching on meditation to be taken literally, or that the practice of those things which Buddha advocated are not to be literally done. No such statement exists, apparently, in the body of Dhamma teachings. Instead we have both Buddha and Buddhaghosa teaching in detail what steps and techniques in meditation will lead to the development of satipatthana, the enlightenment factors and lead to enlightenment. You can't refute those actual, literal teachings, except through your own logical inferences. There's nothing to back you up, so you fall back on saying that it's "tedious" and that it's "disingenuous." What is disingenous about a straightforward request to show me that someone other than modern local people in a particular group believe that meditation is incorrect practice, that no one in the history of Buddhism, not a single ancient scripture says this, and that you are just flat-out wrong. You can't admit that, so you call names. Good for you! I'll tell you what is disingenuous - saying that you are right just because you say so and that your interpretation is the only interpretation of Dhamma, when the Buddha contradicts you with every other sentence and you don't even have an ancient commentary to back you up, except by inference. That is truly weak. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121786 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 11:43 am Subject: Wicked is Wrong View... bhikkhu5 Friends: How to eliminate & leave behind Wrong View? Once a certain Bhikkhu approached the Blessed One and asked him: Venerable Sir, how should one know & see, for leaving any wrong view, for eliminating any belief in an ego, for overcoming all 'self'-making? Bhikkhu, when one knows and sees any eye, form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, & feeling arised caused by eye-contact as impermanent, when one sees this is not mine, that wrong view, that belief in an ego, that making up of a self, is overcome, eliminated and all abandoned... Bhikkhu, when one knows & sees any ear, sound, ear-consciousness, ear-contact, & any feeling arised caused by ear-contact as transient, when one sees this is not "I", that wrong view, that belief in an ego, that making up of a self, is overcome, eliminated and all abandoned... Bhikkhu, when one knows & sees any nose, smell, nose-consciousness, nose-contact, & any feeling arised caused by nose-contact as temporary, when one sees this is not me, that wrong view, that belief in an ego, that making up of a self, is overcome, eliminated and all abandoned... Bhikkhu, when one knows & sees any tongue, taste, tongue-consciousness, tongue-contact, & feeling arised caused by tongue-contact as short-lived, when one sees this is not mine, that wrong view, that belief in an ego, that making up of a self, is overcome, eliminated and all abandoned... Bhikkhu, when one knows & sees any body, touch, body-consciousness, body-contact, & feeling arised caused by body-contact as ephemeral, when one sees this is not my self, that wrong view, that belief in an ego, that making up of a self, is overcome, eliminated and all abandoned... Bhikkhu, when one knows & sees any mind, thought, mind-consciousness, mental-contact, & feeling arised caused by mind-contact as momentary, when one sees this is not 'my self', that wrong view, that belief in an ego, that making up of a soul, is overcome, eliminated and all abandoned... <...> Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikya. Book IV [147-148] Section 35: On The 6 Senses. The Overcoming of Wrong View!: 165-167. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Wicked is Wrong View... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #121787 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 3, 2012 10:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Hi Howard and Dieter, Op 2-jan-2012, om 21:28 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I wonder whether the cetasika subgrouping (akusala sabbacitta > sadharana > ) is originated by Dhammasangani (then we may find an explanation > there ) > or it stems from a commentary .. VisM or others > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I imagine Nina would know for sure. Nina? ------- N: In the Visuddhimagga we find lists with numbers and uddhacca is connected with every akusala citta: Visuddhimagga Ch. XIV, 166 Intro: Here the Visuddhimagga refers to the seventeen cetasikas included in the khandha of formations that accompany the first type of akusala citta rooted in attachment: 1)accompanied by pleasant feeling, with wrong view, unprompted. As we have seen, these seventeen cetasikas include five universals (cetasikas which accompany every citta), namely, contact, volition, life faculty, concentration and attention. Two universals, feeling and saaa are not the khandha of formations. The six particulars accompany cittas of the four jaatis (kusala, akusala, vipaaka and kiriya), but not every citta. They accompany the first type of akusala citta rooted in attachment. They are: applied thought, sustained thought, rapture (piiti, here translated as happiness), energy, wish-to-do (chanda) and determination. There are four akusala cetasikas that accompany every akusala citta: ignorance, moha, shamelessness (ahirika) recklessness (anottappa) restlessness (uddhacca) Furthermore, the first type of akusala citta rooted in attachment is accompanied by attachment, lobha, and wrong view, di.t.thi. Thus, in this context, seventeen cetasikas included in the khandha of