#123600 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear pt, Op 6-apr-2012, om 15:08 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > pt: At work sometimes I see mentally disturbed people trying and > apparently succeeding in killing a being that only they believe is > real. So, there's the thinking-of-a-being, intention to kill, > there's attempting to kill, and finally believing that the killing > has occurred, even though to me and other "normal" people it seems > no "real" being has been killed. So then, would this classify as > kamma patha anyway? ----- N: it is not a completed kamma patha. One of the the requirements for this is: the actual occurrance of death. ----- Nina. #123601 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts nilovg Dear Prasad, Op 4-apr-2012, om 13:42 heeft Prasad Praturi het volgende geschreven: > . Suppose we stop all other 5 sense doors othe than mind... always > thoughts appear at mind door. I am assuming chitta moment (nama) > and ordinary thought moment (is like Rupa) are distinct. is this > corect understanding? > ------- N: Ruupa is the dhamma that does not know anything, it is completely different from naama that experiences. But I know what you mean, you are distinguishing experiences through the sensedoors and experiences through the mind-door. Perhaps we have to talk more on the subject of citta. In our life there are three paramattha dhammas: citta, cetasika (mental factor accompanying citta such as feeling, attachment, generosity) and ruupa. I do not speak about nibbaana now. This is the fourth paramattha dhamma, the unconditioned element. Citta and cetasika are naama, they experience an object, and ruupa does not know anything. Ruupa can be object of citta, such as colour or sound, or it can be the doorway through which citta experiences an object: the eye-door, eardoor, and the other sense-doors. At this moment sound may appear and this shows that there is citta experiencing sound. Or when eating, flavour may appear, and this shows that there is citta experiencing flavour. If there were no citta nothing in this world could appear. Citta always experiences an object and it does so for an extremely short moment, no matter whether citta arises in a sense-door process and experiences sense objects, or whether it arises in a mind-door process and experiences different objects through the mind-door. I would not call experiences through the sense-doors ordinary thoughts. All cittas are naama, different from ruupa. All cittas experience an object, just for a moment. ------ > P: Thought moment arises on the base of hadayavatthu... > ------ N: We live in the plane of the five khandhas, the plane of naama and ruupa. Each citta must have a physical base, a place where it arises. The sense-cognitions of seeing, hearing etc. arise at the sense bases of eye, ear, etc. But all other cittas of that process arise at the ruupa called the heartbase. Thus, also cittas in sense-door processes other than the sense-cognitions of seeing etc. arise at the heart- base. For example, in the eye-door process seeing is preceded by the eye-door adverting-consciousness and this arises at the heartbase. Seeing itself arises at the eye-base, but it is followed by other cittas, receving-consciousness tec. that arise at the heartbase. -------- > P: To raise this thought moment some trigger should happen. what is > it? Previous kamma? Most of our thoughts have relationship to > previous memory experiences.... > ------ N: You are wondering about the conditions for this or that thought. It depends what type of citta is thinking. Mostly akusala cittas are thinking. We like pleasant objects and dislike unpleasant objects. The latent tendencies of defilements condition such moments. They have been accumulated in each citta and go on from citta to citta. ------- > P: Is this memory experiences are stored in brain as rupa??? > ------ N: It has nothing to do with ruupa, accumulated defilements are naama. They have nothing to do with the brain. ------- > P: So this pervious experience function as a trigger?? Only when > thought moment is 17 chitta moment length ( like rupa moment length > of 17 to register) then this thought moment regsiters and > subsequent chitta moment trains continue many million times... so > one knows that there is a continuous thought is playing on mind? > who is cause to who? Chitta moments creating thought moments? Or > Thought moments are creating chitta moments? > ------ N: Citta moments or thought moments are just cittas arising and falling away. ------ > P: Are (1) Chitta train is creating the thoughts (by current > volition) one thought moment after the other to create a consistant > thought or (2) Thoughts independently occuring at base of > hadayavattu as a result of previous kamma volitions? ( so vipaka > chittas are raising) > ------ N: Perhaps the word thoughts may create confusion. It helps to consider citta that experiences an object. Citta can be of four jaatis or classes: akusala, kusala, vipaaka (result of kamma) and kiriya, neither cause nor result. In a sense-door process there are kiriyacittas, vipaakacittas (like seeing or hearing), and then followed by the javanacittas that are either kusala or akusala. We do not need to think now of the heartbase, that complicates matters. Seeing is result of previous kamma. Vipaakacittas are the passive side of life. Kusala cittas and akusala cittas are the active side of life. We cannot find out why we react with generosity or with attachment. We only know in general that such qualities are conditioned by former moments of generosity or attachment. We do not remember these and do not need to remember these, they may stem from former lives, long, long ago. What is important to understand: whatever arises does so because of conditions and it is anattaa. Also the fact that we are thinking in this way or that way at a given moment is conditioned, it is anattaa. We cannot trace back what happened in the past and this is not necessary for the understanding of anattaa. ----- Nina. #123602 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 1:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, pt - In a message dated 4/6/2012 9:08:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Howard, Jon, Robs, > RE: Does not the concept of murder and the concept > of a being give rise to the kamma patha in question? > ================================== > H: What it shows is that a certain sort of process of thinking is > requisite. > There can be no murder if there is no intention-to-kill-a-being, and > such an intention cannot arise if there is no thinking-of-a-being. > Thinking is a kind of mental operation that is not merely imagined, and > thinking-of-beings doesn't require that there actually be such entities, although > there are, of course, complexes of interrelated namas and rupas that we > identify as such. pt: At work sometimes I see mentally disturbed people trying and apparently succeeding in killing a being that only they believe is real. So, there's the thinking-of-a-being, intention to kill, there's attempting to kill, and finally believing that the killing has occurred, even though to me and other "normal" people it seems no "real" being has been killed. So then, would this classify as kamma patha anyway? -------------------------------------------------------- I would suppose so, but of a lesser sort. It strikes me as similar to killing a person in a dream: The intention is there - already bad kamma, and there is a limited acting (mental only) upon that intention - a compounding of the akusala, but there is not the fully conscious execution of murder that involves another stream of consciousness. Imagine the further scenario: A person kills someone in a dream, and moreover, sleep-walking, he actually strikes a deadly blow to a living being. I would imagine that this constitutes even stronger kamma, yet still is less than fully conscious murder. (My guess is that, if the fact of sleep-walking were provable, a court would be lenient.) --------------------------------------------------------- Best wishes, pt ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123603 From: Alex Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 1:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts norbert_jaka... Hi Prasad, Nina and All, Thank you Prasad for asking these questions and thank you Nina for answering them. It clarifies a lot for me also.. Keep on asking, i'll be surfing along Metta and repect, Norbert 2012/4/6 Nina van Gorkom > ** > > > Dear Prasad, > Op 4-apr-2012, om 13:42 heeft Prasad Praturi het volgende geschreven: > > > . Suppose we stop all other 5 sense doors othe than mind... always > > thoughts appear at mind door. I am assuming chitta moment (nama) > > and ordinary thought moment (is like Rupa) are distinct. is this > > corect understanding? > > > ------- > N: Ruupa is the dhamma that does not know anything, it is completely > different from naama that experiences. But I know what you mean, you > are distinguishing experiences through the sensedoors and experiences > through the mind-door. Perhaps we have to talk more on the subject of > citta. > In our life there are three paramattha dhammas: citta, cetasika > (mental factor accompanying citta such as feeling, attachment, > generosity) and ruupa. I do not speak about nibbaana now. This is the > fourth paramattha dhamma, the unconditioned element. > > Citta and cetasika are naama, they experience an object, and ruupa > does not know anything. Ruupa can be object of citta, such as colour > or sound, or it can be the doorway through which citta experiences an > object: the eye-door, eardoor, and the other sense-doors. > At this moment sound may appear and this shows that there is citta > experiencing sound. Or when eating, flavour may appear, and this > shows that there is citta experiencing flavour. If there were no > citta nothing in this world could appear. > Citta always experiences an object and it does so for an extremely > short moment, no matter whether citta arises in a sense-door process > and experiences sense objects, or whether it arises in a mind-door > process and experiences different objects through the mind-door. I > would not call experiences through the sense-doors ordinary thoughts. > All cittas are naama, different from ruupa. All cittas experience an > object, just for a moment. > ------ > > > P: Thought moment arises on the base of hadayavatthu... > > > ------ > N: We live in the plane of the five khandhas, the plane of naama and > ruupa. Each citta must have a physical base, a place where it arises. > The sense-cognitions of seeing, hearing etc. arise at the sense bases > of eye, ear, etc. But all other cittas of that process arise at the > ruupa called the heartbase. Thus, also cittas in sense-door processes > other than the sense-cognitions of seeing etc. arise at the heart- > base. For example, in the eye-door process seeing is preceded by the > eye-door adverting-consciousness and this arises at the heartbase. > Seeing itself arises at the eye-base, but it is followed by other > cittas, receving-consciousness tec. that arise at the heartbase. > -------- > > P: To raise this thought moment some trigger should happen. what is > > it? Previous kamma? Most of our thoughts have relationship to > > previous memory experiences.... > > > ------ > N: You are wondering about the conditions for this or that thought. > It depends what type of citta is thinking. Mostly akusala cittas are > thinking. We like pleasant objects and dislike unpleasant objects. > The latent tendencies of defilements condition such moments. They > have been accumulated in each citta and go on from citta to citta. > ------- > > P: Is this memory experiences are stored in brain as rupa??? > > > ------ > N: It has nothing to do with ruupa, accumulated defilements are > naama. They have nothing to do with the brain. > ------- > > P: So this pervious experience function as a trigger?? Only when > > thought moment is 17 chitta moment length ( like rupa moment length > > of 17 to register) then this thought moment regsiters and > > subsequent chitta moment trains continue many million times... so > > one knows that there is a continuous thought is playing on mind? > > who is cause to who? Chitta moments creating thought moments? Or > > Thought moments are creating chitta moments? > > > ------ > N: Citta moments or thought moments are just cittas arising and > falling away. > ------ > > P: Are (1) Chitta train is creating the thoughts (by current > > volition) one thought moment after the other to create a consistant > > thought or (2) Thoughts independently occuring at base of > > hadayavattu as a result of previous kamma volitions? ( so vipaka > > chittas are raising) > > > ------ > N: Perhaps the word thoughts may create confusion. It helps to > consider citta that experiences an object. Citta can be of four > jaatis or classes: akusala, kusala, vipaaka (result of kamma) and > kiriya, neither cause nor result. In a sense-door process there are > kiriyacittas, vipaakacittas (like seeing or hearing), and then > followed by the javanacittas that are either kusala or akusala. We do > not need to think now of the heartbase, that complicates matters. > Seeing is result of previous kamma. Vipaakacittas are the passive > side of life. Kusala cittas and akusala cittas are the active side of > life. We cannot find out why we react with generosity or with > attachment. We only know in general that such qualities are > conditioned by former moments of generosity or attachment. We do not > remember these and do not need to remember these, they may stem from > former lives, long, long ago. > What is important to understand: whatever arises does so because of > conditions and it is anattaa. Also the fact that we are thinking in > this way or that way at a given moment is conditioned, it is anattaa. > We cannot trace back what happened in the past and this is not > necessary for the understanding of anattaa. > ----- > Nina. > > > -- Met liefdevolle vriendelijkheid en respect. With lovingkindness and respect. Norbert Jakaoemo #123604 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 2:48 am Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Hi KenH, you wrote: (D The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it?>>> >> KH: No, the Dhamma is all about getting to the final shore. Nibbana and raft-abandonment come after that. > D: your No comes even when there is no disagreement , is it?) -------- KH: There is a clear disagreement. You say the Buddha's teaching is "all about" leaving the teaching behind. I disagree. I say there are other things that the teaching might be called "all about" but I can't see how that could be one of them. KH:I would have thought the former: it lives happily ever after in Nibbana - "free to go where it pleases" to use Thanissaro's words. So what is the correct answer? D:the correct answer is in the text D: you recognize 'go wherever I like', do you ? Of course the I is a matter of speech only . --------------------------- KH: Yes, it is part of the simile. After reaching the shore a sensible man abandons the raft that got him there. Similarly, after Parinibbana, there is no more knowledge of the way things are (or of anything). Why is the point about 'leaving the raft' so central to your understanding? D: due to your opposition I didn't say: ' the Buddha's teaching is "all about" leaving the teaching behind' .....but : ...."reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it?" Which I think you could have easily understood that way .... ------------------- >> KH:Just to reiterate: I see the Dhamma as a description of the presently arisen realities. You (I think) see the Dhamma as a set of instructions to be followed. >> > D: if you see the description of the present arisen realities connected with the necessary contemplation of what is meant we may come closer -------------------- KH: Good. I certainly do see it that way. I see every part of the Dhamma as a description of the presently arisen dhammas. And so I see "the necessary contemplation" as just dhammas (most notably panna) arising by conditions to perform their functions of rightly understanding Dhamma theory. "Necessary contemplation" is just a moment of conditioned dhammas – just like now. ----------------------------------- D: Where we both seem indeed to differ is 'making an effort with my hands & feet' --------------------------------------- KH: Yes we do. In the Dhamma there are no hands or feet; the work of crossing over is done by conditioned dhammas. D: besides that I think you neglect the point of volition (D.O.) , how about akiriyaditthi? (see below) sacca-ñāṇa: 'knowledge of the truth' (s. prec.), may be of 2 kinds: (1) knowledge consisting in understanding (anubodha-ñāṇa) and (2) knowledge consisting in penetration (paṭivedha-ñāṇa), i.e. realization. Cf. pariyatti ."Amongst these, (1) 'knowledge consisting in understanding' is mundane (lokiya, q.v.), and its arising with regard to the extinction of suffering, and to the path, is due to hearsay etc. (therefore not due to one's realization of the supermundane path; s. ariya-puggala) (2) 'Knowledge consisting in penetration', however, is supermundane (lokuttara), with the extinction of suffering (= Nibbāna) as object, it penetrates with its functions the 4 truths (in one and the same moment), as it is said (S. LVI, 30): whosoever, o monks, understands suffering, he also understands the origin of suffering, the extinction of suffering, and the path leading to the extinction of suffering' " (Vis.M. XVI, 84). See visuddhi (end of article). "Of the mundane kinds of knowledge, however, the knowledge of suffering by which (various) prejudices are overcome, dispels the personality-belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi, s. diṭṭhi). The knowledge of the origin of suffering dispels the annihilation-view (uccheda-diṭṭhi, s. diṭṭhi); the knowledge of extinction of suffering, the eternity-view (sassata-diṭṭhi, s. diṭṭhi); the knowledge of the path, the view of inefficacy of action (akiriyadiṭṭhi, s. diṭṭhi)" (Vis.M. XVI, 85). (Nyanatiloka Buddh.Dict.) <. . .> > D: again Ken, please quote (stated perfectly clearly that (in his opinion) there is a self ) ---------------------------------- KH: This has developed into a battle of wills. You keep saying "Show me the quotes," and I keep saying, "I have already shown you the quotes, why don't you read them?" Have you read the infamous "The Not-self Strategy by Thanissaro Bhikkhu"? Or "No-self or Not-self? by Thanissaro Bhikkhu"? (Just to name two of his many writings on anatta .) The latter essay begins with: "One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all." KH: So Dieter, you tell me: does the idea of there being no self fit well with other Buddhist teachings? Or does it not fit well with them? If there is no eternal soul or self, can there be a purpose to a spiritual life (a life based on Dhamma study)? Does the Pali Canon try to answer (or address) those questions? In your opinion, is anatta a no-self teaching or a not-self teaching? Has TB made it perfectly clear to you that, in his opinion, there is a self? If not, what more would he need to say in order to give you that impression? KH: I look forward to the day when Thanissaro recants his heterodoxy, and joins DSG. :-) In the meantime, I wish I could have a meaningful discussion about his views without being asked to provide the same evidence over and over (and over) again D: well, you quote from his introduction to Westerners ' when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta', not to those who understand the delusion. A meaningful discussion about his view is only opossible when we go through the whole essay and check his writings on canonical contradictions . But I assume that doesn't belong to our priorities. . So far I have a lot of respect for his work of sutta translations , freely available on the net. <. . .> > D: conceit is the remaining rest of the self , the stench still to be abolished after the major cleaning of the impurities. What else could it be when there is still comparision better, even or lower than me.. > (I have written about mana cetasika before) ------------------------- KH: Metaphorically, mana may be a remnant of atta-view. I'll grant you that! :-) But in reality it is a cetasika that arises independently of any kind of view. ------------------- D: thanks for granting though not without reservation ;-) , unfortunately I can not do the same for ' reality it is a cetasika that arises independently of any kind of view' as view is the forerunner ..at best it is right view (samma ditthi) with Metta Dieter . #123605 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 2:10 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts ppraturi Dear Nina, Thanks for clarifying. I just want to understand mind door process only. Suppose a person cutoff all five sense doors, still raging thoughts will go on in his mind. I want to understand between this thoghts ( raising and fallng) and chittas (raising and falling). This is not explained very clearly in abhidhamma literature. I do not want to use the words seeing etc. related to other sense doors. I have read your books on this subject, Bhikku bhodhis ... Comprehensive manual of abhidhamma, nandamalabhivamsa books, talks.... Several other material... I even went to look original Tripitaka ( ironically Chitta- vithi does not exist in any of the seven canonical books). Still I could not find my answer for exclusively mind door process ... Thought is being an object for Chitta.... I mean ... This Thought process is not not subsequent process for other sense door object. Can you please explain this relationship sequence of chittas and sequence of thoghts in a person where other sense doors not working? Metta, Prasad To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: vangorko@... <...> N: Ruupa is the dhamma that does not know anything, it is completely different from naama that experiences. But I know what you mean, you are distinguishing experiences through the sensedoors and experiences through the mind-door. Perhaps we have to talk more on the subject of citta. In our life there are three paramattha dhammas: citta, cetasika (mental factor accompanying citta such as feeling, attachment, generosity) and ruupa. I do not speak about nibbaana now. This is the fourth paramattha dhamma, the unconditioned element. <...> #123606 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 8:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard, Jon, Rob K. and the whole crew. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Jon) - > > Butting in on one point: > > In a message dated 4/5/2012 9:51:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > What is your understanding of the role of the intention to "eradicate a > being" which is a *necessity* for the kamma patha corresponding to murder to > take place, since "a being" is a concept. How is it possible that the > dhammas involved in the kamma patha must have the concept of a being in order to > arise? Does that not show that without certain concepts, full kamma pathas > cannot be completed? And does that not mix dhammas and concepts, and in > fact cause them to interact? Does not the concept of murder and the concept > of a being give rise to the kamma patha in question? > ================================== > What it shows is that a certain sort of process of thinking is > requisite. > There can be no murder if there is no intention-to-kill-a-being, and > such an intention cannot arise if there is no thinking-of-a-being. > Thinking is a kind of mental operation that is not merely imagined, and > thinking-of-beings doesn't require that there actually be such entities, although > there are, of course, complexes of interrelated namas and rupas that we > identify as such. Unless I am mistaken, I think you are agreeing with me...? It sounds like you are saying what I said in slightly different terms - but if it's meant to be a correction, please let me know! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #123607 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 8:58 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Howard, Jon, Robs, > > > RE: Does not the concept of murder and the concept > > of a being give rise to the kamma patha in question? > > ================================== > > H: What it shows is that a certain sort of process of thinking is > > requisite. > > There can be no murder if there is no intention-to-kill-a-being, and > > such an intention cannot arise if there is no thinking-of-a-being. > > Thinking is a kind of mental operation that is not merely imagined, and > > thinking-of-beings doesn't require that there actually be such entities, although > > there are, of course, complexes of interrelated namas and rupas that we > > identify as such. > > > pt: At work sometimes I see mentally disturbed people trying and apparently succeeding in killing a being that only they believe is real. So, there's the thinking-of-a-being, intention to kill, there's attempting to kill, and finally believing that the killing has occurred, even though to me and other "normal" people it seems no "real" being has been killed. So then, would this classify as kamma patha anyway? This is a great question and I would say the answer is a definite "no." It points to the reality of paramatha dhammas, rather than a pure ephemeral illusion. In the case of actual kamma pathas, the rupas that complete the kamma patha have to actually occur. The rupas that correspond to shooting a gun or stabbing a person are not the same as those of merely imagining that this has taken place. While the being is not real in both cases, the rupas are real in the case of actual kamma patha. The mentally ill person who imagines they are killing someone is taking the namas of imagination for the rupas of kamma patha - that is a greater form of delusion than experiencing the actual rupas and taking them for a "being" which is only a conceptual mistake. While the cetana of killing may be there for the mentally ill person, the rupas of completion are not there, so there is kamma, but no kamma patha. The kamma is the equivalent in my view of someone who imagines with great satisfaction the detailed act of killing someone in their mind, but never actually goes through with the murder. In that case also, the act is all nama, no rupas. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #123608 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 9:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/6/2012 6:42:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard, Jon, Rob K. and the whole crew. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Jon) - > > Butting in on one point: > > In a message dated 4/5/2012 9:51:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > What is your understanding of the role of the intention to "eradicate a > being" which is a *necessity* for the kamma patha corresponding to murder to > take place, since "a being" is a concept. How is it possible that the > dhammas involved in the kamma patha must have the concept of a being in order to > arise? Does that not show that without certain concepts, full kamma pathas > cannot be completed? And does that not mix dhammas and concepts, and in > fact cause them to interact? Does not the concept of murder and the concept > of a being give rise to the kamma patha in question? > ================================== > What it shows is that a certain sort of process of thinking is > requisite. > There can be no murder if there is no intention-to-kill-a-being, and > such an intention cannot arise if there is no thinking-of-a-being. > Thinking is a kind of mental operation that is not merely imagined, and > thinking-of-beings doesn't require that there actually be such entities, although > there are, of course, complexes of interrelated namas and rupas that we > identify as such. Unless I am mistaken, I think you are agreeing with me...? It sounds like you are saying what I said in slightly different terms - but if it's meant to be a correction, please let me know! -------------------------------------------------- HCW: We may or may not differ on one issue: I believe there is an operation of thinking, but I do not believe there are things called concepts. Concept-talk is just that, a manner of speaking. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) Best, Rob E. #123609 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 10:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts ptaus1 Hi Prasad, > Prasad: I even went to look original Tripitaka ( ironically Chitta- vithi does not exist in any of the seven canonical books). Still I could not find my answer for exclusively mind door process ... Thought is being an object for Chitta.... If you haven't already looked, you might find earlier posts here on these topics useful - Useful Posts file has them organised under different topics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm There are several topics there that deal with citta processes - look into the topic "Processes if cittas". In particular, this post points where in the tipitaka are the cittas of the citta-vithi mentioned: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/100920 There are also other posts on mind-door processes etc Best wishes pt #123610 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 10:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi Nina (Howard, RobE, all) Thanks for your reply. > > pt: So, there's the thinking-of-a-being, intention to kill, > > there's attempting to kill, and finally believing that the killing > > has occurred, even though to me and other "normal" people it seems > > no "real" being has been killed. So then, would this classify as > > kamma patha anyway? > ----- > N: it is not a completed kamma patha. One of the the requirements for > this is: the actual occurrance of death. > ----- The occurrence of death would be the cuti citta of the person being killed, right? However, I think Sarah mentioned recently that cuti citta of the person being killed is conditioned by his kamma alone, not by the the action of the killer. So, I don't quite understand why would the cuti citta of the person being killed be a requirement for killer's kamma patha, since the two seem unconnected? Perhaps I don't see the connection. Best wishes pt #123611 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 11:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > We may or may not differ on one issue: I believe there is an operation > of thinking, but I do not believe there are things called concepts. > Concept-talk is just that, a manner of speaking. > ============================ As far as I know, I think I agree with that. It's a dicey subject because any talk about things existing or not existing are fraught with potential misunderstanding. I think that we see and reference both objects and images and say things about them which are thoughts about those memory-traces of objects or current images and they are reference points for what we say and think. I don't think that objects exist in a static way, so I agree with the idea that there are passing rupas that are the experiential objects we actually experience in the moment, and then there are varieties of namas or mental operations which interpret, process, remember, imagine those experiences in a variety of ways at other moments - all of this is either sensory or mental experiences; there are no static experiences or objects per se. So to get back to concepts, they are a way of talking about those things which we try to pinpoint as objects of thoughts, and bring up in the mind in order to reference them, but ultimately there are only experiences including sensory experience, thought experiences, etc., and no concepts-as-objects per se. I don't know how to even get into the reality of this topic without being that convoluted. What do you think? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123612 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 11:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 Dear pt This old post from scott should clarify: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/69825 Paramattha and conventional Dear Ken and Robert, Rob K:QUOTE "When there is killing there are elements: one of them IS akusala citta, and that is not wrong view to say that. There is no need to avoid using concepts such as people etc. , what is critical is to look at the underlying views. True someone might be talking about killing and think there are really beings and self, but that is not the fault of the language, it is that the paramattha dhammas underlying their statemnets are rooted in miccha-ditthi. However we don't get to right view by going to another extreme and trying to avoid relating conventional actions to paramattha." I was just reading the Commentary to the Sammaadi.t.thi Sutta, which notes: QUOTE "4. Herein, firstly, in the detailed exposition of the first section: as regards the passage beginning killing living beings is unwholesome (panatipato kho avuso akusalam), "unwholesome" should be understood by way of the occurrence of unwholesomeness, or as what is opposed to the wholesome, which is to be dealt with below (Section 6). As to characteristic, it is blameworthy and has painful result, or it is defiled. This, in the first place, is the comment upon the general terms here. But as regards the particular terms, the phrase killing living beings means the slaughter of a living being, the destruction of a living being. And here a living being (pana) is, according to ordinary usage, a being (satta); in the ultimate sense it is the life faculty. "Killing living beings" is the volition to kill on the part of one who is aware, in respect of a living being, that it is a living being, and which (volition), manifesting itself through one or the other of the doors of body and speech, initiates activity resulting in the cutting off of the life faculty. In relation to beings such as animals, etc., which lack moral qualities (guna), it is less blameworthy in respect of small living beings and more blameworthy in respect of beings with large bodies. Why? Because of the magnitude of the effort involved. And when the effort involved is equal, because of the magnitude of the object (the being killed). In relation to beings such as humans, etc., who possess moral qualities, it is less blameworthy in respect of beings with few good qualities and more blameworthy in respect of beings with great qualities. When the size of the body and moral qualities are equal, however, it is less blameworthy when the defilements and activity are mild, and more blameworthy when they are strong: so it should be understood. There are five constituents for this (act of killing a living being): a living being, awareness that it is a living being, the mind to kill, activity, and the death (of the being) thereby. There are six means: one's own person, command, a missile, a fixed contrivance, a magical spell, supernormal power. To explore this matter in detail, however, would involve too much diffuseness. Therefore we shall not explore it in detail, or any other subject similar in kind. Those who wish to go into the matter may do so by looking it up in the Samantapasadika, the Vinaya Commentary.