formations are mentioned. ---------- As to the lists in the Dhammasa"ngani, here certain aspects are given, cittas as faculty (leader) and as power. These lists are not exhaustive. Paralel factors included, and this is very meaningful (See Ven. Nyanapomnika, Abh Studies, part IV). Only cittas that are induced, sasa"nkhaarika, can be accompanied by sloth and torpor. And they have to be accompanied by uddhacca. We should not think so much about restlessness or agitation in conventional sense. Uddhacca makes the citta weak. Also sloth and torpor are weakening. The cittas that are sasa"nkhaarika are not as strong as those that are uninduced, spontaneous, asa"nkhaarika. ------ Nina. #121788 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/3/2012 6:05:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: There are four akusala cetasikas that accompany every akusala citta: ignorance, moha, shamelessness (ahirika) recklessness (anottappa) restlessness (uddhacca) Furthermore, the first type of akusala citta rooted in attachment is accompanied by attachment, lobha, and wrong view, di.t.thi. Thus, in this context, seventeen cetasikas included in the khandha of formations are mentioned. ---------- As to the lists in the Dhammasa"ngani, here certain aspects are given, cittas as faculty (leader) and as power. These lists are not exhaustive. Paralel factors included, and this is very meaningful (See Ven. Nyanapomnika, Abh Studies, part IV). Only cittas that are induced, sasa"nkhaarika, can be accompanied by sloth and torpor. And they have to be accompanied by uddhacca. We should not think so much about restlessness or agitation in conventional sense. Uddhacca makes the citta weak. Also sloth and torpor are weakening. The cittas that are sasa"nkhaarika are not as strong as those that are uninduced, spontaneous, asa"nkhaarika. ================================ Thank you for this, Nina. It seems, then, that 'uddhacca' might be better translated in somne way other than "restlessness," particularly if we are to recognize it when it is present. Could you provide some suggestions in that regard? I would appreciate it. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121789 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 2:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Hi Howard, Op 3-jan-2012, om 14:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It seems, then, that 'uddhacca' might be > better translated in somne way other than "restlessness," > particularly if we > are to recognize it when it is present. Could you provide some > suggestions > in that regard? I would appreciate it. ------- N: It is always difficult to find a satisfactory translation. I looked at Survey, appendix: When there is uddhacca there is no sati, no mindfulness, and no attention to the object that is experienced. It is always akusala, thus there is not the calm which accompanies each kusala citta. For example, when there is an opportunity to listen to the Dhamma, such as a Dhamma recording, we may still hear words, but we cannot pay attention to what is said, no calm, we are as it were asleep, we are just dull. Then we suddenly become vigilant and we are really listening and considering what is said, with sati. Perhaps seeing the difference between kusala moments and akusala moments may help? As we read, "distracted with regard to the object that is experienced". It is interesting that the definitions of cetasikas in the Dhsg are all the time referring to the object, to visible object, sound, etc. All these objects are mentioned again and again in the case of each cetasika. This reminds us that all these definitions refer to daily life, that they are not abstract notions. Citta experiences an object, but in what way? The different accompanying cetasikas also experience that object but each in their own way. Moha is ignorant of the object, and uddhacca is distracted, no attention to the object, no interest. ------- Nina. #121790 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project uddhacca moellerdieter Hi Howard and Nina, a bit of additional information ... Ven. Nyanatiloka comments: "According to the Abhidhammatthasaògaha, the four evil phenomena present in every unwholesome consciousness,are:— delusion, lack of moral shame, lack of moral dread, restlessness (moha, ahirika, anottappa, uddhacca). Conceit (mána) may be present only in greedy consciousness uncombined with wrong views; envy and worry (issá, kukkucca), only in hateful consciousness. http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Guide-through-the-Abhidhamma-Pitaka.\ pdf which indicates that the statment : uddhacca is 'present in every unwholesome consciousness' may be orginated by the Abhidhammatthasangaha, i.e.commentarial not canonical ( ?) B.T.W. Ven. Nyanaponika translates uddhacca by 'agitation' and below we find 'distraction '.. As " Abhidhamma literature is a rich source of exact terminology .. " , I.M.H.O., we should therefore be careful to assume a broad meaning of terms , but try to find sources which explain supposed contradictions. Otherwise our aim to see a practical approach for the cetasikas in daily life would be rather difficult to be realized. The explanation of 'restlessness' given by the simíles of the 5 hindrances , requires that we try to find an answer of a seemingly contradiction,i.e. why the agitation of water due to wind may be not prevented , when it is covered by plenty of moss ..(sloth and torpor ) with Metta Dieter 　 An Analysis of the Abhidhammatthasaògaha http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/An-Analysis-of-the-Abhidhammatthasao\ gaha.pdf This is a transcription of a series of lectures given by an unknown author. The transcription was found in the library of Chanmay Meditation Centre in Burma by Manfred Wierich of Germany,who digitalized them.What is presented here only covers the first chapter of the Abhidhammatthasaògaha DISTRACTION 163. The nature of distraction varies somewhat from doubt, for although in both instances there is difficulty in observing clearly, or arriving at a decision regarding the object of sense or mind, the basic reasons for their arising are different. When doubt is associated with dullness and delusion, it can be said that the reason for the inability to make a firm decision is due to there seeming to be such a multiplicity of ways of viewing the object or problem that it becomes virtually impossible to choose between them, and thereby be able to "plunge in" and achieve a decision. Thus, for example, if a teacher should make a perfectly correct statement concerning a certain proposition, a pupil listening might say to himself, "What if this is not the answer at all, but is just one of many other theories such as I have also heard mentioned?" Because of his basic dullness and delusion he is not able to penetrate to the truth, but is overwhelmed by his multiplicity of views. Consequently there is nothing gained and it can be said that doubt is present both with regard to the solution of the problem and in the pupil's attitude to the teacher. 164. On the other hand, the Piþaka definition of DISTRACTION (uddhacca),62 says that it is, "Distraction of consciousness, disquietude, mental wavering and turmoil of consciousness." Of these definitions, disquietude and turmoil of consciousness are perhaps the most revealing, for they indicate that there is no mental calmness enabling the mind to consider the object clearly and consecutively. Turmoil means that the mind is whirling and tumbling about, or as the Commentary says,63 "Reeling and swaying like an ox (and cart)." Under such conditions it 61 See The Book of Analysis, par. 289; also Buddhist Psychological Ethics, par. 425. 62 Book of Analysis, par. 291; Buddhist Psychological Ethics, par. 429. 63 Exp. p. 346. cannot then be said that decision is impossible because of a multiplicity of apparent solutions, but that because of turmoil alone it is not easy to grasp properly the single object which the mind is trying to engage. It is for this reason that the Commentary, in comparing distraction with doubt says, "Distraction wavers as to one object, doubt as to manifold objects." 165. Regarding the four denotations of distraction, Visuddhimagga says64 the General Characteristic is "disquietude, like water whipped by the wind;" the inherent functional property "unsteadiness, like a flag or banner whipped by the wind;" Resultant Appearance being "turmoil, like ashes flung up when pelted with stones;" and the Concurrent Footing "unwise attention to mental disquiet." 166. As a further comparison between doubt and distraction it is again useful to turn to the Commentary65 where it says, "On being asked, 'How many kinds of consciousness roll off an object?’ these two should be stated: that accompanied by DOUBT (vicikicchá) invariably rolls off the object, that accompanied by DISTRACTION (uddhacca) having from the acquirement of determination obtained a footing, then rolls off. Just as though two stones, one round and one with four sides were to roll down an incline. The round stone (doubt) would invariably roll straight down, the one with four sides (distraction) would tumble stage by stage. Thus should the example be understood." #121791 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 3:25 am Subject: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "You gave me your usual quote on anatta..." Scott: See you later, man. Here's a pattern, Rob, just for interest sake. It's why the 'give me a quote' game with you is pointless: Message #114980: J: "...Textual basis for the idea that `one develops initial insight within the setting of the conventional world'?" R: "I'll have to look around. Anyway, I've given you one sutta above, so you owe me a commentary. :-)..." Message #116264: J: "And I think if we look at, for example, the Satipatthana Sutta, it seems inconsistent with such an interpretation. Taking the first 2 parts of the section on contemplation of the body: (i). Mindfulness of Breathing "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place..." R: "Oh my God Jon. You have to really be sure of your view to use the exact description of sitting meditation as evidence that sitting meditation is not part of the teaching. Wow!..." Message #118276: J: "...Secondly, there are often some clues in the wording of the sutta. In the case of the section in the Satipatthana Sutta on mindfulness of breathing, these are found in the introductory words: "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him..." R: "From the versions I have seen [6 or 7+] this is an unusual translation. Because the meaning of this sentence is of pivotal importance, I think it would be a good idea to look at a few translations and also seem what commentaries have said about it. Thai monks and Visudhimagga followers have disagreed on interpretations of key aspects of the text, including the meaning of this key sentence, and so it is far from settled..." Message #118758: J: "What