[8] As to object: Killing living beings, because it has the life faculty as object, has a formation as object. Taking what is not given has beings as object or formations as object. Misconduct in sensual pleasures has formations as object by way of tangible object; but some say it also has beings as object. False speech has beings or formations as object; likewise malicious speech. Harsh speech has only beings as object. Gossip has either beings or formations as object by way of the seen, heard, sensed and cognized; likewise covetousness. Ill will has only beings as object. Wrong view has formations as object by way of the states belonging to the three planes (of being). As to feeling: Killing living beings has painful feeling; for although kings, seeing a robber, say laughingly, "Go and execute him," their volition consummating the action is associated only with pain. Taking what is not given has three feelings. Misconduct (in sensual pleasures) has two feelings, pleasant and neutral, but in the mind which consummates the action there is no neutral feeling. False speech has three feelings; likewise malicious speech. Harsh speech has painful feeling only. Gossip has three feelings. Covetousness has two feelings, pleasant and neutral; likewise wrong view. Ill will has painful feeling only. As to root: Killing living beings has two roots, by way of hate and delusion; taking what is not given, by way of hate and delusion or by way of greed and delusion; misconduct, by way of greed and delusion; false speech, by way of hate and delusion or by way of greed and delusion; likewise for malicious speech and gossip; harsh speech, by way of hate and delusion. Covetousness has one root, by way of delusion; likewise ill will. Wrong view has two roots, by way of greed and delusion." Sorry about the length; the passage seemed relevant. Sincerely, Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Nina (Howard, RobE, all) > > Thanks for your reply. > > > > pt: So, there's the thinking-of-a-being, intention to kill, > > > there's attempting to kill, and finally believing that the killing > > > has occurred, even though to me and other "normal" people it seems > > > no "real" being has been killed. So then, would this classify as > > > kamma patha anyway? > > ----- > > N: it is not a completed kamma patha. One of the the requirements for > > this is: the actual occurrance of death. > > ----- > > The occurrence of death would be the cuti citta of the person being killed, right? However, I think Sarah mentioned recently that cuti citta of the person being killed is conditioned by his kamma alone, not by the the action of the killer. So, I don't quite understand why would the cuti citta of the person being killed be a requirement for killer's kamma patha, since the two seem unconnected? Perhaps I don't see the connection. > > Best wishes > pt > #123613 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 11:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > The occurrence of death would be the cuti citta of the person being killed, right? However, I think Sarah mentioned recently that cuti citta of the person being killed is conditioned by his kamma alone, not by the the action of the killer. So, I don't quite understand why would the cuti citta of the person being killed be a requirement for killer's kamma patha, since the two seem unconnected? Perhaps I don't see the connection. Isn't that a bit of a problem with the whole idea of citta being totally independent of conventional experience? So many events and experiences involve interaction with other people and objects. The only way to account for both person's cittas experiencing their ends of a shared event is to say that there is some potential for one's cittas and someone else's rupas to mutually interact and vice versa. If that were the case then we could say that there is a synchrony of the kamma of both and a corresponding synchrony of arising conditions to allow for the occurrence of vipaka for both in their "running into each other" that allows person A's rupas to become the occasion for person B's vipaka and vice versa, so that their intersection serves the conditional arising of vipaka for both. What is the alternative? If all conventional interaction is pure illusion, and all that exists is one's own cittas' experiences, then we would have to conclude that there is only one set of cittas in the universe, rather than individual streams, and that this single sequence of cittas is imagining all living beings by turns, based on its own single amazingly complex hallucinatory web of kamma and vipaka. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #123614 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 11:39 am Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ------ <. . .> >>>>>> D: The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path ,which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it? >>>>> KH: No, the Dhamma is all about getting to the final shore. Nibbana and raft-abandonment come after that. >>>> <. . .> >>> <. . .> >> KH: Why is the point about 'leaving the raft' so central to your understanding? > D:<. . .> I didn't say: ' the Buddha's teaching is "all about" leaving the teaching behind' .....but : ...."reaching the aim. And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it?" Which I think you could have easily understood that way .... ------- KH: Ah, now it dawns on me! Sorry about that. I was sure you were talking about abandoning the raft when actually you were talking about the aim (the final shore). (I wonder if I was the only reader who made that mistake. Perhaps you could have set things out a little more clearly.) ---------------------- <. . .> >>> D: Where we both seem indeed to differ is 'making an effort with my hands & feet' >>> >> KH: Yes we do. In the Dhamma there are no hands or feet; the work of crossing over is done by conditioned dhammas. > D: besides that I think you neglect the point of volition (D.O.) , how about akiriyaditthi? (see below) > sacca-ñāṇa: 'knowledge of the truth' (s. prec.), may be of 2 kinds: (1)knowledge consisting in understanding (anubodha-ñāṇa) and (2) knowledge consisting in penetration (paṬivedha-ñāṇa), i.e. realization. Cf. pariyatti ."Amongst these, (1) 'knowledge consisting in understanding' is mundane (lokiya, q.v.), and its arising with regard to the extinction of suffering, and to the path, is due to hearsay etc. (therefore not due to one's realization of the supermundane path; s. ariya-puggala) ---------------------------------------- KH: Are you thinking that satipatthana (patipatti, mundane vipassana) is ordinary, and due to hearsay? It is not ordinary; it is direct right understanding of conditioned reality. So it is unique and profound, known only to the wise. The remark "due to hearsay" is referring to knowledge of nibbana. Satipatthana doesn't directly know nibbana (unconditioned reality); it directly knows the five khandhas (conditioned reality). But that doesn't mean satipatthana is ordinary, or conventional in any way. It is certainly not a matter of striving with hands and feet! ------------------- D: > (2) 'Knowledge consisting in penetration', however, is supermundane (lokuttara), with the extinction of suffering (= Nibbāna) as object, <. . .> the knowledge of the path the view of inefficacy of action (akiriyadiṬṬhi, s. diṬṬhi)" (Vis.M. XVI, 85). ------------------ KH: Read it again, Dieter. The "action" that puts an end to suffering is the Path. The path is a citta that contains eight path-cetasikas, isn't it? Those cetasikas perform the actions (functions) of crossing over. The efficacy of action has nothing to do with hands and feet. ------------------------ <. . .> >> KH: I wish I could have a meaningful discussion about his views without being asked to provide the same evidence over and over (and over) again >> > D: well, you quote from his introduction to Westerners ' when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta', not to those who understand the delusion. A meaningful discussion about his view is only opossible when we go through the whole essay and check his writings on canonical contradictions . But I assume that doesn't belong to our priorities. . So far I have a lot of respect for his work of sutta translations , freely available on the net. ----------------- KH: You are free, of course, to turn a blind eye to TB's heterodoxy and to his world-wide campaign (to replace samma-ditthi with sakkaya-ditthi). I wish I could be so easy-going. :-) Ken H #123615 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 11:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi RobK (Scott, RobE), Thanks for the clarifications. > "Killing living beings" is the volition to kill on the part of one who is aware, in respect of a living being, that it is a living being, and which (volition), manifesting itself through one or the other of the doors of body and speech, initiates activity resulting in the cutting off of the life faculty. pt: I'm still struggling how to relate this to conditions for cutti citta. Could it then be said that cutti citta of the one who is being killed is not conditioned just by his kamma, but firstly by falling away of life-faculty, which in turn falls away as conditioned by rupa that stops it from arising, such as hardness (of a conventional knife). I think I'm making a mistake somewhere. Best wishes pt #123616 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 11:59 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi RobE, > RE: Isn't that a bit of a problem with the whole idea of citta being totally independent of conventional experience? I'm not sure, I don't really have a good understanding of conditions. I suspect without that it's probably impossible to tell what's the right way to consider all this. Let's see what RobK, Nina, Jon and others say on this topic. Best wishes pt #123617 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 12:09 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobK (Scott, RobE), > > Thanks for the clarifications. > > > "Killing living beings" is the volition to kill on the part of one who is aware, in respect of a living being, that it is a living being, and which (volition), manifesting itself through one or the other of the doors of body and speech, initiates activity resulting in the cutting off of the life faculty. > > pt: I'm still struggling how to relate this to conditions for cutti citta. Could it then be said that cutti citta of the one who is being killed is not conditioned just by his kamma, but firstly by falling away of life-faculty, which in turn falls away as conditioned by rupa that stops it from arising, such as hardness (of a conventional knife). I think I'm making a mistake somewhere. > > Best wishes > pt > Dear pt Check out visuddhimagga viii where it talks about untimely death. Robert #123618 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 3:30 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat kenhowardau Hi Eddie, -------- <. . .> > E: Enlightenment is only with people. Without people, it is nothing. -------- KH: Yes, but what if there weren't any people? ---------------- > E: Without sixth senses, there is nothing, or nothing is important. In other words, anything is nothing with our loss of our ability to discern. ---------------- KH: I agree there has to be discernment (right understanding). Otherwise there could be no discernment path-factor. And if there was no discernment path-factor there would be no eightfold path. And so no enlightenment. But can there be discernment without a discerner? I think there can. And I think that is the whole point of the Buddha's teaching. -------------------------- > E: Enlightenment to me means coming into realization with one or combination(s) of six senses, made possible with wisdom (panna) through requisite morality & concentration (sila & samadhi). -------------------------- KH: Enlightenment means understanding, doesn't it? In the context of the Dhamma it means to experience nibbana while having full understanding of what is being experienced. --------------- > E: As a side track, unless I am mistaken, all these tangible, material or physical objects come into being on account of our mental forces according to Buddha's teachings. So again in other words, mental forces come first and foremost before these physical objects come into existence. I am still rethinking, delibrating and skeptical though. I could be wrong on this so hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable or wiser can come forward to endorse or correct it. --------------- KH: I think the knowledgeable people here will want to hear a little more detail before they endorse or correct what you have said. Some rupas are conditioned by consciousness. I am not so sure they include tangible, visible, audible, gustatory or olfactory rupas. We shall see. :-) Ken H #123619 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear pt, Op 7-apr-2012, om 2:43 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > The occurrence of death would be the cuti citta of the person being > killed, right? However, I think Sarah mentioned recently that cuti > citta of the person being killed is conditioned by his kamma alone, > not by the the action of the killer. So, I don't quite understand > why would the cuti citta of the person being killed be a > requirement for killer's kamma patha, since the two seem > unconnected? Perhaps I don't see the connection. ------ N: When we consider the kamma patha of the killer, it is, as explained in Rob K's quote from Scott's post, the intention to cut off the life faculty of the victim. Now, when we consider the victim, it was the right time for his kamma to bring such result that his life came to an end. We have to distinguish the cittas of the killer and the cittas of the victim, not mixing them. They are two different individuals with different cittas arising for each of them, cittas which are conditioned by different factors in the case of each one of them. ----- Nina. #123620 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 9:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/6/2012 9:02:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > We may or may not differ on one issue: I believe there is an operation > of thinking, but I do not believe there are things called concepts. > Concept-talk is just that, a manner of speaking. > ============================ As far as I know, I think I agree with that. It's a dicey subject because any talk about things existing or not existing are fraught with potential misunderstanding. I think that we see and reference both objects and images and say things about them which are thoughts about those memory-traces of objects or current images and they are reference points for what we say and think. I don't think that objects exist in a static way, so I agree with the idea that there are passing rupas that are the experiential objects we actually experience in the moment, and then there are varieties of namas or mental operations which interpret, process, remember, imagine those experiences in a variety of ways at other moments - all of this is either sensory or mental experiences; there are no static experiences or objects per se. So to get back to concepts, they are a way of talking about those things which we try to pinpoint as objects of thoughts, and bring up in the mind in order to refer ence them, but ultimately there are only experiences including sensory experience, thought experiences, etc., and no concepts-as-objects per se. I don't know how to even get into the reality of this topic without being that convoluted. What do you think? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: It seems that we think similarly about this. I try to be very careful in how I talk about it, because I'm much aware of how our speech affects our thinking. But we do seem to see this matter quite similarly. As for getting into the topic, yes, it becomes very difficult and convoluted, which shows, I suppose, the difficulty in speech and verbal thinking. [The only discussion more convoluted and almost surely unresolvable is a "materialism vs phenomenalism vs dualism" one, which is a philosopher's delight and a nightmare for one who seeks simplicity and peace - a discussion that is being relentlessly ;-) pursued on another list at the moment. LOL!] --------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123621 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 10:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and pt) - In a message dated 4/7/2012 6:02:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear pt, Op 7-apr-2012, om 2:43 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > The occurrence of death would be the cuti citta of the person being > killed, right? However, I think Sarah mentioned recently that cuti > citta of the person being killed is conditioned by his kamma alone, > not by the the action of the killer. So, I don't quite understand > why would the cuti citta of the person being killed be a > requirement for killer's kamma patha, since the two seem > unconnected? Perhaps I don't see the connection. ------ N: When we consider the kamma patha of the killer, it is, as explained in Rob K's quote from Scott's post, the intention to cut off the life faculty of the victim. Now, when we consider the victim, it was the right time for his kamma to bring such result that his life came to an end. We have to distinguish the cittas of the killer and the cittas of the victim, not mixing them. They are two different individuals with different cittas arising for each of them, cittas which are conditioned by different factors in the case of each one of them. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: And what harmonizes them? The unwholesome action of the killer is the means for the victim's vipaka! How and why are they coordinated? ------------------------------------------------ ----- Nina. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123622 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 12:23 am Subject: Re: Lukas. trip to england nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 7-apr-2012, om 13:31 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > I get quarrelled with mother and also I think with Luraya. I want > to take drugs or drunk. It's too strong. ------ N: It is understandable that you think of your experiences, quarrels with others and about your problems. If we analyse this it is in fact thinking about oneself, being engaged with oneself all day. There is more freedom when you can think of other people's welfare, just think of others. I know that you can do this. At the moment you were answering here on dsg a Dhamma question of someone else, there was quite another Lukas. Not a worrying Lukas. When you are busy thinking of others, there is no time to think of yourself. This was a very good lesson we received from Kh Sujin. ------ Nina. #123623 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 9:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > HCW: > It seems that we think similarly about this. I try to be very careful > in how I talk about it, because I'm much aware of how our speech affects > our thinking. But we do seem to see this matter quite similarly. As for > getting into the topic, yes, it becomes very difficult and convoluted, which > shows, I suppose, the difficulty in speech and verbal thinking. [The only > discussion more convoluted and almost surely unresolvable is a "materialism vs > phenomenalism vs dualism" one, which is a philosopher's delight and a > nightmare for one who seeks simplicity and peace - a discussion that is being > relentlessly ;-) pursued on another list at the moment. LOL!] Ha ha - good luck. Once people start taking their own concepts seriously they can go just about anywhere - and drag you down with them! :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #123624 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 9:11 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard, pt and Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > HCW: > And what harmonizes them? The unwholesome action of the killer is the > means for the victim's vipaka! How and why are they coordinated? > ------------------------------------------------ Is it possible that symbiotic sets of kamma can attract and coordinate with each other to create the mutually arising vipaka that is called for by each? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - #123625 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 9:53 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi RobK (and Rob E) [Am resending this message as the original seems to have been caught by the Yahoo suspension -- pls ignore it when it comes through] (123596) > RobK: To take the example of drinking alcohol. In conventional terms somone craves the taste of wine or likes the effects of drinking, or enjoys being 'happy' or likes the feeling while drunk. They then drink wine and to a lesser ir greater extent get the expected 'reward' > In paramttha terms lobha condtions vaci vinatti to order the drink, and conditions the rupas to drink it down. Vedana of the type that arises while drunk, or drinking then arises > =============== J: I'm fine with the above. But would you mind indicating the particular concept being referred to, and the nature of the correlation being instanced. Perhaps you (or Rob E) could express the correlation in terms of a general rule. Jon #123626 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 10:31 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon, and Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi RobK (and Rob E) > > [Am resending this message as the original seems to have been caught by the Yahoo suspension -- pls ignore it when it comes through] > > (123596) > > RobK: To take the example of drinking alcohol. In conventional terms somone craves the taste of wine or likes the effects of drinking, or enjoys being 'happy' or likes the feeling while drunk. They then drink wine and to a lesser ir greater extent get the expected 'reward' > > In paramttha terms lobha condtions vaci vinatti to order the drink, and conditions the rupas to drink it down. Vedana of the type that arises while drunk, or drinking then arises. > > =============== > > J: I'm fine with the above. But would you mind indicating the particular concept being referred to, and the nature of the correlation being instanced. Perhaps you (or Rob E) could express the correlation in terms of a general rule. I'm not sure if Rob K. and I would express things in exactly the same way, or whether we see the relationship between conventional reality and paramatha dhammas in exactly the same way, but I relate to the way he expresses this relationship, which seems to allow for the more "general" experience of conventional perceptions, in the midst of and somewhat translatable into paramatha terms. From my point of view, there are two things that I think may be taking place, and I am not knowledgeable enough to have them all worked out properly at all. A lot of times I am not just debating, but also trying to figure things out at the same time, so I'm not just trying to prove a point, but I do believe that both the paramatha and the conventional coexist to a certain degree, though the paramatha is more accurate. The first thing is that conventional events *are* paramatha events seen conceptually, rather than experienced directly. If we form an image of what has taken place in any event, or if we reference a remembered sequence through thought, it only approximates what really happened. It is general and leaves out a lot. For instance, we remember the "texture of the table" and have some memories and sensations that come to mind when we think of the image of touching the table. The paramatha experience of touching the table would be a complex series of rupas and namas, sense-door and mind-door processes, and ordinarly we have no access to this because our cittas are not sharp enough to register all that really took place. So we have a sort of "experiential marker" that stands in for the actual experience, and in that sense, conventional experiences are paramatha experiences which are only partially experienced, understood or remembered. They are like shadows or bad xeroxes of what really happened in its moment-to-moment particularity. The second thing is that there are some sorts of paramatha events that lead to or come from more conventional events, though these two can be broken down into paramatha terms. So if kamma patha requires the "murder of a being" then we have to come to terms with how all the dhammas involved with kamma patha are somehow related to the conventional act of killing a conventional being. Once we see beings in paramatha terms, murder can't take place, because there would be no one to murder, but the paramatha act of kamma patha requires that we still see a conventional being, otherwise it would not be completed. So we have a kind of paradox there. If we break down the full kamma patha into all its components, it's going to include the "belief in a being," "the desire to kill that being," and "the experience of killing that being," all concepts, but all intermixed with the actual namas and rupas that take place on the paramatha level. And so there is this paradoxical intermixing of dhammas and concepts that is actually required in the case of any kamma patha, for any kamma patha requires not only rupas, but the conception of a conventional object, being and/or action at the same time. For other sorts of events - not kamma patha - it may be that they can be totally broken down into dhammas, but for kamma patha, concepts are a requirement. There is another question that is raised as well - those on dsg generaly don't believe that knives, forks, bodies and cars actually exist. They believe that they are formed up conceptually by hallucinating whole objects or actions out of a mistaken notion of arising dhammas that are misinterpreted into wholes. I don't currently believe this is the case, but many do. It is this belief that makes mincemeat out of so many things that Buddha says, and causes an awful lot of convoluted confusion. Buddha says "don't drink intoxicating beverages" and dhamma-only theory says "he didn't mean it literally - it's just a conventional way of talking about dhammas because only dhammas exist." But I still personally think it makes a lot more sense to say that alcoholic beverages and their effect on the brain *do* exist, and Buddha really didn't want us to drink them, and that this reality of physical reality coexists with the *experiential* reality of dhammas, because we only *experience* namas and rupas. But we can still acknowledge and deduce the things of the world that are wholesome and unwholesome, even though the ultimate experiential units are dhammas only. That is what I think Rob K. is saying - there really are alcoholic beverages, but the result of drinking them is to cause unwholesome namas and rupas to arise and they are different than what would be experienced without the alcohol. So we can not only acknowledge what happens to conditioned dhammas, but also the conditioning that takes place from conventional events. We intend to drink, as Rob K. said, that leads to the rupas of ordering the drink, the rupas of drinking, and the namas and rupas of being drunk. In such a view, as I understand it, namas, rupas and alcohol all really exist and interact with each other. Every time we do a conventional action, a greater or lesser kamma patha has taken place, and the actions that involve conventional objects is as much a part of the completion of all those lesser and greater kamma pathas as the namas and rupas that are involved. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #123627 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 11:39 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 Dear jon The concept is drinking Alcohol. The corelation is that concepts such as drinking , or getting drunk are shorthand terms that briefly describe the countless namas and rupas involved in taking a drink.. It is like the Abhidhammathasangaha states: concepts are the shadows of the paramathha. Now while it is true that the unistructed worldling cannot distinguih the paramathha from the conceptual world, this does not negate the close relationship of concept and reality. Robert Sorry about all my typos. Yahhogroups doesnt have a an app for ipad and it is a bit tricky posting --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi RobK (and Rob E) > > [Am resending this message as the original seems to have been caught by the Yahoo suspension -- pls ignore it when it comes through] > > (123596) > > RobK: To take the example of drinking alcohol. In conventional terms somone craves the taste of wine or likes the effects of drinking, or enjoys being 'happy' or likes the feeling while drunk. They then drink wine and to a lesser ir greater extent get the expected 'reward' > > In paramttha terms lobha condtions vaci vinatti to order the drink, and conditions the rupas to drink it down. Vedana of the type that arises while drunk, or drinking then arises > > =============== > > J: I'm fine with the above. But would you mind indicating the particular concept being referred to, and the nature of the correlation being instanced. Perhaps you (or Rob E) could express the correlation in terms of a general rule. > > Jon > #123628 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 12:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/7/2012 7:11:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard, pt and Nina. --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > HCW: > And what harmonizes them? The unwholesome action of the killer is the > means for the victim's vipaka! How and why are they coordinated? > ------------------------------------------------ Is it possible that symbiotic sets of kamma can attract and coordinate with each other to create the mutually arising vipaka that is called for by each? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, I suppose that is what would have to be the case. But I can't guess the details of it, and I'm not aware of that being a part of the teaching. I actually find it implausible that there can be no innocent victims of aggression. -------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123629 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 1:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi Nina, RobK and all, Thanks for your replies. I think I need to study a bit about this before I ask further questions. Best wishes pt > N: Now, when we consider the victim, it was the right time for his kamma > to bring such result that his life came to an end. > We have to distinguish the cittas of the killer and the cittas of the > victim, not mixing them. #123630 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 2:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 4/7/2012 7:11:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > Is it possible that symbiotic sets of kamma can attract and coordinate > with each other to create the mutually arising vipaka that is called for by > each? > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Well, I suppose that is what would have to be the case. But I can't > guess the details of it, and I'm not aware of that being a part of the > teaching. I actually find it implausible that there can be no innocent victims of > aggression. > -------------------------------------------- From the conventional point of view, of course there are victims. Looked at mechanically, though, it's all about conditionality. If conditions do dictate results down to the microscopic level, it's still nobody's fault. Innocence and guilt only come into play if there are selves involved. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #123631 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 2:53 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE, Replying in parts. > RE: Can you say a word about the difference between accumulation and development of kusala? pt: Not much of an expert on conditions. Perhaps it could be said that accumulation is akin to perpetuation/maintenance of the same habit (cetasikas) through repetition, whereas development is qualitative change for the better/worse or sharper/duller. > RE: I really don't get the idea that kusala is great but has no relation to the path without panna. If it doesn't develop the path, what's so kusala about it? I mean, does it have value other than being nice in a general way? pt: I think for one, cetana is kusala since it accompanies a kusala citta, and that will result in good (results of) kamma. Further, good qualities (cetasikas) are accumulated. And the feeling that arises with kusala citta is either neutral or good (pleasant). That's what comes to mind atm. > RE: Does it create any conditions for development of the path, or not? pt: I think if it does, then only supporting conditions. For example, I think it was said that hearing Dhamma now is a result of good kamma in the past. But hearing Dhamma and understanding it are two different things - for understanding to happen, I think there'd need to be some sort of panna, the arising of which at present would be conditioned by arising of panna in the past. So, good kamma is not enough for development I think. > RE: Buddha seemed to have all kinds of wonderful things to say about jhana pt: I think he praised all kusala, but above all to me it seems he praised insight because it is the only thing that leads out of the round of rebirths. As I understand, jhana attainments on their own do not lead out of the round and the attachment to them is what often keeps beings in the round, if we are to judge by the number of variations of wrong view in relation to jhana attainments in the All embracing net of views sutta. > RE: and in most cases included the development of the full range of jhanas and formless states as leading up to nibbana, pt: My take on this is a bit different: 1) he often spoke to people who were ascetics and were well practiced in jhana, and thus were intimately acquainted with jhana citta and cetasikas. 