is described is the succession from one jhana to the next. The connotation of 'working through' is your own gloss, I think. What particular words in the passage convey to you that particular connotation?..." R: "...It looks like you have snipped out the part of the post where I quoted the sutta. I don't have it handy, and it was a while ago, so it is hard for me to reference it directly right now. But the Buddha praises each phase and talks about the benefits therefrom, and describes the 4th jhana as the fulfillment of equanimity and satipatthana. That's a clue, I think, that there is more going on in the jhanas the way Buddha teaches them, than mere jhana-citta, but that they are being used to develop insight, as described in the suttas as well..." Message #118900 R: "...Why I argue about sutta quotes is that I go by what they say, subject to valid explanations that don't go in the opposite direction from the sutta. If you offered a direct quote from the Buddha saying what you say, I would not be able to argue with that. I'd have to incorporate, explain or accept it. I think the above is the only basis for saying 'this is the Buddha's teaching,' rather than one's own preferred path..." Scott: The bottome line, as summed up in the above, is that you 'go by what they say,' which as anyone else knows, is your own interpretation. Scott. #121792 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 5:08 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "You gave me your usual quote on anatta..." > > Scott: See you later, man. Here's a pattern, Rob, just for interest sake. It's why the 'give me a quote' game with you is pointless: > > Message #114980: J: "...Textual basis for the idea that `one develops initial insight within the setting of the conventional world'?" > R: "I'll have to look around. Anyway, I've given you one sutta above, so you owe me a commentary. :-)..." > > Message #116264: J: "And I think if we look at, for example, the Satipatthana Sutta, it seems inconsistent with such an interpretation. Taking the first 2 parts of the section on contemplation of the body: (i). Mindfulness of Breathing "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place..." > R: "Oh my God Jon. You have to really be sure of your view to use the exact description of sitting meditation as evidence that sitting meditation is not part of the teaching. Wow!..." > > Message #118276: J: "...Secondly, there are often some clues in the wording of the sutta. In the case of the section in the Satipatthana Sutta on mindfulness of breathing, these are found in the introductory words: "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him..." > R: "From the versions I have seen [6 or 7+] this is an unusual translation. Because the meaning of this sentence is of pivotal importance, I think it would be a good idea to look at a few translations and also seem what commentaries have said about it. Thai monks and Visudhimagga followers have disagreed on interpretations of key aspects of the text, including the meaning of this key > sentence, and so it is far from settled..." > > Message #118758: J: "What is described is the succession from one jhana to the next. The connotation of 'working through' is your own gloss, I think. What particular words in the passage convey to you that particular connotation?..." > R: "...It looks like you have snipped out the part of the post where I quoted the sutta. I don't have it handy, and it was a while ago, so it is hard for me to reference it directly right now. But the Buddha praises each phase and talks about the benefits therefrom, and describes the 4th jhana as the fulfillment of equanimity and satipatthana. That's a clue, I think, that there is more going > on in the jhanas the way Buddha teaches them, than mere jhana-citta, but that they are being used to develop insight, as described in the suttas as well..." > > Message #118900 R: "...Why I argue about sutta quotes is that I go by what they say, subject to valid explanations that don't go in the opposite direction from the sutta. If you offered a direct quote from the Buddha saying what you say, I would not be able to argue with that. I'd have to incorporate, explain or accept it. I think the above is the only basis for saying 'this is the Buddha's teaching,' rather than one's own preferred path..." > > Scott: The bottome line, as summed up in the above, is that you 'go by what they say,' which as anyone else knows, is your own interpretation. This selection of quotes has no content per se. It is a succession of cherry-picked posts where the sutta quote was not readily available, or which dealt with the first part of the anapansati or satipatthana sutta about sitting at the root of a tree. It has nothing to do with what I asked you about at all. And there's no pattern there except your pattern of cherry-picking the least substantive parts of my and Jon's discussion to create a straw man. My questions remain: How do you explain the fact that the Buddha taught conventionally his entire career and did not teach Abhidhamma? And what is the scriptural authority for you to say not to take the suttas literally? You can squirm, you can cherry-pick meaningless segments of other people's conversations, you can dissemble, you can say 'it's true because I say so,' but you can't answer those questions, and so you haven't got a leg to stand on in saying not to take the Buddha literally, and that meditation is wrong practice. It is your own inference, not Dhamma, that Buddha only spoke conventionally and should not be taken literally, and that meditation is wrong practice. Bye bye, and a pleasure to end this conversation. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #121793 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 6:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - Thank you for the following. It seems from what you say that uddhacca is inattention. Would that be a good rendering in your opinion? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) In a message dated 1/3/2012 10:22:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 3-jan-2012, om 14:16 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It seems, then, that 'uddhacca' might be > better translated in somne way other than "restlessness," > particularly if we > are to recognize it when it is present. Could you provide some > suggestions > in that regard? I would appreciate it. ------- N: It is always difficult to find a satisfactory translation. I looked at Survey, appendix: When there is uddhacca there is no sati, no mindfulness, and no attention to the object that is experienced. It is always akusala, thus there is not the calm which accompanies each kusala citta. For example, when there is an opportunity to listen to the Dhamma, such as a Dhamma recording, we may still hear words, but we cannot pay attention to what is said, no calm, we are as it were asleep, we are just dull. Then we suddenly become vigilant and we are really listening and considering what is said, with sati. Perhaps seeing the difference between kusala moments and akusala moments may help? As we read, "distracted with regard to the object that is experienced". It is interesting that the definitions of cetasikas in the Dhsg are all the time referring to the object, to visible object, sound, etc. All these objects are mentioned again and again in the case of each cetasika. This reminds us that all these definitions refer to daily life, that they are not abstract notions. Citta experiences an object, but in what way? The different accompanying cetasikas also experience that object but each in their own way. Moha is ignorant of the object, and uddhacca is distracted, no attention to the object, no interest. ------- Nina. #121794 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 8:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina (and Howard), you wrote: As we read, "distracted with regard to the object that is experienced". It is interesting that the definitions of cetasikas in the Dhsg are all the time referring to the object, to visible object, sound, etc. All these objects are mentioned again and again in the case of each cetasika. This reminds us that all these definitions refer to daily life, that they are not abstract notions. D: that is a good reminder, Nina. The object is always within the scope of the All. Please compare : SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All Translated by John D. Ireland "Bhikkhus, I will teach you the All. [69] Listen, attend carefully to it and I will speak. "Now what, bhikkhus, is the All? It is just the eye and visible objects, the ear and sounds, the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes, the body and tangible objects, the mind and objects of mind.[70] This, bhikkhus, is called the All. "Now whoever should speak thus: 'Setting aside this All I will proclaim another All,' it would be mere talk on his part and on being questioned he would be unable to proceed and in addition, vexation will befall him. For what reason? It would not be within his scope, bhikkhus. It is interesting to note that the synonym German word for the universe (or multiverse) is (Welt-/World-) All , no correspondence in English for the noun, although the adjective 'all' , German : 'alles ', is (nearly) identcal. . (Dutch?) So it is refered to A(a)ll (6 senses media) objects , the world we are - more or less -conscious of... N: Citta experiences an object, but in what way? The different accompanying cetasikas also experience that object but each in their own way. Moha is ignorant of the object, and uddhacca is distracted, no attention to the object, no interest. D: to use the niravana simile : the hindrances are disturbances of the water (citta) , so that we are not able to see the ground (panna). Uddhacca as defilement is the wind agitating the water . Moss in the water (sloth and topor ) counters this defilement. But , and that may be a solution to Howards question and my doubt : the power of the wind will have at least a minimum of effect to the water , turned slothfully by the moss, i.e. the terms must be understood broadly in a sense of a minimum up to a maximum of intensity ( however not in respect to its meanings /characteristics , which would question the Abh. claim of exactitude). So using the Beaufort Scale for the wind force from 1-12 , uddhacca is always present in unwholesome mental states, at least with an intensity of 1. ;-) with Metta Dieter #121795 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 1:57 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. kenhowardau Hi Robert E (Scott, Phil and Sarah), -------- > RE: How do you explain the fact that the Buddha taught conventionally his entire career --------- KH: Have a look at the Three Jokes thread (especially message 121697) in which Phil and Sarah are talking about conventional language. I think Sarah was telling Phil to take the training wheels off his Dhamma bike. When both parties to