2) jhanas seem to "lead up to nibbana" only if there was insight (vipassana bhavana) occurring, regardless of whether those moments of insight took as object the jhana citta, jhana cetasikas or some other dhamma. 3) "up to nibbana" thus in my mind is a function of insight, whereas jhana cittas and cetasikas can be object of that insight or not. > RE: but folks around here seem to always emphasize dry insight and dismiss jhana as if it was a nasty virus. pt: My thinking is that most people here are 1) not acquainted with jhana citta personally, and 2) are primarily interested in insight. So, it doesn't seem strange that there's little interest in jhana here. > RE: This is worth looking into too, while on the subject of kusala with two roots. pt: Perhaps I'm missing your point, samatha bhavana (and jhana as a special subset of vipassana bhavana cittas) arise with 3 kusala roots, because panna (of samatha bhavana kind) as the third root is required for a citta to be classified as samatha bhavana. > RE: Buddha included jhana and development of insight in one breath in many instances, as developing together and growing the enlightenment factors through deep equanimity - a property of the deeper jhanas - combined with deep insight into the nature of the dhammas that arose in those states, which were subtler objects, but here they are separated like men's and women's basketball teams. pt: I believe the meaning of "together" and the ensuing non/separation of jhana and insight depends on how you interpret some of the modern and ancient commentators on the topic, since that's the gist of their differences. So, since we can only basically repeat what they say, I hope you don't mind if we leave this sub-topic for last. > RE: This has implications for the whole idea of meditation either being part of the path or not, since for non-meditators, jhana will most likely only arise when sufficient insight for enlightenment stages has developed, whereas for meditators - at least those who have the capacity for it - it becomes a regular part of the development of the path. pt: I think I'd agree in general. I mean, if one has jhana cittas arising very often during the day, then it is likely that these jhana cittas and cetasikas will become objects of insight. If one doesn't have jhana cittas arising often during the day, but has mostly lobha and dosa arising, then these will be most likely the objects of insight. I don't think it really matters whether it is kusala (including jhana) or akusala cittas and cetasikas that become the object of insight, it'll work either way. > RE: It seems that the commentaries also take a much more separative approach to jhana and development of insight than the suttas do, favoring the development of dry insight. The commentators also seem to be much more intellectual in their approach to the analysis of the Buddha's teachings than the suttas themselves in many cases, which in many cases are pragmatic and often practice-oriented, applying directly to the lives of monks and householders who were following the path at the very time the Buddha spoke. pt: I don't know, I don't think I read even 5% of commentaries available, and I don't think that more than 10% of commentaries is even available in English. From what I read so far, I don't see difference from the suttas. I did at the start, but that's because at the time I was reading works by authors generally antagonistic towards the old commentarial tradition because it went contrary to their new interpretation. > RE: So the commentators appear to favor dry insight perhaps because of their own predilections, and one who looks at the suttas illuminated by the commentaries may also develop this same inclination in approaching the path. pt: I think commentaries comment on everything that's in the suttas (e.g. a big chunk of Visuddhimagga is on samatha bhavana), but since people here are more interested in dry insight (since they know that they don't experience jhana cittas often in life, if ever, thus making jhana somewhat irrelevant to them), then passages about insight get quoted more often here. > RE: Again, I think the issues raised above are direct outshoots of the idea that kusala which in and of itself does not include panna does not contribute to path development, so I'd like to at least raise the issues that emanate from this and see whether you would like to talk about them now, or save them for later. pt: For the sake of clarity in case I'm getting you wrong, samatha bhavana (including the subset of jhana cittas) requires panna as the third root. However, my understanding is that even though it has panna and thus is classified as "bhavana"/development, and thus develops kusala cittas and cetasikas of samatha class, it is still not "the path" in the sense that panna and all the other kusala cetasikas are of "samatha" class, not vipassana class. And only vipassana is "the path" in the strict sense as I understand things atm. Now, the question is whether development of samatha actually conditions development of vipassana? I don't know really, I don't think I ever experienced a jhana citta. My understanding at the moment is that samatha bhavana doesn't condition vipassana bhavana directly, just like kusala cittas with 2 roots don't. Otherwise, I don't know how to explain the examples in the texts of those who were very accomplished in jhanas but never got anywhere in terms of insight. Or all the brahma deities who are in jhana for aeons, but then fall into lower realms. But anyway, just like kusala cittas with 2 roots result in good kamma which can be a condition for hearing Dhamma at least, I think kusala cittas with 3 roots also have good kamma as result, good feeling, etc. Anyway, all this is just a lot of thinking and speculating, that's it for the first part. Best wishes pt #123632 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 4:05 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE, part2 > RE: I understand it as a moment of pariyatti - that makes a lot of sense. I would like to explore the way in which samatha bhavana does develop because of panna being present, but has concept as an object, either now or later. pt: Yes, hopefully we'll discuss this when we get to questions (c) and (d) of the original post/reply, which dealt with samatha and vipassana, at this point we're still technically discussing (a) objects, if I remember right. > RE: I think that is an important area which of course is also pertinent for meditation, since the path outlined by the Buddha in the anapanasati sutta and elsewhere includes both development of samatha and sati, sometimes seemingly in close order, through anapanasati practice. pt: I think the intricate details of interpretation of a sutta will depend on more general understanding of Dhamma, so perhaps let's stick to fundamentals for now, and then later we can discuss a particular sutta in detail. > RE: I sometimes understand the difference in samatha meditation and insight meditation, if I may momentarily separate them this way, to involve the development of peacefulness and concentration following the breath in a more general way, which of course involves concept, whereas insight is developed by attending the changing dhammas of the breath, and other dhammas that arise, from moment to moment with mindfulness. With concept one can simply note that the breath is indeed rising and falling and have a general sense of its passage with a certain degree of awareness, but without noticing all the details. Insight would be attendant upon the understanding of specific rupas that arise in attending the breath. But the above opens the possibility, it seems, that even in samatha meditation that more frequently has breath as a concept as its object, panna might still develop. pt: I think we should also leave this for (c) and (d) parts, noting that I don't really know the answer whether samatha bhavana at its best actually conditions vipassana bhavana directly, as discussed in previous post. > RE: I would be interested in distinguishing the insight that may develop with samatha bhavana, unless I misunderstand and this does not lead to insight, and the development that takes place when such mundane path moments arise. pt: As above. > RE: 1. Does panna necessarily arise in every moment when there is sati, vitakkha and other cetasikas that are aware or become more aware of some aspect of their object? pt: Not in kusala cittas with 2 roots - panna is the 3rd root, which is not present even though there's still sati and other kusala cetasikas. > RE: If yes, then it makes sense that without panna there is no development of understanding. If no, then I would ask, doesn't understanding develop in certain ways when sati or vitakkha or vicara are present, even without panna? Or is panna always the only factor that actually understands? pt: I asked Sarah the same thing some time ago. As far as I get it, the difference goes down to what's meant by the term "understanding". E.g. to understand that 2+2=4, no panna is necessary - sanna, vitaka, vicara, and other cetasikas are enough for that sort of "understanding". To understand that a wholesome state has value, for that panna of a certain kind is needed (and that would be a beginning of samatha bhavana I think). To understand that a certain state is anatta, for that panna of a different kind is needed (and that would be the beginning of vipassana bhavana). > RE: 2. To my mind, there is some development that will lay groundwork for insight later that in and of itself may not have panna present. I feel this way about samatha/jhana and I think the Buddha did too. This is something we may have to explore or debate later. pt: Yes, we can discuss this later, though as mentioned, I don't really know. > RE: If jhana develops to the point of equanimity and suppression of defilements, does this not create conditions for development of sati and panna? I think the answer is probably 'no,' and so we may have to come back to this. pt: My thoughts are also that it's a 'no'. One of the reasons being that for insight it doesn't matter whether the citta (cetasika) that just fell away (and became object of present citta) was kusala or akusala (with equanimity or not) - as long as a dhamma is an object of citta, it's vipassana as I understand. > RE: But in looking at this in terms of meditation, there are times when it seems like peacefulness and equanimity are more prominent, and sometimes when that will lead to a sense of understanding arising. It seems to me that the Buddha spoke about meditation in this way as well. pt: Yes, "peacefulness and equanimity" is something I hope to discuss later when we go through the fundamentals, as these are common experiences of meditators and it's a matter of basics how these are interpreted. > RE: 3. In meditation in general, I see the general habit and practices of meditation to eventually lead to the development of sati. I know this is not popular here, so I would call this an exception to the above, perhaps to be debated later. pt: Yes, it's very important figuring out what's sati. I don't know the answer really, but I hope to discuss later as well. > RE: This view is based on the idea of meditation as a conventional practice that represents the development of certain dhammas, and this is always the controversy with those who believe that a conventional practice can never lead to anything pertinent to the path. It is hard to even talk about it, since the preexisting philosophical understanding is that dhammas can only arise from former arisings and developments, rather than from present practice. So there is a kind of chasm there. pt: Perhaps we can leave this for later, as I think it again depends on how the fundamentals are understood. I don't see a chasm anymore, but that's a result of investigating the fundamentals. > RE: For me, to put it a little too bluntly, someone would have to demonstrate that this is the actual teaching, rather than something that is strictly gotten from scriptures other than the suttas, or from a modern interpretation of development. I don't really understand where the idea of all current experience and development coming from past accumulations, with nothing contributed by present activities and experiences, but that is something I would need to look into. pt: This again goes back to fundamentals. E.g. I think it's all about the present experience, and because of this, meditation practice is not the path because it has future as goal, even if that future is in the very next moment - like having more sati. So, implications of examining the fundamentals are interesting, but we have to go slowly, and agreement is not guaranteed either. > RE: The only qualifier I would throw in is that I think in actual practice moments of concept as object and rupa as object, as well as arising thoughts as object, etc., probably all take their place in the various moments that arise while meditating. So the question is whether those moments that arise when rupa is object or even when concept is object have any panna arising with them, and whether that panna accumulates when it arises. I think you probably will agree with that... pt: Yes, those are the bits we're examining, and the implications and the precision, etc. Anyway, I'll wait for your further responses onto these two parts for any follow up discussion, and then I'll return to the original post/reply that dealt with b, c and d. I expect since we're discussing fundamentals, there are always a lot of offshoot/derivative discussion topics we'll need to address or leave for later if we get too bogged and loose track of the basics. Best wishes pt #123633 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 5:27 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi RobK and Rob E (123627) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear jon > The concept is drinking Alcohol. > The corelation is that concepts such as drinking , or getting drunk are shorthand terms that briefly describe the countless namas and rupas involved in taking a drink.. > =============== J: I agree with the proposition that concepts are shorthand terms for namas and rupas. (I wouldn't really see that as amounting to a 'correlation', but I guess that's a matter of usage.) > =============== > RE: It is like the Abhidhammathasangaha states: concepts are the shadows of the paramathha. > =============== J: Yes, also agreed. > =============== > RE: Now while it is true that the unistructed worldling cannot distinguih the paramathha from the conceptual world, this does not negate the close relationship of concept and reality. > =============== J: I don't quite see this as being a 'relationship', but I wouldn't quibble over that usage. Rob E, I don't know if you had anything in mind that is not covered by RobK's explanation. > =============== > RE: Sorry about all my typos. Yahhogroups doesnt have a an app for ipad and it is a bit tricky posting > =============== J: Not a problem at all (glad you can spare some of your waiting time at traffic lights :-)). Jon #123634 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 5:45 pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Part 1 jonoabb Hi Alex (123534) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Jon, all, > > >J: As I mentioned in another post, neither did the Buddha say to >"intentionally strive". > >============== > > A: He has said it in sutta after suttas. > =============== J: Sorry to disagree, but I'm not aware that the Buddha has ever said that 'strive' means 'intentionally/deliberately strive' as in the conventional idea of striving. That is an interpretation given by some (but not by the commentaries). > =============== > A: What He has never said was to > "don't do anything". > =============== J: I've never suggested that the Buddha said, "Don't do anything". What I've said is that, to my reading, the factors for the development of the path include hearing and reflecting on the teachings, and that his must occur repeatedly and over a period of time. I do not read the teachings as suggesting that kusala can be induced by undertaking specific mental exercises. > =============== > A: Quotes I have provided many times. > > > >It's a matter of context (within the particular sutta and within the >Tipitaka as a whole). > >====================== > > A: And the whole context is to go *against* the flow (of craving, samsara, defilements) rather than with it. > =============== J: Right, and it's kusala that 'goes against the flow', I believe. Jon #123635 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 6:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts sarahprocter... Dear Prasad, I'm glad to welcome you (a little late) to DSG and to read your interesting questions. You're obviously familiar with the Pali and Abhidhamma terms - may I ask where you live and have studied Dhamma? I'm appreciating your helpful discussions with Nina. >________________________________ > From: Prasad Praturi >. Suppose we stop all other 5 sense doors othe than mind... .... S: It would be nice to stop particular dhammas from arising at particular times, but is this really possible or doesn't it just depend on conditions what arises from moment to moment? Doesn't the Buddha's teaching on anatta indicate that there really is no self that can stop or start any dhammas at will? Metta Sarah ===== #123636 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: >S: With the DN text, like Nina, I think that just a short paragraph at a time with any comments with regard to the cetasikas, is best for thorough discussion. Again there's no hurry. > > ===== > > D: > I think it is important to see the cetasikas in relation to the Maha Satipatthana , in particular as the contemplation of mind is concerned (+ niravana) > "((3) He further clearly perceives and understands any state of consciousness or mind (cittanupassana), whether it is greedy or not, hateful or not, deluded or not, cramped or distracted, developed or undeveloped, surpassable or unsurpassable, concentrated or unconcentrated, liberated or unliberated (Nyanatiloka)" > > Common aspects are assumed .. but how corresponding > ..... S: This is how I read the passage: At each moment a citta arises. As you know, each citta is accompanied by at least 7 cetasikas. The Buddha encouraged the understanding of any citta (or any other dhamma appearing) just as it is. So regardless of whether it is a citta rooted greed, hatred, delusion, i.e accompanied by these or any other mental states - wholesome or unwholesome, worldly or unworldly - it can be understood at this very moment when it appears. In other words, the development of satipatthana is not a "waiting game", waiting until no nivaranas, no unwholesome states arise, waiting until the circumstances seem more favourable - it is the development of awareness and understanding at this very moment of the citta (or other dhamma) which appears now. Do you read the passage any differently? Is there anything further to discuss on the cetasikas with regard to this example? Metta Sarah ====== #123637 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Hi Howard, Op 7-apr-2012, om 14:14 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > We have to distinguish the cittas of the killer and the cittas of the > victim, not mixing them. They are two different individuals with > different cittas arising for each of them, cittas which are > conditioned by different factors in the case of each one of them. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > And what harmonizes them? The unwholesome action of the killer is the > means for the victim's vipaka! How and why are they coordinated? ------ N: I understand your observation. You like to see coordination, a whole situation. I am inclined to see conditions for this or that moment of citta, separately, for different individuals. It depends on one's point of view, on the way of looking at events. When thinking of different persons in a situation, well, it is so much thinking. We cannot explain events by thinking. Why was this person at this location, at this time, so that he got killed? This happens in real life time and again. We cannot explain this, but we know that it is kamma of the victim that operates. We say: he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. But I appreciate your observation, it makes one consider things that happen in life. ------ Nina. #123638 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 8:49 pm Subject: Re: Lukas. trip to england szmicio Dear Nina, I had always problem with kusala, as far as remember. Even when I was young and starting practising Buddha-Dhamma. I could not change akusala for kusala. > N: It is understandable that you think of your experiences, quarrels > with others and about your problems. If we analyse this it is in fact > thinking about oneself, being engaged with oneself all day. L: But this are in fact accumulations. Isnt it? > There is > more freedom when you can think of other people's welfare, just think > of others. L: I dont care much of others. Best wishes Lukas #123639 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 9:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi pt (and RobK) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobK (Scott, RobE), > > Thanks for the clarifications. > > > "Killing living beings" is the volition to kill on the part of one who is aware, in respect of a living being, that it is a living being, and which (volition), manifesting itself through one or the other of the doors of body and speech, initiates activity resulting in the cutting off of the life faculty. > > pt: I'm still struggling how to relate this to conditions for cutti citta. Could it then be said that cutti citta of the one who is being killed is not conditioned just by his kamma, but firstly by falling away of life-faculty, which in turn falls away as conditioned by rupa that stops it from arising, such as hardness (of a conventional knife). I think I'm making a mistake somewhere. > =============== J: As I understand it, past kamma (good or bad) needs supporting conditions to ripen. So for example, in a given life a person may experience mostly kusala vipaka even though there has been much akusala kamma performed also, or vice versa. In the situation being discussed, there may have been performed in the past both kamma that will result in a long life and kamma that will result in a shortened life; however, the intervention of the person with murderous intent is a supporting condition for the latter kamma to ripen rather than the former, so that a normal lifespan is not reached. Hoping this helps. Jon #123640 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 10:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi pt (and RobK) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > > Hi RobK (Scott, RobE), > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. > > > > > "Killing living beings" is the volition to kill on the part of one who is aware, in respect of a living being, that it is a living being, and which (volition), manifesting itself through one or the other of the doors of body and speech, initiates activity resulting in the cutting off of the life faculty. > > > > pt: I'm still struggling how to relate this to conditions for cutti citta. Could it then be said that cutti citta of the one who is being killed is not conditioned just by his kamma, but firstly by falling away of life-faculty, which in turn falls away as conditioned by rupa that stops it from arising, such as hardness (of a conventional knife). I think I'm making a mistake somewhere. > > =============== > > J: As I understand it, past kamma (good or bad) needs supporting conditions to ripen. So for example, in a given life a person may experience mostly kusala vipaka even though there has been much akusala kamma performed also, or vice versa. > > In the situation being discussed, there may have been performed in the past both kamma that will result in a long life and kamma that will result in a shortened life; however, the intervention of the person with murderous intent is a supporting condition for the latter kamma to ripen rather than the former, so that a normal lifespan is not reached. > > Hoping this helps. > > Jon Dear pt and jon Yes that is how i see it,. Also anciliary factors like being born in a warlike land or time, may support a sudden and untimely death. Nevertheless no one could be killed - no matter what other causes- unless they had some akusal kamma waiting to pounce. As a matter of interest even arahats like mogga Ana can be murdered and it is only buddhas that are exempt ( plus such individuals as ven Bakual who madde such kamma as to be never be sick or injured and who live to 160 years old) Robert > #123641 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 11:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lukas. trip to england nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 8-apr-2012, om 12:49 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > I had always problem with kusala, as far as remember. Even when I > was young and starting practising Buddha-Dhamma. I could not change > akusala for kusala. > ------ N: Nobody can change akusala into kusala. But when kusala citta arises and when akusala citta arises you may see that there is a difference. Akusala is so restless and kusala is peaceful. You may see the value of kusala and this is a condition for its arising. Kusala is to the benefit of both yourself and others. ------ > > > N: It is understandable that you think of your experiences, quarrels > > with others and about your problems. If we analyse this it is in > fact > > thinking about oneself, being engaged with oneself all day. > > L: But this are in fact accumulations. Isnt it? > ------ N: Certainly, accumulated inclinations condition akusala cittas with selfishness. But knowing that the arising of akusala cittas is because of accumulations does not mean that we are hopeless victims of accumulations. We learn that accumulations can be changed, through right understanding and appreciation of the Dhamma. As you said, you need more saddhaa, confidence in kusala. By listening and considering it will grow but not as fast as we would like to. A development can never be fast. --------- > > There is > > more freedom when you can think of other people's welfare, just > think > > of others. > > L: I dont care much of others. > -------- N: That can change. It is kusala to care for others instead of being selfish and as confidence in kusala and understanding grows, you will care more for others. Actually, when such a moment arises, only then you can be convinced of its benefit. ------- Nina. #123642 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 8, 2012 11:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/8/2012 12:53:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: From the conventional point of view, of course there are victims. Looked at mechanically, though, it's all about conditionality. ------------------------------------------- HCW: So what? The conditions of akusala or kusala kamma in one stream of consciousness are not the cetasikas of another. I have no reason to believe that specific things only happen to a person due in part to his/her own kamma. (Of course, one's kamma conditions one's realm of birth, and birth into a realm leads to eventual death in that realm, but that is a triviality as regards specific events such as murder.) ------------------------------------------------- If conditions do dictate results down to the microscopic level, it's still nobody's fault. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: If fault is to be denied, then kammic debt is denied, and moral consequence goes right out the window. I have no use for such a view and reject it outright. I absolutely believe the Buddha would as well. ----------------------------------------------------- Innocence and guilt only come into play if there are selves involved. ------------------------------------------------------ HCW: I do not agree with that. You have, in one sentence, declared morality as null and void and without meaning. Not all streams of consciousness are identical, and what occurs "here" is not occurring "there". Inseparability and distinguishability are compatible. No self, no core of individual identity in anything, is required for "innocence" and "guilt" terminology to be meaningful. If a wave smashes into a small boat and destroys it, while that wave is inseparable from the ocean and other waves, and is composed of water molecules, it is perfectly correct to assert that the damage came from that wave. not the individual elements of it (for they are interrelated and they act in concert) and not from other waves. In the case of a sentient being instead of an ocean wave, if there is conscious and intentional action with damage intended, we properly use the "fault" & "guilt" terminology, and even without the intention to cause harm, if there is harm due to negligence it is proper to use "responsibilty" terminology. To use a worldly, materialist metaphor. a chemistry story, oxygen and hydrogen atoms aren't wet and don't quench thirst, nor even do individual water molecules, but water is wet and does quench thirst. The fact that complexes of interrelated elements that act in concert are complexes and not individuals does not make statements about them false. Error comes in when we think that complexes are individual entities and also when we think that anything at any level is a separate reality with own being. ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123643 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts nilovg Dear Prasad, Op 6-apr-2012, om 18:10 heeft Prasad Praturi het volgende geschreven: > I just want to understand mind door process only. Suppose a person > cutoff all five sense doors, still raging thoughts will go on in > his mind. I want to understand between this thoghts ( raising and > fallng) and chittas (raising and falling). This is not explained > very clearly in abhidhamma literature. I do not want to use the > words seeing etc. related to other sense doors. > ------- N: When you are dreaming, you see in your dream landscapes, persons, and it really seems that you are actually seeing. Your eyes are closed and there is no seeing. You are merely experiencing objects through the mind-door. Because of sa~n~naa, remebrance, you have thought associations with former experiences. When you wake up, all these images are gone, they are no more. Also when we are awake we have moments of dreaming, thinking of things that are not really existing. For example, it seems that we see people. But is this actual seeing, the experience of what is visible through the eyesense? It is not. People cannot impinge on the eyesense, only colour or visible object can. However, because of associations with former experiences it seems that we see people. Just as in a dream. Dreaming of what is not reality. Another example. Long ago when in India, we were drinking tea in the garden of our hotel. We suddenly heard march music. Jonothan remarked that he had a mental image of people marching. This illustrates again that we have thought associations with former experiences. We are dreaming again of what is not reality. We see or hear something and then we draw out long stories in our mind. They seem so real. Thinking itself is real, it is citta that thinks, but the objects it thinks about (you call these thoughts) are not real, they are fabricated by citta. > -------- > P: I have read your books on this subject.... I even went to look > original Tripitaka ( ironically Chitta- vithi does not exist in any > of the seven canonical books). > ------ N: As pt remarked, you could check U.P. that is useful posts and these are in the files of the DSG organisation. You can go to the files section. There is quite a lot in the Path of Discrimination. All over in the suttas there are texts about the six doors. ------- > P:Still I could not find my answer for exclusively mind door > process ... > ------ N: The cittas of the mind-door process experience an object through the mind-door and this can be ruupa, naama, or a concept that is not real. Dhammrammaa, the sixth class of objects, can be experienced only through the mind-door. It includes all objects other than the sense objects. Dhammrammaa can again be subdivided into six classes. They are: 1 The five sense-organs (pasda-rpas) 2 The subtle rpas (sukhuma-rpas) 3 Citta 4 Cetasika 5 Nibbna 6 Concepts and conventional terms (paatti) ------ You were looking for something that you will not find in the teachings, that is, scientific explanations about thinking and thoughts. The purpose of the teachings is showing anattaa of realities. Teaching reality as different from what is not real in the ultimate sense. You find in the suttas also similes about a dream, that which is not real. Text Visuddhimagga, Ch XIV quotes KIndred Sayings: In detail [that is, individually] matter should be regarded as a lump of froth because it will not stand squeezing, feeling as a bubble on water because it can only be enjoyed for an instant, perception as a mirage because it causes illusion, formations as a plantain trunk because it has no core, and consciousness as a conjuring trick because it deceives (S.iii,140-42). The Dispeller adds that citta is more changeable and appears more briefly. Just as an illusion deceives many people and causes them to see as a jewel what is not a jewel, evenso citta that is without a core and swift to change deceives people and makes them think that there is one lasting citta at the time of coming, going, standing and sitting. However, there is another citta during each of these postures. Thus citta is like an illusion. --------- Why do you want to understand raging thoughts in your mind? We can learn that there are only elements and that the objects of thinking are of no importance, just like a mirage that you see in the desert. When you come near it is gone. They deceive us. It is better to know than not to know. ------ Nina. > Thought is being an object for Chitta.... > I mean ... This Thought process is not not subsequent process for > other sense door object. > > Can you please explain this relationship sequence of chittas and > sequence of thoghts in a person where other sense doors not working? > --------- #123644 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 3:31 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. Replying to part I. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > Replying in parts. > > > RE: Can you say a word about the difference between accumulation and development of kusala? > > pt: Not much of an expert on conditions. Perhaps it could be said that accumulation is akin to perpetuation/maintenance of the same habit (cetasikas) through repetition, whereas development is qualitative change for the better/worse or sharper/duller. That makes sense. It's probably something like very gradual quantitative change vs. qualitative change of "level" or capability, sort of as you suggest. > > RE: I really don't get the idea that kusala is great but has no relation to the path without panna. If it doesn't develop the path, what's so kusala about it? I mean, does it have value other than being nice in a general way? > > pt: I think for one, cetana is kusala since it accompanies a kusala citta, and that will result in good (results of) kamma. Further, good qualities (cetasikas) are accumulated. And the feeling that arises with kusala citta is either neutral or good (pleasant). That's what comes to mind atm. Okay. Rob K. also mentioned that certain kusala that is not directly path-oriented creates better conditions for path factors to arise in the future. > > RE: Does it create any conditions for development of the path, or not? > > pt: I think if it does, then only supporting conditions. Right, I think that's what's been suggested. ... > > RE: Buddha seemed to have all kinds of wonderful things to say about jhana > > pt: I think he praised all kusala, but above all to me it seems he praised insight because it is the only thing that leads out of the round of rebirths. As I understand, jhana attainments on their own do not lead out of the round and the attachment to them is what often keeps beings in the round, if we are to judge by the number of variations of wrong view in relation to jhana attainments in the All embracing net of views sutta. I have no problem with that. What bothers me is why would Buddha bother to "praise" all kusala that was not related to the path, if indeed his teaching was restricted, as he said, to "suffering and the end of suffering." I don't think he would praise kusala that did not lead to this goal, as it would lead followers on the kind of sidetrack [developing jhana without insight] that has often been the subject of debate here on dsg. It leads me to speculate that non-path kusala at least creates strong supporting conditions for insight, or he would not have praised it. > > RE: and in most cases included the development of the full range of jhanas and formless states as leading up to nibbana, > > pt: My take on this is a bit different: 1) he often spoke to people who were ascetics and were well practiced in jhana, and thus were intimately acquainted with jhana citta and cetasikas. 2) jhanas seem to "lead up to nibbana" only if there was insight (vipassana bhavana) occurring, regardless of whether those moments of insight took as object the jhana citta, jhana cetasikas or some other dhamma. 3) "up to nibbana" thus in my mind is a function of insight, whereas jhana cittas and cetasikas can be object of that insight or not. > > > RE: but folks around here seem to always emphasize dry insight and dismiss jhana as if it was a nasty virus. > > pt: My thinking is that most people here are 1) not acquainted with jhana citta personally, and 2) are primarily interested in insight. So, it doesn't seem strange that there's little interest in jhana here. Well I am sort of an evidence-based person when it comes to these things. It just rubs me the wrong way when the Buddha talks about something over and over again, praising and in my view promoting it, and it is dismissed because it doesn't fit the current mind-set about development of insight among the interpreters -- our friends and colleagues on dsg. Buddha makes no bones about the tandem development of jhana and insight, he talks about how it occurs and how to cultivate this combo all the time and in great detail. He talks about the progression from piti and sukkha to equanimity -- which is a *more enlightened* stage of development because it is no longer attached to pleasure and joy, and from there to the formless states that lead to enlightenment. *Of course* enlightenment will not be culminated without the complete development of insight, but the Buddha always praises the path of jhana as the highest path for the development of the full sequence of path factors and insight, so I personally take it -- based on the preponderance of the evidence -- that this is the main path indicated by the Buddha as the cultivation and culmination of the Noble 8-fold path. Yes, there are mitigating factors - people these days are often not capable of cultivating jhana; yes, there are those who were enlightened by just hearing the teachings; yes, there are indications that certain types of people can cultivate insight without jhana and that jhana will then occur as a path-factor during the enlightenment process; yes, the Buddha has indicated that insight can be cultivated first and then jhana, as well as jhana and then insight -- all of this leads to the inclusion of exceptions and extensions of the "jhana plan" for enlightenment. But to think that jhana was not the highest ground for complete cultivation of insight I think would be a mistake. And even the commentaries and senior dsg members also acknowledge that enlightenment with full jhana as the ground is the highest and deepest way to reach enlightenment, with greater capabilities for the arahant as a result. So in any case, it's not to be dismissed lightly. If we cannot cultivate jhana, there are two possibilities: 1. Our current lifetime can certainly be devoted to development of insight, with jhana 'saved for later.' 2. We can explore the possibility that our accumulations are meant for the path of 'dry insight' only, and leave aside jhana in our particular cases. Still, even given the above, when we read the Buddha's teachings on jhana, we should take them seriously and not dismiss them, so that we can understand the true context in which the Dhamma is discussed and cultivated. > > RE: This is worth looking into too, while on the subject of kusala with two roots. > > pt: Perhaps I'm missing your point, samatha bhavana (and jhana as a special subset of vipassana bhavana cittas) arise with 3 kusala roots, because panna (of samatha bhavana kind) as the third root is required for a citta to be classified as samatha bhavana. I may have gotten confused on that. Let me set aside my "two roots" comment for now, until I figure out what I meant! :-) > > RE: Buddha included jhana and development of insight in one breath in many instances, as developing together and growing the enlightenment factors through deep equanimity - a property of the deeper jhanas - combined with deep insight into the nature of the dhammas that arose in those states, which were subtler objects, but here they are separated like men's and women's basketball teams. > > pt: I believe the meaning of "together" and the ensuing non/separation of jhana and insight depends on how you interpret some of the modern and ancient commentators on the topic, since that's the gist of their differences. So, since we can only basically repeat what they say, I hope you don't mind if we leave this sub-topic for last. Okay, hopefully we will get to it eventually. :-) > > RE: This has implications for the whole idea of meditation either being part of the path or not, since for non-meditators, jhana will most likely only arise when sufficient insight for enlightenment stages has developed, whereas for meditators - at least those who have the capacity for it - it becomes a regular part of the development of the path. > > pt: I think I'd agree in general. I mean, if one has jhana cittas arising very often during the day, then it is likely that these jhana cittas and cetasikas will become objects of insight. Okay, we can agree on that, which seems a reasonable place to settle on for now. > If one doesn't have jhana cittas arising often during the day, but has mostly lobha and dosa arising, then these will be most likely the objects of insight. Also true, although I'd like to include the sub-topic that without enough kusala as condition for insight to arise, there won't be insight arising to make lobha and dosa objects of insight. I hope this point is not confusing, but I'll be happy to clarify if it is. > I don't think it really matters whether it is kusala (including jhana) or akusala cittas and cetasikas that become the object of insight, it'll work either way. That is true, as long as there is enough accumulation of panna to allow the insight to arise to take *any* object as object of insight. Again, I think that this sub-point is often overlooked. While any object may be the object of insight, without conditions for insight itself to arise, there will be no insight into anything. So, the subject of what creates conditions, or support conditions, for insight, is a worthy sub-topic. Does cultivation of kusala such as jhana increase support conditions for the arising of panna, or is it an equal playing field with a field of mostly lobha and dosa arising? I suspect that the Buddha praised jhana in part because it creates support conditions for the arising of panna. > > RE: It seems that the commentaries also take a much more separative approach to jhana and development of insight than the suttas do, favoring the development of dry insight. The commentators also seem to be much more intellectual in their approach to the analysis of the Buddha's teachings than the suttas themselves in many cases, which in many cases are pragmatic and often practice-oriented, applying directly to the lives of monks and householders who were following the path at the very time the Buddha spoke. > > pt: I don't know, I don't think I read even 5% of commentaries available, and I don't think that more than 10% of commentaries is even available in English. From what I read so far, I don't see difference from the suttas. I did at the start, but that's because at the time I was reading works by authors generally antagonistic towards the old commentarial tradition because it went contrary to their new interpretation. I think we should also be careful to make sure that *our* current reading and interpretation of suttas and commentaries is not also a "new interpretation," which is hard to do. That goes for me, of course, as much or moreso as anyone else, given my current level of mis-education or lack of education in these areas. > > RE: So the commentators appear to favor dry insight perhaps because of their own predilections, and one who looks at the suttas illuminated by the commentaries may also develop this same inclination in approaching the path. > > pt: I think commentaries comment on everything that's in the suttas (e.g. a big chunk of Visuddhimagga is on samatha bhavana), but since people here are more interested in dry insight (since they know that they don't experience jhana cittas often in life, if ever, thus making jhana somewhat irrelevant to them), then passages about insight get quoted more often here. Maybe so, but that does emphasize understanding of insight much more than really understanding the meaning and place of jhana in the path, even if that is natural under the circumstances. > > RE: Again, I think the issues raised above are direct outshoots of the idea that kusala which in and of itself does not include panna does not contribute to path development, so I'd like to at least raise the issues that emanate from this and see whether you would like to talk about them now, or save them for later. > > pt: For the sake of clarity in case I'm getting you wrong, samatha bhavana (including the subset of jhana cittas) requires panna as the third root. However, my understanding is that even though it has panna and thus is classified as "bhavana"/development, and thus develops kusala cittas and cetasikas of samatha class, it is still not "the path" in the sense that panna and all the other kusala cetasikas are of "samatha" class, not vipassana class. And only vipassana is "the path" in the strict sense as I understand things atm. > > Now, the question is whether development of samatha actually conditions development of vipassana? Yes, I think that is worth focusing on, for path purposes. > I don't know really, I don't think I ever experienced a jhana citta. My understanding at the moment is that samatha bhavana doesn't condition vipassana bhavana directly, just like kusala cittas with 2 roots don't. Otherwise, I don't know how to explain the examples in the texts of those who were very accomplished in jhanas but never got anywhere in terms of insight. That is a valid point, although it may still have conditioned insight in a future lifetime, or not - maybe it just conditioned development of insight with jhana in a future lifetime, the insight part still "pending" the independent development of panna, not related to the jhanas. > Or all the brahma deities who are in jhana for aeons, but then fall into lower realms. Good point. For such beings, how would insight eventually arise to condition the development of insight - or would it not ever? > But anyway, just like kusala cittas with 2 roots result in good kamma which can be a condition for hearing Dhamma at least, I think kusala cittas with 3 roots also have good kamma as result, good feeling, etc. Anyway, all this is just a lot of thinking and speculating, that's it for the first part. Okay, good. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123645 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 4:32 am Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Hi Ken H, you wrote: KH: Ah, now it dawns on me! Sorry about that. I was sure you were talking about abandoning the raft when actually you were talking about the aim (the final shore). (I wonder if I was the only reader who made that mistake. Perhaps you could have set things out a little more clearly.) ---------------------- D: well, perhaps .. I usually manage to get the message across ( How about your experience with a language other than English?). But I wonder how much understanding of the Dhamma you concede to me .. <. . .> >>> D: Where we both seem indeed to differ is 'making an effort with my hands & feet' >>> >> KH: Yes we do. In the Dhamma there are no hands or feet; the work of crossing over is done by conditioned dhammas. > D: besides that I think you neglect the point of volition (D.O.) , how about akiriyaditthi? (see below) > sacca-ñāṇa: 'knowledge of the truth' (s. prec.), may be of 2 kinds: (1)knowledge consisting in understanding (anubodha-ñāṇa) and (2) knowledge consisting in penetration (paṬivedha-ñāṇa), i.e. realization. Cf. pariyatti ."Amongst these, (1) 'knowledge consisting in understanding' is mundane (lokiya, q.v.), and its arising with regard to the extinction of suffering, and to the path, is due to hearsay etc. (therefore not due to one's realization of the supermundane path; s. ariya-puggala) ---------------------------------------- KH: Are you thinking that satipatthana (patipatti, mundane vipassana) is ordinary, and due to hearsay? D: Ken . I have no real idea about your practise (patipatti), nor do I trust that we have the same understanding of e.g. the Maha Satipatthana Sutta (pariyatti), not to talk about penetration (pativeda). What is meant above is that the supermundane Noble Path is open to the Noble Ones is hearsay until oneself is realizing that by penetration.. KH:It is not ordinary; it is direct right understanding of conditioned reality. So it is unique and profound, known only to the wise. D: as far as I know the issue of conditioned reality is treated by the Patthana of Abh. , in a nutshell what means this extensive work to you as mean of practise? KH:The remark "due to hearsay" is referring to knowledge of nibbana. Satipatthana doesn't directly know nibbana (unconditioned reality); it directly knows the five khandhas (conditioned reality). But that doesn't mean satipatthana is ordinary, or conventional in any way. It is certainly not a matter of striving with hands and feet! D: yes it is another context ..however as our issue is effort ,figuratively described by the raft simile (using hands and feet), it is of minor importance . In respect to Satipatthana it is stated that even by 7 days practise the realization of cessation of suffering (nibbana ) is possible. My main point was the last passage of the quotation , in particular ' the view of inefficacy of action (akiriyadiṭṭhi, s. diṭṭhi)" (Vis.M. XVI, 85). (Of the mundane kinds of knowledge, however, the knowledge of suffering by which (various) prejudices are overcome, dispels the personality-belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi, s. diṭṭhi). The knowledge of the origin of suffering dispels the annihilation-view (uccheda-diṭṭhi, s. diṭṭhi); the knowledge of extinction of suffering, the eternity-view (sassata-diṭṭhi, s. diṭṭhi); the knowledge of the path, the view of inefficacy of action (akiriyadiṭṭhi, s. diṭṭhi)" (Vis.M. XVI, 85). (Nyanatiloka Buddh.Dict.) ------------------- D: > (2) 'Knowledge consisting in penetration', however, is supermundane (lokuttara), with the extinction of suffering (= Nibbāna) as object, <. . .> the knowledge of the path the view of inefficacy of action (akiriyadiṬṬhi, s. diṬṬhi)" (Vis.M. XVI, 85). ------------------ KH: Read it again, Dieter. The "action" that puts an end to suffering is the Path. The path is a citta that contains eight path-cetasikas, isn't it? Those cetasikas perform the actions (functions) of crossing over. The efficacy of action has nothing to do with hands and feet. D: you miss the point of volition,Ken , which indeed is conditioned by Sankhara (2nd of the common D.O., old kamma) and Sankhara Khanda (4th new kamma..which concerns 50 of the 52 cetasikas). And this volition best described by chanda is a necessity for the path training of Sila, Samadhi and Panna. Do you like me to quote about this training? ------------------------ <. . .> >> KH: I wish I could have a meaningful discussion about his views without being asked to provide the same evidence over and over (and over) again >> > D: well, you quote from his introduction to Westerners ' when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta', not to those who understand the delusion. A meaningful discussion about his view is only opossible when we go through the whole essay and check his writings on canonical contradictions . But I assume that doesn't belong to our priorities. . So far I have a lot of respect for his work of sutta translations , freely available on the net. ----------------- KH: You are free, of course, to turn a blind eye to TB's heterodoxy and to his world-wide campaign (to replace samma-ditthi with sakkaya-ditthi). I wish I could be so easy-going. :-) D: well , not sure that I have such reputation , actually I think sometimes it would be better to be more easy going :-) I give the Venerable the credit of extensive Dhamma knowledge . So far I haven't read something what allows the judgement of heterodoxy. Certainly we wouldn't talk about him anymore if he indeed replaced samma ditthi with sakkaya-ditthi , but as I said already : pls quote from his essay to show that it is not only a misinterpretation . with Metta Dieter #123646 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 4:36 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. Replying to Part II. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > RE: But in looking at this in terms of meditation, there are times when it seems like peacefulness and equanimity are more prominent, and sometimes when that will lead to a sense of understanding arising. It seems to me that the Buddha spoke about meditation in this way as well. > > pt: Yes, "peacefulness and equanimity" is something I hope to discuss later when we go through the fundamentals, as these are common experiences of meditators and it's a matter of basics how these are interpreted. Okay, good. > > RE: 3. In meditation in general, I see the general habit and practices of meditation to eventually lead to the development of sati. I know this is not popular here, so I would call this an exception to the above, perhaps to be debated later. > > pt: Yes, it's very important figuring out what's sati. I don't know the answer really, but I hope to discuss later as well. Okay, good, again - look forward to that. > > RE: This view is based on the idea of meditation as a conventional practice that represents the development of certain dhammas, and this is always the controversy with those who believe that a conventional practice can never lead to anything pertinent to the path. It is hard to even talk about it, since the preexisting philosophical understanding is that dhammas can only arise from former arisings and developments, rather than from present practice. So there is a kind of chasm there. > > pt: Perhaps we can leave this for later, as I think it again depends on how the fundamentals are understood. I don't see a chasm anymore, but that's a result of investigating the fundamentals. I would like to hear about that - perhaps as a sidebar...? > > RE: For me, to put it a little too bluntly, someone would have to demonstrate that this is the actual teaching, rather than something that is strictly gotten from scriptures other than the suttas, or from a modern interpretation of development. I don't really understand where the idea of all current experience and development coming from past accumulations, with nothing contributed by present activities and experiences, but that is something I would need to look into. > > pt: This again goes back to fundamentals. E.g. I think it's all about the present experience, and because of this, meditation practice is not the path because it has future as goal, even if that future is in the very next moment - like having more sati. So, implications of examining the fundamentals are interesting, but we have to go slowly, and agreement is not guaranteed either. Yeah, I think once having established fundamentals - if possible - this kind of question is very important. > > RE: The only qualifier I would throw in is that I think in actual practice moments of concept as object and rupa as object, as well as arising thoughts as object, etc., probably all take their place in the various moments that arise while meditating. So the question is whether those moments that arise when rupa is object or even when concept is object have any panna arising with them, and whether that panna accumulates when it arises. I think you probably will agree with that... > > pt: Yes, those are the bits we're examining, and the implications and the precision, etc. Anyway, I'll wait for your further responses onto these two parts for any follow up discussion, and then I'll return to the original post/reply that dealt with b, c and d. I expect since we're discussing fundamentals, there are always a lot of offshoot/derivative discussion topics we'll need to address or leave for later if we get too bogged and loose track of the basics. I guess it would be a good idea to keep a list of topics in brief that we are leaving aside for later. If you have a good sense of those and can jot them down would be great. It's hard for me to keep track of where my hairbrush is - but you may be overly busy too. I hope I've answered your points well enough for us to move forward. I am leaving you in charge of the basic organization - I have a feeling you may be a little younger and sharper than me... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123647 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 4:47 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Rob K and Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi RobK and Rob E Jon, for whatever reason, most of the cites from Rob K. below had "RE" in front of them, so I have corrected them below. > (123627) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > Dear jon > > The concept is drinking Alcohol. > > The corelation is that concepts such as drinking , or getting drunk are shorthand terms that briefly describe the countless namas and rupas involved in taking a drink.. > > =============== > > J: I agree with the proposition that concepts are shorthand terms for namas and rupas. (I wouldn't really see that as amounting to a 'correlation', but I guess that's a matter of usage.) It's a correlation compared to the notion that concepts and dhammas take place in two completely different universes, and that the former is completely hallucinatory. The proposition that concepts are shorthand ways of experiencing or referencing the countless namas and rupas that arise is one that was strongly rejected by many here in former discussions. If we agree on that now, there's much less of a divide between us. > > =============== correction: this is fromRob K [not Rob E]: > > It is like the Abhidhammathasangaha states: concepts are the shadows of the paramathha. > > =============== > > J: Yes, also agreed. > > > =============== I referenced the Abhidhammasangaha notion of concepts being "shadows" of dhammas in the past, and was somewhat rebuked. But I still think it is a very vital notion, and glad to see you looking at it that way. correction: this is fromRob K [not Rob E]: > > Now while it is true that the uninstructed worldling cannot distinguih the paramathha from the conceptual world, this does not negate the close relationship of concept and reality. > > =============== > > J: I don't quite see this as being a 'relationship', but I wouldn't quibble over that usage. > > Rob E, I don't know if you had anything in mind that is not covered by RobK's explanation. works for me at the moment - but I also answered in more detail in a recent post to you. > > =============== correction: this is from Rob K [not Rob E]: > > Sorry about all my typos. Yahhogroups doesnt have a an app for ipad and it is a bit tricky posting ... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123648 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 5:25 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob K and Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > Hi RobK and Rob E > > Jon, for whatever reason, most of the cites from Rob K. below had "RE" in front of them, so I have corrected them below. > =============== J: My apologies for that, Rob. Force of habit, I guess! Jon #123649 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 6:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon, Rob K. and pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > J: As I understand it, past kamma (good or bad) needs supporting conditions to ripen. So for example, in a given life a person may experience mostly kusala vipaka even though there has been much akusala kamma performed also, or vice versa. > > > > In the situation being discussed, there may have been performed in the past both kamma that will result in a long life and kamma that will result in a shortened life; however, the intervention of the person with murderous intent is a supporting condition for the latter kamma to ripen rather than the former, so that a normal lifespan is not reached. > Dear pt and jon > Yes that is how i see it,. Also anciliary factors like being born in a warlike land or time, may support a sudden and untimely death. > Nevertheless no one could be killed - no matter what other causes- unless they had some akusal kamma waiting to pounce. > As a matter of interest even arahats like mogga > Ana can be murdered and it is only buddhas that are exempt ( plus such individuals as ven Bakual who madde such kamma as to be never be sick or injured and who live to 160 years old) Part of what interests me in all the above, is again the role of conventional conditions and events, which I think we use in shorthand form but also include in a way that suggests their reality as well. Is a "warlike land" a set of rupas that set conditions for other rupas? Or is it a conventional set of conditions that make it more likely to be killed in conventional terms? And does that "mix" with the akusala kamma that allows for a chance to be murdered under the "right conditions?" "Warlike" may be shorthand for sets of conditions that keep "warlike" sets of rupas arising that create further conditions for the akusala kamma to result in murder, eg, the life-faculty being cut off. Is that adequate to account for being born in a warlike environment? Is "long life" a reality, or merely a conventional measurement? If it is only a conventional reality, and cannot be broken down into dhammas, how do we account for "long life" being a factor when talking about kamma, which only affects dhammas? Or does kamma also affect such realities as "long life," "poverty," "looking pretty or ugly," which the Buddha referenced as a matter of course when talking about kamma. Can the result of kamma express itself in such blatantly conventional life-conditions? I think it's worth clarifying whether everything we talk about in conventional terms can be broken down into dhammas, or whether some conventional realities - such as being killed by planes dropping bombs from an airplane, or being born as a bird and being shot down by a hunter, the latter being referenced by the Buddha - can only be explained by including both dhammas and conventional realities in the explanation. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #123650 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 6:06 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob K and Jon. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > > > Hi RobK and Rob E > > > > Jon, for whatever reason, most of the cites from Rob K. below had "RE" in front of them, so I have corrected them below. > > =============== > > J: My apologies for that, Rob. Force of habit, I guess! No problem - just want to make sure you know when it is Rob K. who is saying interesting things about conventional reality and dhammas! :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #123651 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 6:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > From the conventional point of view, of course there are victims. Looked > at mechanically, though, it's all about conditionality. > ------------------------------------------- > HCW: > So what? The conditions of akusala or kusala kamma in one stream of > consciousness are not the cetasikas of another. I have no reason to believe > that specific things only happen to a person due in part to his/her own > kamma. (Of course, one's kamma conditions one's realm of birth, and birth into > a realm leads to eventual death in that realm, but that is a triviality as > regards specific events such as murder.) > ------------------------------------------------- I don't know, Howard. I think everyone acknowledges that a number of types of conditions, such as supporting conditions and conditions that actually cause the event to happen at the moment are necessary in addition to kamma. But to say that kamma does not play a role in a major life-event is a question for me. It seems to me that there is a 'mystical' acknowledgment that the course of life is at least partially dictated by kamma, and that it plays a major role in the major events of life. To say that one would be murdered with no involvement of kamma seems to undercut that sense of the importance of the powerful conditioning effect of kamma, at least as emphasized by the Buddha. Are there some major events according to Buddha that just take place according to conditions, and have nothing to do with kamma [other than realm of birth as you mention]? In other words, is there a strong role for "chance" in the Buddhist notion of conditions? I am not the most well versed, but I sort of doubt that. > If conditions do dictate results down to the microscopic level, it's still > nobody's fault. > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > If fault is to be denied, then kammic debt is denied, and moral > consequence goes right out the window. I have no use for such a view and reject > it outright. I absolutely believe the Buddha would as well. > ----------------------------------------------------- I don't think that fault is a vital notion in Buddhism. The reason for being moral is not so that you can be judged as good, but because of its effect on conditionality and causing of suffering. "Causing suffering" is not the same as "fault." The second is a human term. There is also a difference between saying "what you did caused that" and saying it is "your fault." "Fault" implies a self that is the actor who is centrally responsible for events. I'm not amoral, but I also don't believe that morality is the most skillful way to look at what happens. I think it's better to break morality into an actual discussion of conditions, including personal ones - not leaving that out. But the desire to judge a person is not part of a useful description of reality in my view. > Innocence and guilt only come into play if there are selves involved. > ------------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > I do not agree with that. You have, in one sentence, declared morality as > null and void and without meaning. No, I've specified what it is in my view, but the judgmental side of morality has no place in understanding either the consequences of actions, or how they actually take place. "Morality" is a useful notion in understanding what causes suffering, but is not useful in simply assessing whether someone is a good person or not. Of course that is useful in everyday life as a human being, but it does not add to the understanding of what actually happens that causes things to take place. While you are taking exception to my translation of morality into a sense of conditions, I am just keeping each idea in what I consider to be its useful arena. Why can't I talk about morality as conditions for understanding what actually happens, and not cloud the understanding with judgments and expectations? A good example is the Buddha's teaching on eating meat. It's okay to eat meat if you don't kill the animal or have it killed especially for your meal, because that does not effect your kamma. But for a "moral" person in the conventional world, this explanation is unacceptable, because you are still participating in the fruits of the killing. Buddha makes a distinction between our everyday sense of right and wrong and what creates negative kamma. > Not all streams of consciousness are identical, and what occurs "here" > is not occurring "there". Inseparability and distinguishability are > compatible. No self, no core of individual identity in anything, is required for > "innocence" and "guilt" terminology to be meaningful. I don't agree with you on the structural integrity of "innocence" and "guilt." I think they are inherently terms of judgment against a person, not a conditional description. We may disagree on this, or we may be using the terms differently. > If a wave smashes > into a small boat and destroys it, while that wave is inseparable from the > ocean and other waves, and is composed of water molecules, it is perfectly > correct to assert that the damage came from that wave. To my terminology, "damage came from the wave" does not make an impersonal wave "guilty," which is ludicrous to me. It's just a description of what happened, not an assessment of guilt. > not the individual > elements of it (for they are interrelated and they act in concert) and not from > other waves. In the case of a sentient being instead of an ocean wave, if > there is conscious and intentional action with damage intended, we properly > use the "fault" & "guilt" terminology, and even without the intention to > cause harm, if there is harm due to negligence it is proper to use > "responsibilty" terminology. It is perhaps -- although not always or necessarily in my view -- useful in conventional reality, as for instance in a courtroom, but it does not shed light in my view on what actually happens when conditions, including people, cause particular events to take place. But I think you should understand that I don't believe in "anything goes" or that there is no moral compass in life, or in conditionality. That which is "kusala" is that which leads to a positive result, and that which is "akusala" perpetuates and causes further suffering. I think that is the best way of looking at what is wholesome, rather than making judgments of "guilt" and "fault" which are always glosses over what actually takes place. I am not "cold" to the moral question; I just want to be more specific and not stop at a general assessment. > To use a worldly, materialist metaphor. a chemistry story, oxygen and > hydrogen atoms aren't wet and don't quench thirst, nor even do individual > water molecules, but water is wet and does quench thirst. The fact that > complexes of interrelated elements that act in concert are complexes and not > individuals does not make statements about them false. Error comes in when we > think that complexes are individual entities and also when we think that > anything at any level is a separate reality with own being. I accept that, but I also don't think it is useful to separate personal conditionality into talk about the innocence or guilt of a person in a vaccuum, as if we can make moral judgments about people in an absolute sense as if they are separate from other conditions, or as if they can be generalized about with a single assessment. "That person was at fault" is at best a very partial assessment of any event, leaving out all the other circumstances involved, which is what makes legal proceedings have a number of levels and take into account all sorts of mitigating circumstances, even in a conventional court of law. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #123652 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 6:52 am Subject: Re: Lukas. trip to england szmicio Dear Nina, > N: That can change. It is kusala to care for others instead of being > selfish and as confidence in kusala and understanding grows, you will > care more for others. Actually, when such a moment arises, only then > you can be convinced of its benefit. L: Yes, but not with 'worldly attachements', if u know what I mean. Alone on Path is much better for me. I could took care more of others, being alone. Greed seems like blocking evrything that kusala. Best wishes Lukas #123653 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 9:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/8/2012 4:47:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > From the conventional point of view, of course there are victims. Looked > at mechanically, though, it's all about conditionality. > ------------------------------------------- > HCW: > So what? The conditions of akusala or kusala kamma in one stream of > consciousness are not the cetasikas of another. I have no reason to believe > that specific things only happen to a person due in part to his/her own > kamma. (Of course, one's kamma conditions one's realm of birth, and birth into > a realm leads to eventual death in that realm, but that is a triviality as > regards specific events such as murder.) > ------------------------------------------------- I don't know, Howard. I think everyone acknowledges that a number of types of conditions, such as supporting conditions and conditions that actually cause the event to happen at the moment are necessary in addition to kamma. But to say that kamma does not play a role in a major life-event is a question for me. It seems to me that there is a 'mystical' acknowledgment that the course of life is at least partially dictated by kamma, and that it plays a major role in the major events of life. To say that one would be murdered with no involvement of kamma seems to undercut that sense of the importance of the powerful conditioning effect of kamma, at least as emphasized by the Buddha. Are there some major events according to Buddha that just take place according to conditions, and have nothing to do with kamma [other than realm of birth as you mention]? In other words, is there a strong role for "chance" in the Buddhist notion of conditions? I am not the most well ver sed, but I sort of doubt that. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: I'm not aware of the Buddha teaching that kamma is *always* involved in what happens to one. There are trivial sense in which it is: For example, whatever happens to someone, it would not happen if the person had not been born into the realm where it occurs, and of course kamma was a condition for that birth. If that's the sort of thing you have in mind, I have no argument against it. ------------------------------------------------- > If conditions do dictate results down to the microscopic level, it's still > nobody's fault. > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > If fault is to be denied, then kammic debt is denied, and moral > consequence goes right out the window. I have no use for such a view and reject > it outright. I absolutely believe the Buddha would as well. > ----------------------------------------------------- I don't think that fault is a vital notion in Buddhism. The reason for being moral is not so that you can be judged as good, but because of its effect on conditionality and causing of suffering. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: My reason for being moral is that it is right ... period. ----------------------------------------------- "Causing suffering" is not the same as "fault." The second is a human term. There is also a difference between saying "what you did caused that" and saying it is "your fault." "Fault" implies a self that is the actor who is centrally responsible for events. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: It implies an intentional action of a person's, i.e., within a given namarupic stream, intended to cause harm and that does cause harm. No soul or core of identity is needed for this. ------------------------------------------------ I'm not amoral, but I also don't believe that morality is the most skillful way to look at what happens. I think it's better to break morality into an actual discussion of conditions, including personal ones - not leaving that out. But the desire to judge a person is not part of a useful description of reality in my view. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Determining where and how an action originates is important. It is a practical matter. People need to be protected from criminals, and that cannot happen unless guilt is determined. -------------------------------------------------- > Innocence and guilt only come into play if there are selves involved. > ------------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > I do not agree with that. You have, in one sentence, declared morality as > null and void and without meaning. No, I've specified what it is in my view, but the judgmental side of morality has no place in understanding either the consequences of actions, or how they actually take place. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Judging and being judgmental are not one and the same. ----------------------------------------------- "Morality" is a useful notion in understanding what causes suffering, but is not useful in simply assessing whether someone is a good person or not. Of course that is useful in everyday life as a human being, but it does not add to the understanding of what actually happens that causes things to take place. While you are taking exception to my translation of morality into a sense of conditions, I am just keeping each idea in what I consider to be its useful arena. Why can't I talk about morality as conditions for understanding what actually happens, and not cloud the understanding with judgments and expectations? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't believe in blaming victims, and that is what I consider happens when we say there is no fault in murder. ------------------------------------------------ A good example is the Buddha's teaching on eating meat. It's okay to eat meat if you don't kill the animal or have it killed especially for your meal, because that does not effect your kamma. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: I don't eat meat, and not because of my kamma vipaka. I don't eat meat, because I don't want to support the killing of animals, and that because I don't want to cause distress. ---------------------------------------------- But for a "moral" person in the conventional world, this explanation is unacceptable, because you are still participating in the fruits of the killing. Buddha makes a distinction between our everyday sense of right and wrong and what creates negative kamma. > Not all streams of consciousness are identical, and what occurs "here" > is not occurring "there". Inseparability and distinguishability are > compatible. No self, no core of individual identity in anything, is required for > "innocence" and "guilt" terminology to be meaningful. I don't agree with you on the structural integrity of "innocence" and "guilt." I think they are inherently terms of judgment against a person, not a conditional description. We may disagree on this, or we may be using the terms differently. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: So, now do you believe that an anatta perspective requires a belief that there are no persons, no compounds of interacting mental and physical phenomena? ------------------------------------------------- > If a wave smashes > into a small boat and destroys it, while that wave is inseparable from the > ocean and other waves, and is composed of water molecules, it is perfectly > correct to assert that the damage came from that wave. To my terminology, "damage came from the wave" does not make an impersonal wave "guilty," which is ludicrous to me. It's just a description of what happened, not an assessment of guilt. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: There is no consciousness and volition in a wave. That is just a metaphor, Robert. You need to read further of what I wrote. ----------------------------------------------- > not the individual > elements of it (for they are interrelated and they act in concert) and not from > other waves. In the case of a sentient being instead of an ocean wave, if > there is conscious and intentional action with damage intended, we properly > use the "fault" & "guilt" terminology, and even without the intention to > cause harm, if there is harm due to negligence it is proper to use > "responsibilty" terminology. It is perhaps -- although not always or necessarily in my view -- useful in conventional reality, as for instance in a courtroom, but it does not shed light in my view on what actually happens when conditions, including people, cause particular events to take place. But I think you should understand that I don't believe in "anything goes" or that there is no moral compass in life, or in conditionality. That which is "kusala" is that which leads to a positive result, and that which is "akusala" perpetuates and causes further suffering. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: An action that unintentionally cayse harm is unfortunate but not akusala. Intention is everything as regards moral matters. ----------------------------------------------- I think that is the best way of looking at what is wholesome, rather than making judgments of "guilt" and "fault" which are always glosses over what actually takes place. I am not "cold" to the moral question; I just want to be more specific and not stop at a general assessment. > To use a worldly, materialist metaphor. a chemistry story, oxygen and > hydrogen atoms aren't wet and don't quench thirst, nor even do individual > water molecules, but water is wet and does quench thirst. The fact that > complexes of interrelated elements that act in concert are complexes and not > individuals does not make statements about them false. Error comes in when we > think that complexes are individual entities and also when we think that > anything at any level is a separate reality with own being. I accept that, but I also don't think it is useful to separate personal conditionality into talk about the innocence or guilt of a person in a vaccuum, as if we can make moral judgments about people in an absolute sense as if they are separate from other conditions, or as if they can be generalized about with a single assessment. "That person was at fault" is at best a very partial assessment of any event, leaving out all the other circumstances involved, which is what makes legal proceedings have a number of levels and take into account all sorts of mitigating circumstances, even in a conventional court of law. Best, Rob E. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123654 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 11:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna rjkjp1 Dear rob Yes , practically all we are and absolutely all we experience is largely conditioned by kamma.. Life is ALWAYS 100% fair. Even the fact that just now i was served coffe in a tacky cardboard cup, rather than my usual porcelain one, Not that that stops me from asking the girl to change it. Evn winning a major lottery is due to a past good kamma. Robert > plays a major role in the major events of life. To say that one would be > murdered with no involvement of kamma seems to undercut that sense of the > importance of the powerful conditioning effect of kamma, at least as emphasized > by the Buddha. Are there some major events according to Buddha that just > take place according to conditions, and have nothing to do with kamma [other > than realm of birth as you mention]? In other words, is there a strong role > for "chance" in the Buddhist notion of conditions? I am not the most well > ver sed, but I sort of doubt that. > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW:, and of course kamma was a condition > for that birth. If that's the sort of thing you have in mind, I have no > argument against it. > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > If conditions do dictate results down to the microscopic level, it's > still > > nobody's fault. > > ------------------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > If fault is to be denied, then kammic debt is denied, and moral > > consequence goes right out the window. I have no use for such a view and > reject > > it outright. I absolutely believe the Buddha would as well. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > I don't think that fault is a vital notion in Buddhism. The reason for > being moral is not so that you can be judged as good, but because of its > effect on conditionality and causing of suffering. > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > My reason for being moral is that it is right ... period. > ----------------------------------------------- > > "Causing suffering" is not the same as "fault." The second is a human > term. There is also a difference between saying "what you did caused that" and > saying it is "your fault." "Fault" implies a self that is the actor who is > centrally responsible for events. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > It implies an intentional action of a person's, i.e., within a given > namarupic stream, intended to cause harm and that does cause harm. No soul > or core of identity is needed for this. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > I'm not amoral, but I also don't believe that morality is the most > skillful way to look at what happens. I think it's better to break morality into > an actual discussion of conditions, including personal ones - not leaving > that out. But the desire to judge a person is not part of a useful > description of reality in my view. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Determining where and how an action originates is important. It is a > practical matter. People need to be protected from criminals, and that > cannot happen unless guilt is determined. > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Innocence and guilt only come into play if there are selves involved. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > HCW: > > I do not agree with that. You have, in one sentence, declared morality > as > > null and void and without meaning. > > No, I've specified what it is in my view, but the judgmental side of > morality has no place in understanding either the consequences of actions, or > how they actually take place. > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Judging and being judgmental are not one and the same. > ----------------------------------------------- > > "Morality" is a useful notion in understanding what causes suffering, but > is not useful in simply assessing whether someone is a good person or not. > > Of course that is useful in everyday life as a human being, but it does > not add to the understanding of what actually happens that causes things to > take place. > > While you are taking exception to my translation of morality into a sense > of conditions, I am just keeping each idea in what I consider to be its > useful arena. Why can't I talk about morality as conditions for understanding > what actually happens, and not cloud the understanding with judgments and > expectations? > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't believe in blaming victims, and that is what I consider > happens when we say there is no fault in murder. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > A good example is the Buddha's teaching on eating meat. It's okay to eat > meat if you don't kill the animal or have it killed especially for your > meal, because that does not effect your kamma. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > I don't eat meat, and not because of my kamma vipaka. I don't eat > meat, because > I don't want to support the killing of animals, and that because I don't > want to cause distress. > ---------------------------------------------- > > But for a "moral" person in the conventional world, this explanation is > unacceptable, because you are still participating in the fruits of the > killing. Buddha makes a distinction between our everyday sense of right and wrong > and what creates negative kamma. > > > Not all streams of consciousness are identical, and what occurs "here" > > is not occurring "there". Inseparability and distinguishability are > > compatible. No self, no core of individual identity in anything, is > required for > > "innocence" and "guilt" terminology to be meaningful. > > I don't agree with you on the structural integrity of "innocence" and > "guilt." I think they are inherently terms of judgment against a person, not a > conditional description. We may disagree on this, or we may be using the > terms differently. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > So, now do you believe that an anatta perspective requires a belief > that there are no persons, no compounds of interacting mental and physical > phenomena? > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > If a wave smashes > > into a small boat and destroys it, while that wave is inseparable from > the > > ocean and other waves, and is composed of water molecules, it is > perfectly > > correct to assert that the damage came from that wave. > > To my terminology, "damage came from the wave" does not make an impersonal > wave "guilty," which is ludicrous to me. It's just a description of what > happened, not an assessment of guilt. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > There is no consciousness and volition in a wave. That is just a > metaphor, Robert. You need to read further of what I wrote. > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > > not the individual > > elements of it (for they are interrelated and they act in concert) and > not from > > other waves. In the case of a sentient being instead of an ocean wave, > if > > there is conscious and intentional action with damage intended, we > properly > > use the "fault" & "guilt" terminology, and even without the intention to > > > cause harm, if there is harm due to negligence it is proper to use > > "responsibilty" terminology. > > It is perhaps -- although not always or necessarily in my view -- useful > in conventional reality, as for instance in a courtroom, but it does not > shed light in my view on what actually happens when conditions, including > people, cause particular events to take place. > > But I think you should understand that I don't believe in "anything goes" > or that there is no moral compass in life, or in conditionality. That which > is "kusala" is that which leads to a positive result, and that which is > "akusala" perpetuates and causes further suffering. > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > An action that unintentionally cayse harm is unfortunate but not > akusala. Intention is everything as regards moral matters. > ----------------------------------------------- > > I think that is the best way of looking at what is wholesome, rather than > making judgments of "guilt" and "fault" which are always glosses over what > actually takes place. I am not "cold" to the moral question; I just want to > be more specific and not stop at a general assessment. > > > To use a worldly, materialist metaphor. a chemistry story, oxygen and > > hydrogen atoms aren't wet and don't quench thirst, nor even do > individual > > water molecules, but water is wet and does quench thirst. The fact that > > complexes of interrelated elements that act in concert are complexes and > not > > individuals does not make statements about them false. Error comes in > when we > > think that complexes are individual entities and also when we think that > > anything at any level is a separate reality with own being. > > I accept that, but I also don't think it is useful to separate personal > conditionality into talk about the innocence or guilt of a person in a > vaccuum, as if we can make moral judgments about people in an absolute sense as > if they are separate from other conditions, or as if they can be generalized > about with a single assessment. "That person was at fault" is at best a > very partial assessment of any event, leaving out all the other circumstances > involved, which is what makes legal proceedings have a number of levels > and take into account all sorts of mitigating circumstances, even in a > conventional court of law. > > Best, > Rob E. > ================================ > With metta, > Howard > > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > > > > #123655 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 3:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > In a message dated 4/8/2012 4:47:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > From the conventional point of view, of course there are victims. Looked > > at mechanically, though, it's all about conditionality. > > ------------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > So what? The conditions of akusala or kusala kamma in one stream of > > consciousness are not the cetasikas of another. I have no reason to > believe > > that specific things only happen to a person due in part to his/her own > > kamma. ... > > I don't know, Howard. I think everyone acknowledges that a number of types > of conditions, such as supporting conditions and conditions that actually > cause the event to happen at the moment are necessary in addition to kamma. ...[But] to say that one would be > murdered with no involvement of kamma seems to undercut that sense of the > importance of the powerful conditioning effect of kamma, at least as emphasized > by the Buddha. ... > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I'm not aware of the Buddha teaching that kamma is *always* involved > in what happens to one. ... If that's the sort of thing you have in mind, I have no > argument against it. > ------------------------------------------------- As I understand kamma as taught by Buddha, our cetana and completed intentional actions act as causes for future experiences that we have, based on what our own output has created, and the effects of such kamma can be experienced well into the future, when the right combination of conditions coincide. It is impersonal in the sense that those arising cetanas and actions also come from previous conditioning, so there is no moment when a self, acting in freedom from conditions, makes a decision as to what to think or what to do. It's all conditioned, and so responsibility is real but not personal. Do intentions and actions take place in a particular stream of arising cittas? Yes. And in the conventional world is it important to identify and predict how individuals are going to behave and treat them accordingly? Yes. But that is distinct from identifying the chain of conditionality that leads to specific kammas and their consequent vipakas. That happens mechanically, and the mechanical nature of that chain of conditions is in my view at the heart of Buddhism. It is what makes it truly not based on self. In that sense, Buddhism is pretty cold. It does not have moral warmth in my view. Morality in Buddhism has to do with 'what works' to end suffering, not because one wants to think of oneself as a good person. I think that's why it is often translated as 'skillful.' In the conventional world, I agree with you that a person must and should have a moral code, treat others well, and be kind to people and animals. And I agree that much of that is the same in terms of what is kusala in Buddhism. But there is a line between personal morality in life and the understanding of conditionality that is distinct. One is personal and the other is impersonal in my view. I am not in love with this impersonal view of conditionality. I don't even like it. But I think it's what describes the true course of events in terms of actual occurrences, which include of course cetana and intentional action. As for a person being harmed being the result of their own kamma, I don't personally know the answer to that. But I'm pretty sure that the Buddha taught that this is the way it works, in numerous examples. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123656 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 3:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear rob > Yes , practically all we are and absolutely all we experience is largely conditioned by kamma.. Life is ALWAYS 100% fair. Even the fact that just now i was served coffe in a tacky cardboard cup, rather than my usual porcelain one, Not that that stops me from asking the girl to change it. > Even winning a major lottery is due to a past good kamma. Thanks for your understanding of this, Rob K. I think for a lot of us it is difficult to think of a level of conditionality that is this "tight." I guess it is worth developing understanding well enough to eventually see how it all hangs together. Hope you got your porcelain cup - much more satisfying. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #123657 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 3:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon, pt and Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi pt (and RobK) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > > Hi RobK (Scott, RobE), > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. > > > > > "Killing living beings" is the volition to kill on the part of one who is aware, in respect of a living being, that it is a living being, and which (volition), manifesting itself through one or the other of the doors of body and speech, initiates activity resulting in the cutting off of the life faculty. > > > > pt: I'm still struggling how to relate this to conditions for cutti citta. Could it then be said that cutti citta of the one who is being killed is not conditioned just by his kamma, but firstly by falling away of life-faculty, which in turn falls away as conditioned by rupa that stops it from arising, such as hardness (of a conventional knife). I think I'm making a mistake somewhere. > > =============== > > J: As I understand it, past kamma (good or bad) needs supporting conditions to ripen. So for example, in a given life a person may experience mostly kusala vipaka even though there has been much akusala kamma performed also, or vice versa. > > In the situation being discussed, there may have been performed in the past both kamma that will result in a long life and kamma that will result in a shortened life; however, the intervention of the person with murderous intent is a supporting condition for the latter kamma to ripen rather than the former, so that a normal lifespan is not reached. What is your view of the relation of kamma to concepts like "normal lifespan," "long life" and "shortened life?" Do such terms reference something that exists in the world of dhammas? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #123658 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi Jon and all, Thanks for your reply. > J: In the situation being discussed, there may have been performed in the past both kamma that will result in a long life and kamma that will result in a shortened life; however, the intervention of the person with murderous intent is a supporting condition for the latter kamma to ripen rather than the former, so that a normal lifespan is not reached. pt: I'm still a bit confused when it comes to the interaction between the two people, or rather between their cittas and cetasikas, if there is one in the first place. Notably, I see two difficult issues: 1. As you note: "..the intervention of the person with murderous intent is a supporting condition for the latter kamma [pt: of the victim] to ripen.." Now, this "intervention" in essence needs to be a dhamma if it is to be a supporting condition for the victim's kamma to ripen (resulting in victim's death). So, I'm wondering what sort of dhamma is it? I'd assume it'd have to be some sort of rupa, and this rupa would be produced by the intimation of the killer, which in turn is produced by his murderous intent accompanying a citta with very strong dosa, right? 2. We've said that cittas and cetasikas of the two people shouldn't be mixed up. We've also said that kamma patha for the killer depends on the victim's death (ending of life-faculty). So, what I'm looking for is again a dhamma that acts as a condition between the two - basically in what way does the ending of life-faculty (a dhamma) of the victim, condition the vipaka citta of the killer? I mean, these two are dhammas of two different people, so then they can't condition eachother directly, and therefore there must be some other dhammas in between through which the first would conditions the second? At this point I don't really see what sort of dhamma(s) could that be. If that's the right way to consider this issue in the first place. Best wishes pt #123659 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 3:55 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts ppraturi Dear Nina, Thanks again for clarification ------------------------------- N: When you are dreaming, you see in your dream landscapes, persons, and it really seems that you are actually seeing. Your eyes are closed and there is no seeing. You are merely experiencing objects through the mind-door. Because of sa~n~naa, remebrance, you have thought associations with former experiences. When you wake up, all these images are gone, they are no more. <...> #123660 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 4:25 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts ppraturi Dear Sarah, Thanks for invitation. last few years I am living part time in Dallas, Texas and part time in Bangalore, India but next thursday onward i am moving to Bangalore permanently. I mediatate regularly vipassana practice taught by shri SN Goenkaji in the tradition of U Ba Khin. You may be aware of it as observing sensations is the key to get to the root of our mind and purify it. it is not very encouraged to read so much abidhamma in this tradition. but no body discourage either. Goenkaji suggests theory and practice should go in a balanced way. (as much practice one do, one must learn that much theory and vice versa ...). Too much thery can become a hindrance as one become an intellectual. Somehow i got in touch with some group of people in a mahabhodi monastry, Bangalore, India... where regular abhidhamma classes and study held. Then I was so much interested last one year i go on collecting all the literature available in dhamma. I even bought entire tripithaka english transaltion from Plai text society. but only liitle i read... . So my questions are very naive... As a engineer, i got fascinated by dhammsanghani classification of dhammas (22 traids... 100 dyads) and pattana relationships demonsttrations using these sets. Also chiita-vithi process expalined in abhdidhamma sangraha amazed me. I have not learned pali .. But as being one of the indian languages (Telugu) I speak, which has sanskrit content... i can easily understand the meaning of some words.. (but not all!) Thank you and Nina for helping me to understand. Prasad To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: sarahprocterabbott@... <...> I'm glad to welcome you (a little late) to DSG and to read your interesting questions. You're obviously familiar with the Pali and Abhidhamma terms - may I ask where you live and have studied Dhamma? <...