a Dhamma discussion know there are only the presently arisen realities, it is perfectly safe for them to use conventional language. Even more so, it was safe for the Buddha to use conventional language when he chose to. ------------ > RE: and did not teach Abhidhamma? ------------ KH: I think we all know the Buddha did teach Abhidhamma! Sometimes he used Abhidhamma language and other times conventional language, but when we listen properly to a sutta - any sutta - it's *all* Abhidhamma. Ken H #121796 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 2:04 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sukinderpal Hello Rob E (and Scott), I've read only two or three posts of your conversation and since Alex hasn't responded to my last post as yet, and because I feel like writing something, hope you don't mind that I butt in here. Rob E wrote: How do you explain the fact that the Buddha taught conventionally his entire career and did not teach Abhidhamma? Sukin: I of course can only speculate based on my own understanding about the Dhamma in general. But let me know whether it makes sense or not. The Abhidhamma as the particular exposition i.e. the Seven Books and the commentaries comes after the fact that it is the same Dhamma as in the Suttas and the Vinaya. Everything that is taught in the latter two baskets is covered in the former, only much more precisely. Where in the Suttas the Khandhas, Ayatanas, Dhatus and the Paticcasamuppada are taught, this is expressed no differently in the Abhidhamma. From this perspective, the Buddha did in fact teach the Abhidhamma during his entire career! For those with weak understanding, the Abhidhamma as in the particular exposition allows for the reality / concept distinction to be made more easily. The Suttas where the teachings are conventional requires a more firm understanding on the part of the listener so as not to end up taking concepts for reality. Those who were taught directly by the Buddha were mostly, if not all of them, with much accumulated wisdom. Many of them already were aware of what constituted wrong view and wrong teachings as taught by other teachers. The Buddha therefore had no reason to lay out the details of the Abhidhamma to these people; indeed even we do not have to refer to the Abhidhamma each time that we make a Dhamma point, do we? ======= Rob E: And what is the scriptural authority for you to say not to take the suttas literally? Sukin: This is not reasonable is it? If the Buddha taught the way he did and this bore fruit, why would he need to add a remark regarding how this should be interpreted? Besides the Buddha did know the accumulations of the particular audience did he not? But of course he did in fact state in some places, after referring to concepts such as birth, sickness and death and how these are impermanent etc. that ultimately it is the Five Khandhas which is being referred to, did he not? Moreover not taking the different conventional referents `literally' is not saying that they are not true. Of course we can make a completely valid statement about impermanence and suffering by referring to the conventional idea of beings experiencing birth, old age, sickness and death. This validity however is determined not by the reference points, but the understanding behind them. For some of us the decay of a dead body for example, points to the fact of the fleeting nature of rupa. You on the other hand, have suggested that even without referring to rupa, there can be development of understanding about impermanence and so on. And this is where we disagree and I see yours as being wrong understanding at the level of both pariyatti as well as patipatti. And since you insist that conventional objects can be studied as part of the development of wisdom, I have a question for you. What according to you is different and what is similar in this, to the development of wisdom by way of studying the nature of ultimate realities? ========= Rob E: It is your own inference, not Dhamma, that Buddha only spoke conventionally and should not be taken literally, and that meditation is wrong practice. Sukin: Given that much has been said about the nature of ultimate realities, and interpretations of the Suttas have been made to be consistent with this, from which rejecting the idea of meditation has come, could you do similarly with regard to your own position? In other words, could you provide a basis for believing that the Buddha taught meditation other than referring to the particular Suttas where the Buddha described the different stages of Jhana and the fact of his monks sitting under the foot of a tree? Thanks in advance. Metta, Sukin [I see that Ken H has responded and said the same thing in just a few words. But I spent much time on this and therefore don't feel like throwing it away.] #121797 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 9:10 am Subject: Alleviating Anger! bhikkhu5 Friends: Anger, Irritation, and Stubborn Contrariety! Evil and ill-will is the mental hindrance, which is resisting against and opposing phenomena. It can be quite violent when manifesting as quarrels, conflict, hate, hostility and war. Aversion instantly destroys all harmony and peace and thus any potential for happiness. It can only be cured by meditation on the four infinitely divine states (Brahma-viharas ). First priority: Noticing evil Ill-Will arise -in itself- makes it fade away: The Buddha said: When ill-will is present in him then he understands: "There is ill-will in me now" and when ill-will is absent, he also notices: "There is no ill-will in me now". He understands how unarisen ill-will arises. He understands how to leave behind any arisen ill-will, and he understands how left ill-will will not ever arise again in the future. MN 10 What is the feeding cause that makes ill-will arise? There are displeasing and repulsive features and aspects of any object, frequently giving irrational & unwise attention to them, this is the feeding cause of the arising of unarisen ill-will, and the feeding cause of the very increase and expansion of ill-will that already has arisen. SN 46:51 The 3 paranoid thoughts that induces resentment: 1: He or she has done, is doing or will in the future do me some wrong! 2: He or she has done, is doing or will do those I like some wrong! 3: He or she has done, is doing or will do those I dislike some good! What is the starving cause that makes ill-will cease? There is the release of mind through Universal Good-Will and Friendliness, frequently giving rational and wise attention to this is the starving cause of the non-arising of unarisen ill-will, and the starving cause of decrease and shrinking of ill-will that already has arisen. SN 46:51 <...> Meditation on imperturbable equanimity can make anger & aversion cease. MN 62 Some advantageous reflections to return to: Remember the Simile of the Saw... The Blessed Buddha once said: Friends, even if bandits were to cut you up, savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, you should not be angry with them but do my bidding: Remain pervading them with a friendly mentality imbued only with an all embracing good will, kind, rich, expansive, and immeasurable. Free from hostility, free from ill will. Always remembering this Simile of the Saw is indeed how you should train yourselves... MN 21 Being OWNER of ANGER is Pain: Know that everyone is the owner of the consequences of all their actions (Kamma ), whether good or bad... The 11 advantages won by cultivating Universal Friendliness (Mett ): 1: One sleeps happy! 2: One wakes happy! 3: One dreams no evil dreams! 4: One is liked and loved by all human beings! 5: One is liked and loved by all non-human beings too! 6: One is guarded and protected by the divine devas! 7: One cannot be harmed by fire, poison or weapons! 8: One swiftly attains the concentration of absorption! 9: Ones appearance becomes serene, calm and composed! 10: One dies without confusion, bewilderment or panic! 11: One reappears after death on the Brahma level if gone no higher! AN V 342 <...> Alleviating Anger! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #121798 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 5:50 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E (Scott, Phil and Sarah), > > -------- > > RE: How do you explain the fact that the Buddha taught conventionally his entire career > --------- > > KH: Have a look at the Three Jokes thread (especially message 121697) in which Phil and Sarah are talking about conventional language. I think Sarah was telling Phil to take the training wheels off his Dhamma bike. When both parties to a Dhamma discussion know there are only the presently arisen realities, it is perfectly safe for them to use conventional language. > > Even more so, it was safe for the Buddha to use conventional language when he chose to. That does not answer the question - why would he choose to? What does it accomplish other than sow the seeds of possible confusion? Are you saying it was a whim, that he just felt like it? Clearly, if specifics of how dhammas arise was his real topic, it would have been much more direct and clear to speak in paramatha terms. Again, to say he "could" do it or that it was "safe" to do so is beside the point. > ------------ > > RE: and did not teach Abhidhamma? > ------------ > > KH: I think we all know the Buddha did teach Abhidhamma! Sometimes he used Abhidhamma language and other times conventional language, but when we listen properly to a sutta - any sutta - it's *all* Abhidhamma. Well, there are many many suttas in which the Buddha is explicitly talking about worldly activity and choices - such as not drinking alcohol, not killing animals, right speech, accumulation of merit through kusala action, and the many references to sitting meditation techniques - "he sits by the root of a tree...breathing in, he knows that he is breathing in a long breath...he breathes in, calming the bodily fabrication...etc." If those conventional pronouncements and discussion are not meant to be taken literally, what is the purpose of speaking that way, and what is the reason for speaking of that which does not exist and has no place on the path? A sensible answer, please. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #121799 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jan 4, 2012 7:02 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > Well, there are many many suttas in which the Buddha is explicitly talking about worldly activity and choices - such as not drinking alcohol, A sensible answer, please. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - Hi Rob How about someone is told by their revered teacher to satd on one leg all day for as long as they can (seriously their are people in india who do this) and they avoid alcohol and killing etc. There s no kusala however as that is all done with lobha assocaited wityh wrong view. The Abhidhamma lets us see what is really underlying actions Robert