> #123661 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 5:03 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > 2. We've said that cittas and cetasikas of the two people shouldn't be mixed up. We've also said that kamma patha for the killer depends on the victim's death (ending of life-faculty). So, what I'm looking for is again a dhamma that acts as a condition between the two - basically in what way does the ending of life-faculty (a dhamma) of the victim, condition the vipaka citta of the killer? I mean, these two are dhammas of two different people, so then they can't condition eachother directly, and therefore there must be some other dhammas in between through which the first would conditions the second? At this point I don't really see what sort of dhamma(s) could that be. If that's the right way to consider this issue in the first place. I think you are right, pt, that this is a pretty thorny issue. It is not even the ending of the life faculty, in and of itself, that conditions the killer's kamma, it is the fact that he is the one that ended the life faculty. So whatever dhammas are involved, they have to include the "ending of the life faculty," not just its ceasing to be. Since kamma is primarily cetana, it is the intention to end the life faculty that must be the strongest factor in the killer's kamma. The completion of the act makes the kamma much worse, as kamma patha, but the rupas involved in the killing is still secondary to the cetana. So I am wondering if the degree of severity of the kamma that is caused by the rupas of ending the life faculty feed back into the cetana that is the main kamma. For instance, the killer could have satisfaction at seeing the other person die - rupas conditioning new akusala vedana and proliferations. On the other hand, if the killer feels genuine regret does this mitigate the kamma? Probably does. What if the killer runs away and doesn't know for sure if the victim has died? That I'm not sure about, but the fact of the ending of the life faculty must somehow combine with the original intent to murder and the completion of the violent act to condition the future vipaka. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #123662 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 5:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lukas. trip to england nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 8-apr-2012, om 22:52 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > N: That can change. It is kusala to care for others instead of being > > selfish and as confidence in kusala and understanding grows, you > will > > care more for others. Actually, when such a moment arises, only then > > you can be convinced of its benefit. > > L: Yes, but not with 'worldly attachements', if u know what I mean. > Alone on Path is much better for me. I could took care more of > others, being alone. Greed seems like blocking evrything that kusala. ------- N: Worldly attachments, of course, these are not kusala. But when they arise, they are conditioned dhammas, not yours. Lobha makes one enslaved, even slight lobha. Who likes to be a slave? You were mentioning kusala and akusala, not being inclined to kusala. I remember that Ven. Dhammadharo said that we should consider more for ourselves the meaning of akusala and kusala instead of just following what is said about it in the texts. We really have to find out for ourselves now what the benefit of kusala is. That is why I found your remarks in your last post very good. Very sincere to mention that you did not care much for others. Let us find out for ourselves and not just follow the teachings blindly. As to metta, Ven. Dhammadharo said, during one trip in Sri Lanka, to have mettaa for the person next to you. He asked: well, who is sitting next to you now? We were all sitting on the floor next to each other listening to Dhamma and this was well remarked, a reminder that metta is not theoretical or just some beautiful thoughts. This morning I heard Kh Sujin on a recording and I thought of you. There are four favorable conditions leading to the development of right understanding up to enlightenment: 1.Living in a favorable country (where one can hear the Dhamma), 2.meeting a sappurisa, a noble person, 3. Adjusting oneself to or practising the Dhamma, 4. meritorious acts in the past (accumulation of kusala). As to no 3, this include many things and Kh Sujin explained: at first one may not have confidence in kusala, but accumulations can change: instead of lack of confidence one can have saddhaa (confidence), sati, viriya (energy), samaadhi and pa~n~naa. When we listen to the Dhamma and there is yoniso manasikara, right attention, we see more and more the danger of even slight defilements. This is a condition for sati, to be aware of realities, aware of whatever appears now. She stressed the importance of kusala in daily life. Everybody has lots of self love. This can diminish by kusala. We should be able to forgive others, that is a way of daana, abhaya daana: the wish that everybody lives in safety, free from danger. Each moment in daily life there can be the practice of Dhamma, this is not just sitting alone. We can be more concerned for others. There can be mettaa, helping others. At the moment of kusala citta we are free from lobha, dosa and moha. If we do not understand this and prefer to only sit alone, in seclusion, we have not understood the practice of Dhamma. ------ Nina. #123663 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 7:12 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE, > RE:I have no problem with that. What bothers me is why would Buddha bother to "praise" all kusala that was not related to the path, if indeed his teaching was restricted, as he said, to "suffering and the end of suffering." I don't think he would praise kusala that did not lead to this goal, as it would lead followers on the kind of sidetrack [developing jhana without insight] that has often been the subject of debate here on dsg. It leads me to speculate that non-path kusala at least creates strong supporting conditions for insight, or he would not have praised it. pt: I guess it depends on the vantage point. To me it seems the buddha generally pointed out that there are all these sorts of kusala and akusala dhammas and they condition these other sorts of dhammas. Among these, there's attachment to certain kusala or akusala cittas and believing they are the path, when in fact they are not. That's wrong view. If anyone gets sidetracked, well, it's not like it wasn't pointed out. There's I think even a sutta where he says something like - well I can only give a map, and there are people who will get lost in spite of having a map. Anyway, does kusala that's not directly part of the path, condition kusala that is strictly the path? I don't know, probably. Looks like we really need to start re-reading Nina's conditions. > RE: Well I am sort of an evidence-based person when it comes to these things. It just rubs me the wrong way when the Buddha talks about something over and over again, praising and in my view promoting it, and it is dismissed because it doesn't fit the current mind-set about development of insight among the interpreters -- our friends and colleagues on dsg. pt: My take on the situation here is that usually isn't about dismissing jhana as kusala, but about alerting jhana enthusiasts to the possibility that what we think is jhana (and kusala) in our experience, in fact is not (and is therefore akusala). I think one of the facets of wrong view is believing that something that's bad (akusala) is actually good (kusala). Thus, to me it seems worthwhile being reminded to examine whether what I believe is kusala is really kusala. > RE: Buddha makes no bones about the tandem development of jhana and insight, he talks about how it occurs and how to cultivate this combo all the time and in great detail. He talks about the progression from piti and sukkha to equanimity -- which is a *more enlightened* stage of development because it is no longer attached to pleasure and joy, and from there to the formless states that lead to enlightenment. *Of course* enlightenment will not be culminated without the complete development of insight, but the Buddha always praises the path of jhana as the highest path for the development of the full sequence of path factors and insight, so I personally take it -- based on the preponderance of the evidence -- that this is the main path indicated by the Buddha as the cultivation and culmination of the Noble 8-fold path. > > Yes, there are mitigating factors - people these days are often not capable of cultivating jhana; yes, there are those who were enlightened by just hearing the teachings; yes, there are indications that certain types of people can cultivate insight without jhana and that jhana will then occur as a path-factor during the enlightenment process; yes, the Buddha has indicated that insight can be cultivated first and then jhana, as well as jhana and then insight -- all of this leads to the inclusion of exceptions and extensions of the "jhana plan" for enlightenment. But to think that jhana was not the highest ground for complete cultivation of insight I think would be a mistake. And even the commentaries and senior dsg members also acknowledge that enlightenment with full jhana as the ground is the highest and deepest way to reach enlightenment, with greater capabilities for the arahant as a result. > > So in any case, it's not to be dismissed lightly. > > If we cannot cultivate jhana, there are two possibilities: > 1. Our current lifetime can certainly be devoted to development of insight, with jhana 'saved for later.' > > 2. We can explore the possibility that our accumulations are meant for the path of 'dry insight' only, and leave aside jhana in our particular cases. > > Still, even given the above, when we read the Buddha's teachings on jhana, we should take them seriously and not dismiss them, so that we can understand the true context in which the Dhamma is discussed and cultivated. pt: Well, I feel nobody's really dismissing jhana here, people are just realistic - if we're not experiencing jhana on a daily basis (nor in fact, ever), then what's the point of talking much about it? I mean, if you aren't experiencing jhana really, then isn't it practical not to waste time discussing it? Sure, we can acknowledge it's kusala, and well done for all those who can experience it. But most people here can't and it doesn't really appear even on the fringes of the path, so that's just reality, not a matter of preference or bias. > RE: Also true, although I'd like to include the sub-topic that without enough kusala as condition for insight to arise, there won't be insight arising to make lobha and dosa objects of insight. I hope this point is not confusing, but I'll be happy to clarify if it is. pt: I guess this would in essence examine what are the conditions for arising of panna of vipassana kind, right? Remember that whole business about the voice of another, previous panna, etc? > RE: That is true, as long as there is enough accumulation of panna to allow the insight to arise to take *any* object as object of insight. Again, I think that this sub-point is often overlooked. While any object may be the object of insight, without conditions for insight itself to arise, there will be no insight into anything. So, the subject of what creates conditions, or support conditions, for insight, is a worthy sub-topic. Does cultivation of kusala such as jhana increase support conditions for the arising of panna, or is it an equal playing field with a field of mostly lobha and dosa arising? pt: Yes, so this again essentially goes to what are the conditions for arising of panna of vipassana kind. Certainly a worthy topic that we'll have to get into. Just that conditions are probably one area that I really don't know that well. > RE: I suspect that the Buddha praised jhana in part because it creates support conditions for the arising of panna. pt: Yes, I suspect we'll be debating this strongly in the future, since my feeling is that jhana (citta) doesn't really create strong conditions for the arising of panna of vipassana kind, i.e. it can be a "supportive condition", as in a less important one, but not a "direct condition". But I think we both need to study conditions a bit before we get into it. > RE: I think we should also be careful to make sure that *our* current reading and interpretation of suttas and commentaries is not also a "new interpretation," which is hard to do. That goes for me, of course, as much or moreso as anyone else, given my current level of mis-education or lack of education in these areas. pt: :) I think each person starts up with a misinterpretation of some kind, and then through study and discussion hopefully it gets a little better. > RE: Maybe so, but that does emphasize understanding of insight much more than really understanding the meaning and place of jhana in the path, even if that is natural under the circumstances. pt: Ok. > RE: For such beings [pt: brahma deities], how would insight eventually arise to condition the development of insight - or would it not ever? pt: Well remember that bit about the voice of another being a condition for arising of panna? My understanding of the texts is that only with the arising of a Buddha and his teaching (his sasana) can there be arising of vipassana panna for any being other than a Buddha or a Silent Buddha. In other words, without hearing the Dhamma, there are no conditions for arising of vipassana panna for anyone. E.g. arupa plane (formless jhanas) deities have no senses and so they can't hear the Dhamma, and so they can't become enlightened until they don't pass away and get reborn into a lower realm where they do have the senses and can hear the Dhamma if they are lucky enough (good kamma). Best wishes pt #123664 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 7:28 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat ptaus1 Hi RobE, > > > RE: This view is based on the idea of meditation as a conventional practice that represents the development of certain dhammas, and this is always the controversy with those who believe that a conventional practice can never lead to anything pertinent to the path. It is hard to even talk about it, since the preexisting philosophical understanding is that dhammas can only arise from former arisings and developments, rather than from present practice. So there is a kind of chasm there. > > > > pt: Perhaps we can leave this for later, as I think it again depends on how the fundamentals are understood. I don't see a chasm anymore, but that's a result of investigating the fundamentals. > > I would like to hear about that - perhaps as a sidebar...? pt: Well, in short, if every moment is in essence just a bunch of impersonal dhammas now, then the whole thing is really about understanding what they are now, or not, regardless of whether they're kusala or akusala, or whatever is the activity. If I appear to be sitting down to meditate, is there kusala right now? Akusala? I guess it goes down to understanding what's kusala and what's not. And then there's the possibility that you're mistaken, etc. I think as we get into point (b) - what makes a citta kusala, then we can discuss this in further detail. > RE: I guess it would be a good idea to keep a list of topics in brief that we are leaving aside for later. If you have a good sense of those and can jot them down would be great. It's hard for me to keep track of where my hairbrush is - but you may be overly busy too. > > I hope I've answered your points well enough for us to move forward. pt: Seems the best thing to do for now is address first whichever side-topics come up, or decide to leave them for later, and then we go forward, not that I have some master plan in mind, but as long as we stick to basics, we're fine I think. Best wishes pt #123665 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 7:50 pm Subject: Re: Lukas. trip to england szmicio Dear Nina, > We should be able to forgive others, that is a way of daana, > abhaya daana: the wish that everybody lives in safety, free from > danger. L: I would like to hear more on abhaya daana. This is giving others a security? It that, what acharn means 'give no harm'? What is anumodaana? Best wishes Lukas #123666 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 9, 2012 10:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/9/2012 1:26:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > In a message dated 4/8/2012 4:47:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > From the conventional point of view, of course there are victims. Looked > > at mechanically, though, it's all about conditionality. > > ------------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > So what? The conditions of akusala or kusala kamma in one stream of > > consciousness are not the cetasikas of another. I have no reason to > believe > > that specific things only happen to a person due in part to his/her own > > kamma. ... > > I don't know, Howard. I think everyone acknowledges that a number of types > of conditions, such as supporting conditions and conditions that actually > cause the event to happen at the moment are necessary in addition to kamma. ...[But] to say that one would be > murdered with no involvement of kamma seems to undercut that sense of the > importance of the powerful conditioning effect of kamma, at least as emphasized > by the Buddha. ... > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I'm not aware of the Buddha teaching that kamma is *always* involved > in what happens to one. ... If that's the sort of thing you have in mind, I have no > argument against it. > ------------------------------------------------- As I understand kamma as taught by Buddha, our cetana and completed intentional actions act as causes for future experiences that we have, based on what our own output has created, and the effects of such kamma can be experienced well into the future, when the right combination of conditions coincide. ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, but kamma is not the sole category of causal condition, and, moreover, I have not read the Buddha to have asserted that kamma is always a direct or primary cause. ---------------------------------------------------- It is impersonal in the sense that those arising cetanas and actions also come from previous conditioning, so there is no moment when a self, acting in freedom from conditions, makes a decision as to what to think or what to do. It's all conditioned, and so responsibility is real but not personal. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Things are "personal" only in the sense that they arise within a given mind stream, making them "interior" to that stream of closely interconnected phenomena. But there is no core of identity involved - no self. ---------------------------------------------------- Do intentions and actions take place in a particular stream of arising cittas? Yes. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: I say no more than that. --------------------------------------------------- And in the conventional world is it important to identify and predict how individuals are going to behave and treat them accordingly? Yes. But that is distinct from identifying the chain of conditionality that leads to specific kammas and their consequent vipakas. That happens mechanically, and the mechanical nature of that chain of conditions is in my view at the heart of Buddhism. It is what makes it truly not based on self. In that sense, Buddhism is pretty cold. It does not have moral warmth in my view. Morality in Buddhism has to do with 'what works' to end suffering, not because one wants to think of oneself as a good person. I think that's why it is often translated as 'skillful.' In the conventional world, I agree with you that a person must and should have a moral code, treat others well, and be kind to people and animals. And I agree that much of that is the same in terms of what is kusala in Buddhism. But there is a line between personal morality in life and the understanding of conditionality that is distinct. One is personal and the other is impersonal in my view. I am not in love with this impersonal view of conditionality. I don't even like it. But I think it's what describes the true course of events in terms of actual occurrences, which include of course cetana and intentional action. As for a person being harmed being the result of their own kamma, I don't personally know the answer to that. But I'm pretty sure that the Buddha taught that this is the way it works, in numerous examples. Best, Rob E. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123667 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Rob E, You have interesting remarks. > R: That happens mechanically, and the > mechanical nature of that chain of conditions is in my view at the > heart > of Buddhism. It is what makes it truly not based on self. > > In that sense, Buddhism is pretty cold. It does not have moral > warmth in > my view. Morality in Buddhism has to do with 'what works' to end > suffering, > not because one wants to think of oneself as a good person. I think > that's > why it is often translated as 'skillful.' ------- N: Morality: thinking of the other person's welfare. Kusala is to the benefit of oneself and of the other persons. Becoming less selfish, is that cold? We learn more precisely what is kusala and what akusala. Thinking of oneself as a good person is clinging, it is akusala. It is good not to take for kusala what is akusala. Kusala can become purer. ------- > > R: In the conventional world, I agree with you that a person must > and should > have a moral code, treat others well, and be kind to people and > animals. > And I agree that much of that is the same in terms of what is > kusala in > Buddhism. But there is a line between personal morality in life and > the > understanding of conditionality that is distinct. One is personal > and the other is > impersonal in my view. > > I am not in love with this impersonal view of conditionality. ------ N: When metta arises this is conditioned. The Buddha taught cause and effect, nothing arises without conditions. Seeing that metta is conditioned, that it is anattaa does not make it less "warm". There is already so much hurting and harming in the world, metta should be cultivated. When others hurt us with their wrods or writing we should forgive them, that is a kind of dana. See also the Buddha's great compassion, always thinking of others, visiting the sick monks, helping those in need, those in trouble, those who were mourning. Is that cold? Any kind of kusala, also when it is without pa~n~naa is beneficial. We cannot order pa~n~naa to accompany each kusala citta. They are all supportive conditions for pa~n~naa. ----- Nina. #123668 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:53 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > RE:I have no problem with that. What bothers me is why would Buddha bother to "praise" all kusala that was not related to the path, if indeed his teaching was restricted, as he said, to "suffering and the end of suffering." I don't think he would praise kusala that did not lead to this goal, as it would lead followers on the kind of sidetrack [developing jhana without insight] that has often been the subject of debate here on dsg. It leads me to speculate that non-path kusala at least creates strong supporting conditions for insight, or he would not have praised it. > > pt: I guess it depends on the vantage point. To me it seems the buddha generally pointed out that there are all these sorts of kusala and akusala dhammas and they condition these other sorts of dhammas. Among these, there's attachment to certain kusala or akusala cittas and believing they are the path, when in fact they are not. That's wrong view. If anyone gets sidetracked, well, it's not like it wasn't pointed out. That makes sense. On the other hand, Buddha praised jhana in particular as the very way in which the stages of practice were constructed, in my view. As I said, there are exceptions, but he talked about developing insight leading to enlightenment within the stages of the jhanas an awful lot, so I don't think it has the same status as general non-path kusala. > There's I think even a sutta where he says something like - well I can only give a map, and there are people who will get lost in spite of having a map. Anyway, does kusala that's not directly part of the path, condition kusala that is strictly the path? I don't know, probably. Looks like we really need to start re-reading Nina's conditions. Not a bad idea. On the other hand, maybe we can also get a quick yes or no from Nina, Jon or Sarah. :-) And then still look at the more specific rundown on conditions. > > RE: Well I am sort of an evidence-based person when it comes to these things. It just rubs me the wrong way when the Buddha talks about something over and over again, praising and in my view promoting it, and it is dismissed because it doesn't fit the current mind-set about development of insight among the interpreters -- our friends and colleagues on dsg. > > pt: My take on the situation here is that usually isn't about dismissing jhana as kusala, but about alerting jhana enthusiasts to the possibility that what we think is jhana (and kusala) in our experience, in fact is not (and is therefore akusala). Fair enough, as far as that goes. > I think one of the facets of wrong view is believing that something that's bad (akusala) is actually good (kusala). Thus, to me it seems worthwhile being reminded to examine whether what I believe is kusala is really kusala. True, but that would go for the illusion that one is developing insight as well, not just mistaking fake calm for samatha, or mistaking jhana for enlightenment, etc. There are traps on the road of dry insight too! > > RE: Buddha makes no bones about the tandem development of jhana and insight, he talks about how it occurs and how to cultivate this combo all the time and in great detail. He talks about the progression from piti and sukkha to equanimity -- which is a *more enlightened* stage of development because it is no longer attached to pleasure and joy, and from there to the formless states that lead to enlightenment. *Of course* enlightenment will not be culminated without the complete development of insight, but the Buddha always praises the path of jhana as the highest path for the development of the full sequence of path factors and insight, so I personally take it -- based on the preponderance of the evidence -- that this is the main path indicated by the Buddha as the cultivation and culmination of the Noble 8-fold path. > > > > Yes, there are mitigating factors - people these days are often not capable of cultivating jhana; yes, there are those who were enlightened by just hearing the teachings; yes, there are indications that certain types of people can cultivate insight without jhana and that jhana will then occur as a path-factor during the enlightenment process; yes, the Buddha has indicated that insight can be cultivated first and then jhana, as well as jhana and then insight -- all of this leads to the inclusion of exceptions and extensions of the "jhana plan" for enlightenment. But to think that jhana was not the highest ground for complete cultivation of insight I think would be a mistake. And even the commentaries and senior dsg members also acknowledge that enlightenment with full jhana as the ground is the highest and deepest way to reach enlightenment, with greater capabilities for the arahant as a result. > > > > So in any case, it's not to be dismissed lightly. > > > > If we cannot cultivate jhana, there are two possibilities: > > 1. Our current lifetime can certainly be devoted to development of insight, with jhana 'saved for later.' > > > > 2. We can explore the possibility that our accumulations are meant for the path of 'dry insight' only, and leave aside jhana in our particular cases. > > > > Still, even given the above, when we read the Buddha's teachings on jhana, we should take them seriously and not dismiss them, so that we can understand the true context in which the Dhamma is discussed and cultivated. > > > pt: Well, I feel nobody's really dismissing jhana here, people are just realistic - if we're not experiencing jhana on a daily basis (nor in fact, ever), then what's the point of talking much about it? To me it is just for the purpose of establishing the full scenario in which the Dhamma is constructed, and to understand what all the possible options are, which are better, which are worse but okay, and then of course, what is practical in the current lifetime. But I don't think it's a good idea to have a partial context or to put jhana in a non-path category as many people here do. Sure, it makes sense to say that "for one who can cultivate jhana and not confuse it with insight, jhana with insight is the supreme path, but since I don't have the accumulations for it, I'm not focusing on jhana in this lifetime." If anyone said that, including me, I would be extremely happy, because it would take place within the full acknowledgment of the teachings as they actually appear, while still being realistic about one's current "practice." > I mean, if you aren't experiencing jhana really, then isn't it practical not to waste time discussing it? Sure, we can acknowledge it's kusala, and well done for all those who can experience it. But most people here can't and it doesn't really appear even on the fringes of the path, so that's just reality, not a matter of preference or bias. Fine with me, pt. I have just found a lot of disparagement and dismissal of jhana as a false path, not part of the path, and not really a mainstay of the Buddha's plan. I just think those kinds of characterizations of jhana - and meditation - are untrue and cause the rest of the Dhamma to land in a partial, rather than a full and correct, context. > > RE: Also true, although I'd like to include the sub-topic that without enough kusala as condition for insight to arise, there won't be insight arising to make lobha and dosa objects of insight. I hope this point is not confusing, but I'll be happy to clarify if it is. > > pt: I guess this would in essence examine what are the conditions for arising of panna of vipassana kind, right? Remember that whole business about the voice of another, previous panna, etc? I agree we should look into those conditions. > > RE: That is true, as long as there is enough accumulation of panna to allow the insight to arise to take *any* object as object of insight. ... Does cultivation of kusala such as jhana increase support conditions for the arising of panna, or is it an equal playing field with a field of mostly lobha and dosa arising? > > pt: Yes, so this again essentially goes to what are the conditions for arising of panna of vipassana kind. Certainly a worthy topic that we'll have to get into. Just that conditions are probably one area that I really don't know that well. I agree it would be a great area for this discussion to get into, at the right time, if it is not yet. I'm letting you make those decisions. :-) > > RE: I suspect that the Buddha praised jhana in part because it creates support conditions for the arising of panna. > > pt: Yes, I suspect we'll be debating this strongly in the future, since my feeling is that jhana (citta) doesn't really create strong conditions for the arising of panna of vipassana kind, i.e. it can be a "supportive condition", as in a less important one, but not a "direct condition". But I think we both need to study conditions a bit before we get into it. I am anxious to look into the difference between panna of samatha kind vs. panna of vipassana kind. That is an important issue, I agree. > > RE: I think we should also be careful to make sure that *our* current reading and interpretation of suttas and commentaries is not also a "new interpretation," which is hard to do. That goes for me, of course, as much or moreso as anyone else, given my current level of mis-education or lack of education in these areas. > > pt: :) I think each person starts up with a misinterpretation of some kind, and then through study and discussion hopefully it gets a little better. I think so too. I seem to have slightly more clarity over time, though it is slow. > > RE: Maybe so, but that does emphasize understanding of insight much more than really understanding the meaning and place of jhana in the path, even if that is natural under the circumstances. > > pt: Ok. > > > RE: For such beings [pt: brahma deities], how would insight eventually arise to condition the development of insight - or would it not ever? > > pt: Well remember that bit about the voice of another being a condition for arising of panna? My understanding of the texts is that only with the arising of a Buddha and his teaching (his sasana) can there be arising of vipassana panna for any being other than a Buddha or a Silent Buddha. In other words, without hearing the Dhamma, there are no conditions for arising of vipassana panna for anyone. E.g. arupa plane (formless jhanas) deities have no senses and so they can't hear the Dhamma, and so they can't become enlightened until they don't pass away and get reborn into a lower realm where they do have the senses and can hear the Dhamma if they are lucky enough (good kamma). Yikes! Now you've got me feeling sorry for the formless deities! But I appreciate the good info, that sounds correct. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #123669 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard. Wanted to examine a few more questions from our last exchange. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > While you are taking exception to my translation of morality into a sense > of conditions, I am just keeping each idea in what I consider to be its > useful arena. Why can't I talk about morality as conditions for understanding > what actually happens, and not cloud the understanding with judgments and > expectations? > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't believe in blaming victims, and that is what I consider > happens when we say there is no fault in murder. > ------------------------------------------------ I think there is a difference between what we do socially to honor the persons in the conventional world, and what we see when we look closely at conditionality. I don't want to blame any victims either, but if the victim happened to be a practicing Buddhist who wanted to understand conditionality, I would discuss it differently than I would with the average person. I am sympathetic to the pain that is caused when someone is victimized, or sick, or in financial straights - all the problems that we face at different times in our lives. Whether there is a murderer to blame, or Wall Street excesses, or just having a landslide fall on your head, does not help to understand the nature of personal suffering. So if someone sees themselves as a victim, I will sympathize with their pain, and if someone is murdered, I want the murderer captured and taken off the street. But I don't think that's adequate for eliminating "the second arrow" of psychospiritual suffering. I don't think that the Buddhist breakdown of reality, which does explain how good and bad things happen on the most structural level, is the same as what I would apply socially, nor do they have to be. And the best thing you could do for a victim of a crime who is interested in the Buddhist explanation of cause and effect would be to explain conditionality, not focus on the perpetrator of the crime. Just to use an analogy, if someone kept walking down a certain street and kept getting mugged, in addition to feeling bad for them and blaming the mugger, wouldn't it make sense to suggest that they walk down another street? > A good example is the Buddha's teaching on eating meat. It's okay to eat > meat if you don't kill the animal or have it killed especially for your > meal, because that does not effect your kamma. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > I don't eat meat, and not because of my kamma vipaka. I don't eat > meat, because > I don't want to support the killing of animals, and that because I don't > want to cause distress. > ---------------------------------------------- That is laudable, and I understand those sentiments, although I am someone who both loves animals and also eats meat - a contradiction which I can't easily resolve. However, our personal response to animals, for better or for worse, seems to be a little bit different than the Buddha's teaching on meat-eating. I'm not saying the Buddha is the only one who gets to say something about such matters, but I'm also interested in identifying what is the Buddhist teaching. > But for a "moral" person in the conventional world, this explanation is > unacceptable, because you are still participating in the fruits of the > killing. Buddha makes a distinction between our everyday sense of right and wrong > and what creates negative kamma. > > > Not all streams of consciousness are identical, and what occurs "here" > > is not occurring "there". Inseparability and distinguishability are > > compatible. No self, no core of individual identity in anything, is > required for > > "innocence" and "guilt" terminology to be meaningful. > > I don't agree with you on the structural integrity of "innocence" and > "guilt." I think they are inherently terms of judgment against a person, not a > conditional description. We may disagree on this, or we may be using the > terms differently. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > So, now do you believe that an anatta perspective requires a belief > that there are no persons, no compounds of interacting mental and physical > phenomena? > ------------------------------------------------- I think the anatta perspective requires that there are no internal entities, and that organisms such as our conscious and active bodies are largely mechanical, driven by conditions and causes, and that the only really conscious aspect of our organisms is the mindfulness and wisdom functions of consciousness when they are present. All the interacting phenomena that you mention are "not us." That is the teaching on anatta in my view. That does not rob our humanity, although it takes away any ownership of it. It actually should leave us free to be more moral, more ethical, more available outside of our more selfish natures. And I'm not claiming to be very developed in that way, but it's a path. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123670 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Studies part 1 moellerdieter Dear Sarah , Nina and all, you wrote: D: > I think it is important to see the cetasikas in relation to the Maha Satipatthana , in particular as the contemplation of mind is concerned (+ niravana) > "((3) He further clearly perceives and understands any state of consciousness or mind (cittanupassana), whether it is greedy or not, hateful or not, deluded or not, cramped or distracted, developed or undeveloped, surpassable or unsurpassable, concentrated or unconcentrated, liberated or unliberated (Nyanatiloka)"> > Common aspects are assumed .. but how corresponding > ..... S: This is how I read the passage: D: good so I can try to understand your angle S:At each moment a citta arises. D: do I get that right: you see the present as a series of arising and ceasing moments similar to the sequence of pictures in a movie ? But isn't the reality a constant stream of mental and corporal phenomena within the process of D.O., in which only certain particles rise and cease? Photons come into my mind .. ( I discussed this issue with Nina recently , refering to Ven. Nyanaponika's proposition that bare or static analyses neglects time ) S:As you know, each citta is accompanied by at least 7 cetasikas. The Buddha encouraged the understanding of any citta (or any other dhamma appearing) just as it is. D: the 7 universals ( sabbacitta sadharana) contact, feeling ,perception, volition , life faculty , one-pointedness ,attention (manasasikara), right? Why are the last two always going along with the citta? One-pointedness should exclude the state of unconcentrated mind as mentioned in the text above , shouldn't it? Even more evident is the exclusion of the cetasika Manasikara by following . SN 9.11 PTS: S i 203 Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta: Inappropriate Attention translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu 'I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, he spent the day's abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm.Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse:From inappropriate attention you're being chewed by your thoughts. Relinquishing what's inappropriate, contemplate appropriately. Keeping your mind on the Teacher, the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues, you will arrive at joy, rapture, pleasure without doubt. Then, saturated with joy, you will put an end to suffering & stress. The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.'. Furthermore I wonder how to distinguish this universal from the beautiful mental factor sati..? S: The Buddha encouraged the understanding of any citta (or any other dhamma appearing) just as it is. So regardless of whether it is a citta rooted greed, hatred, delusion, i.e accompanied by these or any other mental states - wholesome or unwholesome, worldly or unworldly - it can be understood at this very moment when it appears. In other words, the development of satipatthana is not a "waiting game", waiting until no nivaranas, no unwholesome states arise, waiting until the circumstances seem more favourable - it is the development of awareness and understanding at this very moment of the citta (or other dhamma) which appears now. Do you read the passage any differently? Is there anything further to discuss on the cetasikas with regard to this example? D: I think no difference about the necessity of development of mindfulness/sati, and that means indeed no waiting game but recognition of the mind state and the consequence of practising right effort. There are a couple of questions , like above . Furthermore:how do we have to understand to recognize the state of delusion (the unwholesome universal) ? The trouble with delusion is that something is taken for real until the 'mirage is unveiled' , isn't it? I wonder why the 5 hindrances are mentioned under contemplation of mental formation and not under mind in the Sutta . So far what came into my mind .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #123671 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/9/2012 12:46:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. Wanted to examine a few more questions from our last exchange. --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > While you are taking exception to my translation of morality into a sense > of conditions, I am just keeping each idea in what I consider to be its > useful arena. Why can't I talk about morality as conditions for understanding > what actually happens, and not cloud the understanding with judgments and > expectations? > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't believe in blaming victims, and that is what I consider > happens when we say there is no fault in murder. > ------------------------------------------------ I think there is a difference between what we do socially to honor the persons in the conventional world, and what we see when we look closely at conditionality. I don't want to blame any victims either, but if the victim happened to be a practicing Buddhist who wanted to understand conditionality, I would discuss it differently than I would with the average person. I am sympathetic to the pain that is caused when someone is victimized, or sick, or in financial straights - all the problems that we face at different times in our lives. Whether there is a murderer to blame, or Wall Street excesses, or just having a landslide fall on your head, does not help to understand the nature of personal suffering. So if someone sees themselves as a victim, I will sympathize with their pain, and if someone is murdered, I want the murderer captured and taken off the street. But I don't think that's adequate for eliminating "the second arrow" of psychospiritual suffering. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Nor do I. :-) -------------------------------------------------- I don't think that the Buddhist breakdown of reality, which does explain how good and bad things happen on the most structural level, is the same as what I would apply socially, nor do they have to be. And the best thing you could do for a victim of a crime who is interested in the Buddhist explanation of cause and effect would be to explain conditionality, not focus on the perpetrator of the crime. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: What is useful to do depends on the context. -------------------------------------------- Just to use an analogy, if someone kept walking down a certain street and kept getting mugged, in addition to feeling bad for them and blaming the mugger, wouldn't it make sense to suggest that they walk down another street? --------------------------------------------- HCW: Naturally. -------------------------------------------- > A good example is the Buddha's teaching on eating meat. It's okay to eat > meat if you don't kill the animal or have it killed especially for your > meal, because that does not effect your kamma. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > I don't eat meat, and not because of my kamma vipaka. I don't eat > meat, because > I don't want to support the killing of animals, and that because I don't > want to cause distress. > ---------------------------------------------- That is laudable, and I understand those sentiments, although I am someone who both loves animals and also eats meat - a contradiction which I can't easily resolve. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: We each make our choices. I eat seafood. It isn't right in my view, but I do so anyway. ------------------------------------------------ However, our personal response to animals, for better or for worse, seems to be a little bit different than the Buddha's teaching on meat-eating. I'm not saying the Buddha is the only one who gets to say something about such matters, but I'm also interested in identifying what is the Buddhist teaching. > But for a "moral" person in the conventional world, this explanation is > unacceptable, because you are still participating in the fruits of the > killing. Buddha makes a distinction between our everyday sense of right and wrong > and what creates negative kamma. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: The vipaka that comes to me is one thing, and what I will do is another. Often there is a correspondence, but not always. ---------------------------------------------- > > > Not all streams of consciousness are identical, and what occurs "here" > > is not occurring "there". Inseparability and distinguishability are > > compatible. No self, no core of individual identity in anything, is > required for > > "innocence" and "guilt" terminology to be meaningful. > > I don't agree with you on the structural integrity of "innocence" and > "guilt." I think they are inherently terms of judgment against a person, not a > conditional description. We may disagree on this, or we may be using the > terms differently. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > So, now do you believe that an anatta perspective requires a belief > that there are no persons, no compounds of interacting mental and physical > phenomena? > ------------------------------------------------- I think the anatta perspective requires that there are no internal entities, and that organisms such as our conscious and active bodies are largely mechanical, driven by conditions and causes, and that the only really conscious aspect of our organisms is the mindfulness and wisdom functions of consciousness when they are present. All the interacting phenomena that you mention are "not us." ------------------------------------------------- HCW: What does it mean not to be "us"? Is there no valid distinction among streams of consciousness? When thinking within a stream of consciousness about phenomena in that stream, self-referential terminology is used, but when thinking about (supposed) phenomena in another stream, such terminology is not used. Does that make no sense to you? --------------------------------------------------- That is the teaching on anatta in my view. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: No soul or core of separate identity (in anything) is my view of anatta. ---------------------------------------------- That does not rob our humanity, although it takes away any ownership of it. It actually should leave us free to be more moral, more ethical, more available outside of our more selfish natures. And I'm not claiming to be very developed in that way, but it's a path. Best, Rob E. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123672 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:13 pm Subject: f/w message from Ven Kom (Amatagavesako) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Ven Kom (Amatagavesako)'s sister asked me to share the following: Subject: Book: Toward Sustainable Science (P.A.Payutto) Dear Upasok Upasika, Here’s an introduction English book on Buddhism for the scientifically inclined, written by Bikkhu P.A.Payutto. It talks about scientific and Buddhist investigations of nature and at times talks about concepts and practices in Buddhism in some details. The book might be useful in your own thinking and in helping clarifying others’ in our respective practices. The venerable also has a website with a large number of PDF files that can be freely distributed: Main: http://www.watnyanaves.net/ Thai book search: http://www.watnyanaves.net/th/book_search อปฺปมาเทน สมฺปาเทถ Amatagavesako kom #123673 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:32 pm Subject: (No subject) sarahprocter... Dear friends. A friend in Australia sent me the following note. I'll add my reply and others may have more to add: >sarah i would like to ask ur recommendation i have been studying buddhism philosophy for a while and i would like to study a bit more re the rationale in emptiness and how various schools views on their interpretation on emptiness on several dalai lama books, he mentioned abt it but i do have a bit of trouble understanding it and wonder with ur involvement in buddhism community that u may have a few recommendation that i can put my hands on.... Dear M, I was glad to read your good question. As I'm sure you're aware from your studies, the Buddha's teachings revolve around the truth of anatta/sunnatta - the teaching of not-self/emptiness. Simply, what this means is that what we take in life for people and things are really only passing phenomena or elements devoid of a core of self or some thing. For example, we think we see our friends, a computer or a mobile telephone now, but actually all that is seen is the visible element. As soon as seeing consciousness experiences this visible element, there are lots of thoughts and stories about our dear friend, the computer or the messages on the mobile phone. Similarly, we think we hear the radio, the waves or the chatter of our friends. Really, all that is heard is sound. Again, after hearing the sounds there are ideas of music, surfing and people. We learn that life exists just in the present moment - the moment of seeing or hearing or thinking, on and on and on. In truth, there is no atta, no self, no substantial thing at all. One of the Buddha's most famous sermons (suttas), the second one he gave during his life, was the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta ( The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic). Here is the link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html In this sutta we read that all the phenomena, all the elements in life are not self, are void of self and for this reason cannot be directed or told what to do by a self. It is the understanding of this teaching that leads to the gradual reduction and elimination of the attachment and greed for those elements that cannot be controlled by our will, by the will of Self. Please let me know if any of this makes any sense! Metta (loving kindness in the Buddha's language, Pali) Sarah ====== #123674 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:43 pm Subject: M's qu sarahprocter... Oops, I forgot a subject heading. If you reply, pls add the one I've just put in here. Thx Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear friends. > > A friend in Australia sent me the following note. I'll add my reply and others may have more to add: <....> #123675 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:06 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Pt (& Rob E), Great discussion! One small comment: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > RE: If jhana develops to the point of equanimity and suppression of defilements, does this not create conditions for development of sati and panna? I think the answer is probably 'no,' and so we may have to come back to this. > > pt: My thoughts are also that it's a 'no'. One of the reasons being that for insight it doesn't matter whether the citta (cetasika) that just fell away (and became object of present citta) was kusala or akusala (with equanimity or not) - as long as a dhamma is an object of citta, it's vipassana as I understand. ... S: the dhamma, even the jhana citta or a jhana cetasika, can be the object of lobha, even wrong view too! This is why so many of the "net of wrong views" discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta include wrong views about jhana attainments. After a rupa, citta or cetasika has fallen away it can be the object of lobha, dosa, moha. Of course, your point about any reality at all being the object of insight is correct. If there's a wish for that object to be a particular one, such as jhana citta, then this will be a hindrance to the development of such insight. Metta Sarah ===== #123676 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lukas. trip to england nilovg Dear Lukas, Enjoying your good questions. Op 9-apr-2012, om 11:50 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > We should be able to forgive others, that is a way of daana, > > abhaya daana: the wish that everybody lives in safety, free from > > danger. > > L: I would like to hear more on abhaya daana. This is giving others > a security? It that, what acharn means 'give no harm'? -------- N: A-bhaya, no fear. Someone may have hurt you, but you feel no revenge, you just wish him well. Also when observing the five precepts, you do not wish to harm anyone. When one abstains from killing insects, one gives the gift of life, one wishes for the safety of all beings. You give others the opportunity to live in safety, without fear. Even the observing of siila can be seen as a way of daana. --------- > > L: What is anumodaana? ------- N: Anumodana daana: anumodana means thanksgiving. You appreciate the kusala of someone else and expresses this in words. Then there are kusala cittas with muditaa, you rejoice in his kusala, there is no jealousy. It is a way of daana. Daana is not only giving material gifts, there are also spiritual gifts. When the citta is kusala, it is gentle, there is no harshness. There is also calm with the kusala citta. We can compare the characteristics of akusala citta and kusala citta. ------ I am glad you will meet Alan. He also knew Ven. Dhammadharo. ----- Nina. #123677 From: "azita" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:20 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat gazita2002 Hallo Sarah and others, > Great discussion! One small comment: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > > RE: If jhana develops to the point of equanimity and suppression of defilements, does this not create conditions for development of sati and panna? I think the answer is probably 'no,' and so we may have to come back to this. > > > > pt: My thoughts are also that it's a 'no'. One of the reasons being that for insight it doesn't matter whether the citta (cetasika) that just fell away (and became object of present citta) was kusala or akusala (with equanimity or not) - as long as a dhamma is an object of citta, it's vipassana as I understand. > ... > > S: the dhamma, even the jhana citta or a jhana cetasika, can be the object of lobha, even wrong view too! This is why so many of the "net of wrong views" discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta include wrong views about jhana attainments. > > After a rupa, citta or cetasika has fallen away it can be the object of lobha, dosa, moha. Azita: thanks Sarah, good comments. Three of the most important words in my vocabulary - citta, cetasika, rupa - all conditioned and IMHO good to have some basic knowledge of the way they condition each other. Feel very fortunate to have had that basic grounding in Buddhas teaching back in Wat Pleng. No matter how much calm we try for in meditation practices, unless its realised that its only a passing dhamma, there can be lots a attachment to calm. There can also be lots of attachment to 'my understanding of Buddha's teaching' As Elle said in a recent email to me, attachment arises nearly all day long, we eat - we like, we see -we like, and can be sooo subtle this liking. The ocean of concepts that only panna can see thro. patience, courage and good cheer, azita. #123678 From: "colette_aube" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:43 am Subject: Himalayan Tantra colette_aube Hi Group, specifically Connie, I recall, a few years ago, when you, Connie, questioned me about my position being something like VAISHVANARA, yet that is a Hindu term. I know that what you were questioning me about related to TWO SPECIFIC BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHIES. In my study of Tantra (see Himalayan or Mahayana) I'm busy picking apart the differences in Language and philosophy. I'm trying to decipher the HINDU practices that were seeded in Tibet, et al, before becoming formalized. I'm specifically looking for the Buddhist philosophy that relates to this "Vaishvanara" concept. Mild research shows me PURE LAND BUDDHISM, however, I know that the philosophy that I'm specifically thinking of is directly related to this concept of Vaishvanara although I am first to stand up and claim that my ignorance of PALI and SANSKRIT is beyond bounds so I'm probably just associating words with similar "structures" i.e. they both start with the letter V, they both have a sound similar to "vaish", etc.. Your help would be appreciated and, I guess, I'd just like a little recognition for being alive and having a thought. ;) Ya know, that I"m not just talking to a main-frame computer. toodles, colette #123679 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:20 am Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, -------- <. . .> > D: well, perhaps .. I usually manage to get the message across ( How about your experience with a language other than English?). But I wonder how much understanding of the Dhamma you concede to me .. -------- KH: I don't know how much understanding you have. But I don't know much about anyone else's understanding either. I know you and I use different words when we express our respective understandings of the Dhamma. And I think that is an indication of disagreement. But even when people do use the same words, their ways of understanding them can be very different. Generally it comes down to the question of "hands and feet" that you and I have been discussing. Does the Dhamma teach us about concepts - such as making and effort with hands and feet - or does it teach us *exclusively* about dhammas - such as viriya cetasika? ------------------------------------- <. . .> >> KH: It is not ordinary; it is direct right understanding of conditioned reality. So it is unique and profound, known only to the wise. >> > D: as far as I know the issue of conditioned reality is treated by the Patthana of Abh. , in a nutshell what means this extensive work to you as mean of practise? --------------------------------------- KH: The teaching of conditionality is not confined to the Pathana. Every word of the Dhamma is about conditioned dhammas. ----------------------- <. . .> > D: you miss the point of volition,Ken , which indeed is conditioned by Sankhara (2nd of the common D.O., old kamma) and Sankhara Khanda (4th new kamma..which concerns 50 of the 52 cetasikas). And this volition best described by chanda is a necessity for the path training of Sila, Samadhi and Panna. Do you like me to quote about this training? ------------------------ KH: Yes, but you must know by now how I will interpret any quote from the Pali Canon. No matter how conventional it might sound (to the untrained ear) it will be about dhammas. Dhammas function purely in accordance with conditions; there is no control over them. Therefore, no Dhamma quote can be correctly interpreted as a conventional (formal) instruction. ----------------------------------- <. . .> > D: So far I haven't read something what allows the judgement of heterodoxy. Certainly we wouldn't talk about him anymore if he indeed replaced samma ditthi with sakkaya-ditthi , but as I said already : pls quote from his essay to show that it is not only a misinterpretation . ------------------------------------ KH: No, I am not going to play that game anymore. The heterodoxy is undeniably present in Thanissaro's essays. There is no reasonable doubt about that. The onus is now on the writer and his supporters to justify their heterodoxy Ken H #123680 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:04 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > > > RE: This view is based on the idea of meditation as a conventional practice that represents the development of certain dhammas, and this is always the controversy with those who believe that a conventional practice can never lead to anything pertinent to the path. It is hard to even talk about it, since the preexisting philosophical understanding is that dhammas can only arise from former arisings and developments, rather than from present practice. So there is a kind of chasm there. > > > > > > pt: Perhaps we can leave this for later, as I think it again depends on how the fundamentals are understood. I don't see a chasm anymore, but that's a result of investigating the fundamentals. > > > > I would like to hear about that - perhaps as a sidebar...? > > pt: Well, in short, if every moment is in essence just a bunch of impersonal dhammas now, then the whole thing is really about understanding what they are now, or not, regardless of whether they're kusala or akusala, or whatever is the activity. If I appear to be sitting down to meditate, is there kusala right now? Akusala? I guess it goes down to understanding what's kusala and what's not. And then there's the possibility that you're mistaken, etc. I think as we get into point (b) - what makes a citta kusala, then we can discuss this in further detail. I think that's a good way to approach it. The question of how to recognize and develop kusala, particularly path kusala, is the core question. If one is meditating with that understanding, one wouldn't fall into akusala unknowingly and go down a deluded path, as is often suggested. > > RE: I guess it would be a good idea to keep a list of topics in brief that we are leaving aside for later. If you have a good sense of those and can jot them down would be great. It's hard for me to keep track of where my hairbrush is - but you may be overly busy too. > > > > I hope I've answered your points well enough for us to move forward. > > pt: Seems the best thing to do for now is address first whichever side-topics come up, or decide to leave them for later, and then we go forward, not that I have some master plan in mind, but as long as we stick to basics, we're fine I think. I would tend towards either handling core issues first, while listing the side-issues separately, or else handling side issues that are related to a given core issue as that core issue is discussed. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #123681 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Nina. All good points. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Dear Rob E, > You have interesting remarks. > > > R: That happens mechanically, and the > > mechanical nature of that chain of conditions is in my view at the > > heart > > of Buddhism. It is what makes it truly not based on self. > > > > In that sense, Buddhism is pretty cold. It does not have moral > > warmth in > > my view. Morality in Buddhism has to do with 'what works' to end > > suffering, > > not because one wants to think of oneself as a good person. I think > > that's > > why it is often translated as 'skillful.' > ------- > N: Morality: thinking of the other person's welfare. Kusala is to the > benefit of oneself and of the other persons. Becoming less selfish, > is that cold? We learn more precisely what is kusala and what > akusala. Thinking of oneself as a good person is clinging, it is > akusala. It is good not to take for kusala what is akusala. Kusala > can become purer. > ------- I can understand what you are saying - that along the path is a development of more kindness, selflessness and caring about others. That is all "warm" and obviously very good. But when we analyze the way conditionality works - the analysis - that seems "cold" to me. So I think the results of understanding are warm, but the description of what is understood is cold. Anatta is cold. Metta of course is not. So it's an interesting mix. In Hinduism there is a spiritual self which is more pure and loving than the usual personal self, rather than anatta. When you have anatta you have positive spiritual qualities, but of course no one who "owns" them. There is a sense of impersonality in Buddhism that is very deep and profound. So I guess that is what I am thinking of. It can still have a very "warm" result in everyday life and in the world, not being burdened by a heavy involvement with "self." > > R: In the conventional world, I agree with you that a person must > > and should > > have a moral code, treat others well, and be kind to people and > > animals. > > And I agree that much of that is the same in terms of what is > > kusala in > > Buddhism. But there is a line between personal morality in life and > > the > > understanding of conditionality that is distinct. One is personal > > and the other is > > impersonal in my view. > > > > I am not in love with this impersonal view of conditionality. > ------ > N: When metta arises this is conditioned. The Buddha taught cause and > effect, nothing arises without conditions. Seeing that metta is > conditioned, that it is anattaa does not make it less "warm". In the case of metta, I agree, because metta is inherently loving and caring. The 4 immeasurables are very special. > There > is already so much hurting and harming in the world, metta should be > cultivated. When others hurt us with their words or writing we should > forgive them, that is a kind of dana. I agree with that, but I understand that metta and dana are not direct conditions for enlightenment? So it seems that enlightenment is more of the cold understanding of the mind than of the opening of the heart. > See also the Buddha's great compassion, always thinking of others, > visiting the sick monks, helping those in need, those in trouble, > those who were mourning. Is that cold? No it is not, I agree of course. > Any kind of kusala, also when it is without pa~n~naa is beneficial. > We cannot order pa~n~naa to accompany each kusala citta. They are all > supportive conditions for pa~n~naa. That is good to know - but on the other hand what is beneficial "here and now" may not be beneficial for the path - except indirectly. Is that not correct? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #123682 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > I think the anatta perspective requires that there are no internal > entities, and that organisms such as our conscious and active bodies are largely > mechanical, driven by conditions and causes, and that the only really > conscious aspect of our organisms is the mindfulness and wisdom functions of > consciousness when they are present. All the interacting phenomena that you > mention are "not us." > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > What does it mean not to be "us"? Is there no valid distinction among > streams of consciousness? When thinking within a stream of consciousness > about phenomena in that stream, self-referential terminology is used, but > when thinking about (supposed) phenomena in another stream, such terminology > is not used. Does that make no sense to you? > --------------------------------------------------- I'm not saying any of the above. I think there are individual streams of experience, as you say. I'm not denying that there is individual experience. I am saying that all of that experience is not-self. To say there is no core entity but then to say that the individual content of consciousness has a kind of ownership to me sneaks self back into the equation. All the content of consciousness is impersonal - not because it is mixed with others' consciousness, it is not, but because it has no self related to it. It's just mechanical occurrence, due to conditions, including cetana. To think that there is some sort of identity or control within the individual stream, is, in my view, to posit a subtle sense of self. > That is the teaching on anatta in my view. > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > No soul or core of separate identity (in anything) is my view of > anatta. > ---------------------------------------------- I agree with that, but that also means that the arising content of consciousness is also self-less - no identity or entity to claim it, individual though it may be. It's just "stuff." Buddha goes into this explicitly and clearly in the suttas on the kandhas, when he demonstrates that neither perception, consciousness or any other personal functions can be dictated, willed, controlled or possessed. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123683 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:19 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > Of course, your point about any reality at all being the object of insight is correct. If there's a wish for that object to be a particular one, such as jhana citta, then this will be a hindrance to the development of such insight. Thanks for the reminder. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #123684 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:01 pm Subject: Abhaya and anumodaana szmicio Dear Nina, > N: A-bhaya, no fear. Someone may have hurt you, but you feel no > revenge, you just wish him well. Also when observing the five > precepts, you do not wish to harm anyone. When one abstains from > killing insects, one gives the gift of life, one wishes for the > safety of all beings. You give others the opportunity to live in > safety, without fear. Even the observing of siila can be seen as a > way of daana. L: I know what u mean. Give no harm, it's in siila also. Like a right speech. Abstaining from giving complements. Or saying about Teachings, this give no harm to others. When we hear a nice words of ourselves the mind is agitated, than we can know more and more about giving no harm to others. We dont want to harm ourselves, so that we give no harm to others. One can think one can have more right speech, but there must be a sobhana hetu, wholsome roots to condition right speech. But this is so rare. > > L: What is anumodaana? > ------- > N: Anumodana daana: anumodana means thanksgiving. You appreciate the > kusala of someone else and expresses this in words. Then there are > kusala cittas with muditaa, you rejoice in his kusala, there is no > jealousy. L: what is jealousy? What is mudita? What is 'love'? Does brahma-vihara, a 'love' in a Buddha teachings, always arises as a four cetasikas or they can arise seperately? I mean does metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha arise in one moment? What is difference between metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha? I would like to hear more on this cetasikas, they are cetasikas isnt it? Best wishes Lukas #123685 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:27 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi pt (123658) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Jon and all, > ... > pt: I'm still a bit confused when it comes to the interaction between the two people, or rather between their cittas and cetasikas, if there is one in the first place. Notably, I see two difficult issues: > > 1. As you note: "..the intervention of the person with murderous intent is a supporting condition for the latter kamma [pt: of the victim] to ripen.." > > Now, this "intervention" in essence needs to be a dhamma if it is to be a supporting condition for the victim's kamma to ripen (resulting in victim's death). So, I'm wondering what sort of dhamma is it? I'd assume it'd have to be some sort of rupa, and this rupa would be produced by the intimation of the killer, which in turn is produced by his murderous intent accompanying a citta with very strong dosa, right? > =============== J: I don't know about that. The 'intervention' (my own term, btw, not something from the texts) could just as easily be in the form of a natural occurrence such as an avalanche, a lightening strike, etc. The principle is the same. So I do not see this as being, in Dhamma terms, a case of an 'interaction between two people or their cittas and cetasikas'. Just different dhammas. (In any event, in the particular case being discussed (killer and victim), the rupa which conditions the end of lifespan would in fact be the weapon used so in any event this would not be a case of a rupa that is produced by the intimation of the killer.) > =============== > 2. We've said that cittas and cetasikas of the two people shouldn't be mixed up. We've also said that kamma patha for the killer depends on the victim's death (ending of life-faculty). So, what I'm looking for is again a dhamma that acts as a condition between the two - basically in what way does the ending of life-faculty (a dhamma) of the victim, condition the vipaka citta of the killer? I mean, these two are dhammas of two different people, so then they can't condition eachother directly, and therefore there must be some other dhammas in between through which the first would conditions the second? At this point I don't really see what sort of dhamma(s) could that be. If that's the right way to consider this issue in the first place. > =============== J: What you are asking, I think, is: How does the cetana of the 'killer' know that the death of the 'victim' has in fact resulted (a death that may be quite some time and distance removed from the act in question)? I don't know the answer to that, and I'd see that as being one of the 'imponderable' aspects of kamma. Perhaps it falls under the category of information that we'd all like to know but which in fact would not be of any particular help for the development of the path. Jon #123686 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123657) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon, pt and Rob K. > > > J: In the situation being discussed, there may have been performed in the past both kamma that will result in a long life and kamma that will result in a shortened life; however, the intervention of the person with murderous intent is a supporting condition for the latter kamma to ripen rather than the former, so that a normal lifespan is not reached. > > RE: What is your view of the relation of kamma to concepts like "normal lifespan," "long life" and "shortened life?" Do such terms reference something that exists in the world of dhammas? > > =============== J: I would understand terms such as "normal lifespan," "long life" and "shortened life" to be, in ultimate terms, a reference to the timespan, or more particularly the number of cittas, between a patisandhi citta (birth consciousness) and a cuti citta (death consciousness) within the same stream of cittas. Jon #123687 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123649) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon, Rob K. and pt. > > > RK: Dear pt and jon > > Yes that is how i see it,. Also anciliary factors like being born in a warlike land or time, may support a sudden and untimely death. > > Nevertheless no one could be killed - no matter what other causes- unless they had some akusal kamma waiting to pounce. > > As a matter of interest even arahats like mogga > > Ana can be murdered and it is only buddhas that are exempt ( plus such individuals as ven Bakual who madde such kamma as to be never be sick or injured and who live to 160 years old) > > RE: Part of what interests me in all the above, is again the role of conventional conditions and events, which I think we use in shorthand form but also include in a way that suggests their reality as well. > > Is a "warlike land" a set of rupas that set conditions for other rupas? Or is it a conventional set of conditions that make it more likely to be killed in conventional terms? And does that "mix" with the akusala kamma that allows for a chance to be murdered under the "right conditions?" > > "Warlike" may be shorthand for sets of conditions that keep "warlike" sets of rupas arising that create further conditions for the akusala kamma to result in murder, eg, the life-faculty being cut off. Is that adequate to account for being born in a warlike environment? > > Is "long life" a reality, or merely a conventional measurement? If it is only a conventional reality, and cannot be broken down into dhammas, how do we account for "long life" being a factor when talking about kamma, which only affects dhammas? Or does kamma also affect such realities as "long life," "poverty," "looking pretty or ugly," which the Buddha referenced as a matter of course when talking about kamma. Can the result of kamma express itself in such blatantly conventional life-conditions? > > I think it's worth clarifying whether everything we talk about in conventional terms can be broken down into dhammas, or whether some conventional realities - such as being killed by planes dropping bombs from an airplane, or being born as a bird and being shot down by a hunter, the latter being referenced by the Buddha - can only be explained by including both dhammas and conventional realities in the explanation. > =============== J: It's not an axiom of the Dhamma that "everything we talk about in conventional terms can be broken down into dhammas". The axiom is that whatever we may think is 'happening', there are only dhammas. The name 'dhamma' is the name given to those things that are real in the ultimate sense, that is to say, that have an inherent characteristic that is not susceptible to change or interpretation. To approach the teaching from the perspective of trying to 'see' in terms of dhammas the world as we know it in the conventional sense is to miss the point that it is dhammas, not conventional objects, actions or ideas, that are to be known. Jon #123688 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhaya and anumodaana nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 11-apr-2012, om 8:01 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > You give others the opportunity to live in > > safety, without fear. Even the observing of siila can be seen as a > > way of daana. > > L: I know what u mean. Give no harm, it's in siila also. Like a > right speech. Abstaining from giving complements. > ------- N: Giving compliments to others, nice words to others, it depends on the citta at that moment. It can be lobha if one wants to be popular, or, it can be kusala when rejoicing in someone else's good qualities, or wanting to encourage him to kusala. ------- > L:Or saying about Teachings, this give no harm to others. When we > hear a nice words of ourselves the mind is agitated, than we can > know more and more about giving no harm to others. We dont want to > harm ourselves, so that we give no harm to others. One can think > one can have more right speech, but there must be a sobhana hetu, > wholsome roots to condition right speech. But this is so rare. > > > > L: What is anumodaana? > > ------- > > N: Anumodana daana: anumodana means thanksgiving. You appreciate the > > kusala of someone else and expresses this in words. Then there are > > kusala cittas with muditaa, you rejoice in his kusala, there is no > > jealousy. > > L: what is jealousy? What is mudita? What is 'love'? Does brahma- > vihara, a 'love' in a Buddha teachings, always arises as a four > cetasikas or they can arise seperately? I mean does metta, karuna, > mudita and upekkha arise in one moment? > ------- N: jealousy or envy: you cannot stand someone else to have good things, like possessions or good qualities. If it arises it does so with citta rooted in dosa. Muditaa is the opposite, you are glad without attachment, about the other's good things. Love: as a good quality, a brahma vihara, it is mettaa. It is unselfish love. It is not the kind of love that is full of self, thus, egoistic. Mettaa: one just thinks of the other person's wellbeing. Since we have accumulated lots of attachment, this is not easy. But it helps to know the difference between akusala and kusala. In fact, mettaa and sefish love alternate in daily life, and this is good to know. Metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha are different cetasikas. As brahma viharas they have different objects, but as cetasikas some arise together. Mettaa is adosa cetasika and this arises with each kusala citta. Mettaa is actually adosa cetasika directed towards human beings. Equanimity is tatramajjhattataa cetasika, arising with each sobhana citta, but as a brahma vihara it is a specific quality. You understand that beings are owners of deeds. You would like to help someone else but you see that he is beyond help, for example someone who is dying. Instead of having aversion, you understand that kamma takes its course and will bring its result accordingly. Karu.na and muditaa are cetasikas that do not arise with each sobhana citta. They have specific objects. Compassion: you see someone's suffering and want to alleviate this. ------- Nina. #123689 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:21 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123626) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon, and Rob K. > ... > RE: From my point of view, there are two things that I think may be taking place, and I am not knowledgeable enough to have them all worked out properly at all. A lot of times I am not just debating, but also trying to figure things out at the same time, so I'm not just trying to prove a point, but I do believe that both the paramattha and the conventional coexist to a certain degree, though the paramattha is more accurate. > > The first thing is that conventional events *are* paramattha events seen conceptually, rather than experienced directly. If we form an image of what has taken place in any event, or if we reference a remembered sequence through thought, it only approximates what really happened. It is general and leaves out a lot. For instance, we remember the "texture of the table" and have some memories and sensations that come to mind when we think of the image of touching the table. The paramattha experience of touching the table would be a complex series of rupas and namas, sense-door and mind-door processes, and ordinarily we have no access to this because our cittas are not sharp enough to register all that really took place. So we have a sort of "experiential marker" that stands in for the actual experience, and in that sense, conventional experiences are paramattha experiences which are only partially experienced, understood or remembered. They are like shadows or bad xeroxes of what really happened in its moment-to-moment particularity. > =============== J: Regarding, "conventional events *are* paramattha events seen conceptually, rather than experienced directly". There is no such thing as a paramattha *event*. There are paramattha dhammas and there are truths about paramattha dhammas. But no paramattha events. Regarding, "The paramattha experience of touching the table would be a complex series of rupas and namas, sense-door and mind-door processes, and ordinarily we have no access to this because our cittas are not sharp enough to register all that really took place" The experience of touching a table is a conventional event. It cannot be described as a 'paramattha experience'. (Nor is there a paramattha experience that corresponds to touching a table.) The development of the path is about coming to see more clearly the nature of paramattha dhammas; it does not involve 'registering all that takes place'. It is sufficient that dhammas are seen to be anicca, dukkha and anatta, and that sufficient dhammas are seen thus to realise that all dhammas are likewise. Regarding "conventional experiences are paramattha experiences which are only partially experienced, understood or remembered". As I've pointed out before, the enlightened being also thinks in terms of people and things, but does so without any misconception as to there being anything paramattha about people and things. So it is not correct to characterise conceptual thinking as somehow defective or incomplete (or hallucinatory, as you do in another post). > =============== > RE: The second thing is that there are some sorts of paramattha events that lead to or come from more conventional events, though these two can be broken down into paramattha terms. So if kamma patha requires the "murder of a being" then we have to come to terms with how all the dhammas involved with kamma patha are somehow related to the conventional act of killing a conventional being. Once we see beings in paramattha terms, murder can't take place, because there would be no one to murder, but the paramattha act of kamma patha requires that we still see a conventional being, otherwise it would not be completed. So we have a kind of paradox there. If we break down the full kamma patha into all its components, it's going to include the "belief in a being," "the desire to kill that being," and "the experience of killing that being," all concepts, but all intermixed with the actual namas and rupas that take place on the paramattha level. And so there is this paradoxical intermixing of dhammas and concepts that is actually required in the case of any kamma patha, for any kamma patha requires not only rupas, but the conception of a conventional object, being and/or action at the same time. > =============== J: Regarding "Once we see beings in paramattha terms, murder can't take place, because there would be no one to murder, but the paramattha act of kamma patha requires that we still see a conventional being, otherwise it would not be completed. So we have a kind of paradox there.", It's not a matter of "seeing beings in paramattha terms". It's a matter of seeing dhammas as dhammas and thereby coming to realise that what is taken for a being is not a paramattha dhamma. Regarding "And so there is this paradoxical intermixing of dhammas and concepts that is actually required in the case of any kamma patha, for any kamma patha requires not only rupas, but the conception of a conventional object, being and/or action at the same time." The sotapanna still has metta, even though the object is another being. But he does not take the being for being a dhamma, i.e., for having ultimate 'reality' in the sense of having an inherent, unchangeable characteristic. > =============== > RE: For other sorts of events - not kamma patha - it may be that they can be totally broken down into dhammas, but for kamma patha, concepts are a requirement. > =============== J: It is not suggested in the teachings that conventional events be 'broken down into dhammas'. A 'practice' based on that view would in my view involve a lot of misguided thinking. Jon #123690 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > I think it's worth clarifying whether everything we talk about in conventional terms can be broken down into dhammas, or whether some conventional realities - such as being killed by planes dropping bombs from an airplane, or being born as a bird and being shot down by a hunter, the latter being referenced by the Buddha - can only be explained by including both dhammas and conventional realities in the explanation. > > =============== > > J: It's not an axiom of the Dhamma that "everything we talk about in conventional terms can be broken down into dhammas". The axiom is that whatever we may think is 'happening', there are only dhammas. > > The name 'dhamma' is the name given to those things that are real in the ultimate sense, that is to say, that have an inherent characteristic that is not susceptible to change or interpretation. > > To approach the teaching from the perspective of trying to 'see' in terms of dhammas the world as we know it in the conventional sense is to miss the point that it is dhammas, not conventional objects, actions or ideas, that are to be known. So when the Buddha talks about a result of kamma being born as a bird and being shot down by a hunter for a number of lifetimes in a row, as vipaka - result of killing of a certain kind in a former lifetime, how do you take into account or what sort of importance do you grant to such information? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123691 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:38 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: Rob E.: > > The first thing is that conventional events *are* paramattha events seen conceptually, rather than experienced directly. If we form an image of what has taken place in any event, or if we reference a remembered sequence through thought, it only approximates what really happened. It is general and leaves out a lot. For instance, we remember the "texture of the table" and have some memories and sensations that come to mind when we think of the image of touching the table. The paramattha experience of touching the table would be a complex series of rupas and namas, sense-door and mind-door processes, and ordinarily we have no access to this because our cittas are not sharp enough to register all that really took place. So we have a sort of "experiential marker" that stands in for the actual experience, and in that sense, conventional experiences are paramattha experiences which are only partially experienced, understood or remembered. They are like shadows or bad xeroxes of what really happened in its moment-to-moment particularity. > > =============== > > J: Regarding, "conventional events *are* paramattha events seen conceptually, rather than experienced directly". > > There is no such thing as a paramattha *event*. There are paramattha dhammas and there are truths about paramattha dhammas. But no paramattha events. What I mean by a paramatha event is the actual arising and falling away of a dhamma or series of dhammas [as in groups of rupas,] or a citta taking a particular dhamma as object. > Regarding, "The paramattha experience of touching the table would be a complex series of rupas and namas, sense-door and mind-door processes, and ordinarily we have no access to this because our cittas are not sharp enough to register all that really took place" > > The experience of touching a table is a conventional event. It cannot be described as a 'paramattha experience'. (Nor is there a paramattha experience that corresponds to touching a table.) > > The development of the path is about coming to see more clearly the nature of paramattha dhammas; it does not involve 'registering all that takes place'. It is sufficient that dhammas are seen to be anicca, dukkha and anatta, and that sufficient dhammas are seen thus to realise that all dhammas are likewise. > > Regarding "conventional experiences are paramattha experiences which are only partially experienced, understood or remembered". > > As I've pointed out before, the enlightened being also thinks in terms of people and things, but does so without any misconception as to there being anything paramattha about people and things. So it is not correct to characterise conceptual thinking as somehow defective or incomplete (or hallucinatory, as you do in another post). It's been described that way to me here on dsg, so there may be some variety in the way in which conceptual reality is regarded. That has been one of the main issues I have tried to resolve for myself, without complete success - whether, as Rob K. recently paraphrased from the Abhidhamatha Sangaha that concepts are like the shadows of dhammas - which is what I mean by conventional events and things being "dhammas seen wrongly or incompletely or distortedly," or whether they are "wholly other" and not related to dhammas at all, eg, hallucinatory and not reflecting any kind of real existence, even a shadowy or distorted version of the real dhammas that are arising and falling away. In this thread you seem to have accorded to some of the talk about "really experiencing dhammas" when you think you are experiencing concepts. This would be in line with touching a table not really being touching a table, but the experience of hardness, etc., which are the actual dhammas. At other times, such as in this post and the last one, you seem to be stressing the idea that concepts have no relation to dhammas at all. I find it a little bit confusing. > > =============== > > RE: The second thing is that there are some sorts of paramattha events that lead to or come from more conventional events, though these two can be broken down into paramattha terms. So if kamma patha requires the "murder of a being" then we have to come to terms with how all the dhammas involved with kamma patha are somehow related to the conventional act of killing a conventional being. Once we see beings in paramattha terms, murder can't take place, because there would be no one to murder, but the paramattha act of kamma patha requires that we still see a conventional being, otherwise it would not be completed. So we have a kind of paradox there. If we break down the full kamma patha into all its components, it's going to include the "belief in a being," "the desire to kill that being," and "the experience of killing that being," all concepts, but all intermixed with the actual namas and rupas that take place on the paramattha level. And so there is this paradoxical intermixing of dhammas and concepts that is actually required in the case of any kamma patha, for any kamma patha requires not only rupas, but the conception of a conventional object, being and/or action at the same time. > > =============== > > J: Regarding "Once we see beings in paramattha terms, murder can't take place, because there would be no one to murder, but the paramattha act of kamma patha requires that we still see a conventional being, otherwise it would not be completed. So we have a kind of paradox there.", > > It's not a matter of "seeing beings in paramattha terms". It's a matter of seeing dhammas as dhammas and thereby coming to realise that what is taken for a being is not a paramattha dhamma. But killing does involve both a being AND dhammas. > Regarding "And so there is this paradoxical intermixing of dhammas and concepts that is actually required in the case of any kamma patha, for any kamma patha requires not only rupas, but the conception of a conventional object, being and/or action at the same time." > > The sotapanna still has metta, even though the object is another being. But he does not take the being for being a dhamma, i.e., for having ultimate 'reality' in the sense of having an inherent, unchangeable characteristic. What I am saying is for someone who is not a sotapanna, the real cetana dhammas have to arise in relation to a conceptual being in order for kamma patha to take place. They are dhammas in response to a concept, carrying out real arisings of namas and rupas in relation to a fictitious being. In fact, that being, which is a concept, has to be eradicated to complete the kamma patha. > > =============== > > RE: For other sorts of events - not kamma patha - it may be that they can be totally broken down into dhammas, but for kamma patha, concepts are a requirement. > > =============== > > J: It is not suggested in the teachings that conventional events be 'broken down into dhammas'. A 'practice' based on that view would in my view involve a lot of misguided thinking. The point is that in kamma patha, dhammas and concepts are both involved, and are related to each other. This seems to me to be a problem if one believes that dhammas and concepts have no relationship to each other, do not act upon each other, and cannot be conditions for each other. There are no dhammas of kamma patha unless there is a being - a concept - as a supporting condition. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #123692 From: Vince Date: Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:12 am Subject: eating animal corpses cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Robert wrote: >> HCW: >> I don't eat meat, and not because of my kamma vipaka. I don't eat >> meat, because >> I don't want to support the killing of animals, and that because I don't >> want to cause distress. >> ---------------------------------------------- > That is laudable, and I understand those sentiments, although I am someone who both > loves animals and also eats meat - a contradiction which I can't easily resolve. > However, our personal response to animals, for better or for worse, seems to be a little > bit different than the Buddha's teaching on meat-eating. I think - just my view - when we feel compassion in front the killing of some animal, it is something arising in the present moment. When we feel the same in front a piece of meat without any life, then here we are using the imagination. In that same moment we need to imagine an animal when he was alive, or maybe we remember the sufferings of many animals who are alive, etc.. But there is not any living being in front us. This situation is quite similar of what differentiates morality and virtue. What we can name "true morality" is something arising in a sudden way and by detachment of the self. This event arises outside of reason, imaginations and reflections. This is what happens when we feel compassion in front the killing of a living being, or when somebody saves another person even when it means the end of his own live. Such events are strange, non-reflected and outside the "I" juggling. This is the true morality. Virtue is the attempt to establish morality with our actions: we wish the reality should be in this or that way. This is because we believe in our own power to change the reality. However, our virtuous actions in deep are also selfish actions, despite they can be needed and benefical for the rest. As sure you knows, in the Mahayana -specially in the Lankavatara Sutra-, there is an strong defence of vegetarianism. However, in that Sutra there is not an explanation of such defence related with the -self but this is an strong advice to be virtuous in this matter because kammic reasons, etc. In the Theravada, at least I understand the Buddha appears much more concerned with the here-and-now; with the arising of guilt and a possible obstacle to keep detachment: "Jivaka, those who say: 'Animals are slaughtered on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and the recluse Gotama knowingly eats the meat killed on purpose for him', do not say according to what I have declared, and they falsely accuse me. Jivaka, I have declared that one should not make use of meat it is seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. I allow the monks meat that is quite pure in three respects: if it is not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk.' It seems the food is not pure or impure in itself but the purity is endowed in the food by us, according our own image of our morality. At least I don't see both views are exclusive. Mahayana stress the same moral basis which is already present in Theravada. However, the Mahayana add those advices which are focused in virtue. Strictly, a piece of meat is not a living being, although the purity of our action will not be measured in that way, because we elaborate more meanings around the experience. Some of them are not benefical for the progress (doubt, guilt, remorse, etc). I think virtues are like an automatic pilot when still we cannot fly by ourselves. We need them in some degree; this is a matter of personal investigation, Btw, beyond these thoughts also I experience same contradictions like yours. best. #123693 From: "colette_aube" Date: Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:34 am Subject: Re: Himalayan Tantra colette_aube Hi Group, I apologize for sending you on a wild goose chase. Just a single "google" got me to PRASANGIKA where I found Svatantrika OOPS, MY MISTAKE. It was a good thought, though, wasn't it? ;) toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > Hi Group, specifically Connie, > > I recall, a few years ago, when you, Connie, questioned me about my position being something like VAISHVANARA, yet that is a Hindu term. I know that what you were questioning me about related to TWO SPECIFIC BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHIES. In my study of Tantra (see Himalayan or Mahayana) I'm busy picking apart the differences in Language and philosophy. I'm trying to decipher the HINDU practices that were seeded in Tibet, et al, before becoming formalized. I'm specifically looking for the Buddhist philosophy that relates to this "Vaishvanara" concept. Mild research shows me PURE LAND BUDDHISM, however, I know that the philosophy that I'm specifically thinking of is directly related to this concept of Vaishvanara although I am first to stand up and claim that my ignorance of PALI and SANSKRIT is beyond bounds so I'm probably just associating words with similar "structures" i.e. they both start with the letter V, they both have a sound similar to "vaish", etc.. > > Your help would be appreciated and, I guess, I'd just like a little recognition for being alive and having a thought. ;) Ya know, that I"m not just talking to a main-frame computer. > > toodles, > colette > #123694 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts sarahprocter... Dear Prasad, Thank you for your interesting and informative introduction. Dallas and Bangalore - two very different places, two very different cultures and yet, and yet - still just experiences through 6 doorways wherever we are! Still, many, many moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching with lots and lots of thinking in between. I am familiar with the Goenka/U Ba Khin tradition. I first met Goenka himself in Bodh Gaya at the end of 1974 when I accompanied him and Munindra on a long walk. They were discussing Abhidhamma as it happens and I was just tagging along as a guest of Munindra's (who I was studying with at the time). A few months later, as it happens, I did a 10 day course with Goenka in Hyderabad. There were a few well-fed and well-dressed Indians and a few emaciated hippy-looking foreigners like myself:-) For me it was a welcome break in my third class train travel from Dharmsala down to the south of India from where I was taking the boat to Sri Lanka to stay in a monastery. I think the technique may well have all sorts of health benefits as it did for Mr Goenka himself, but I think it leads people astray when it comes to understanding the Buddha's teachings. Instead of developing detachment at the present moment from whatever is conditioned, there is the intention and wish to focus on sensations. Rupas and Vedana are mixed up usually. Without a clear understanding of the distinction between namas and rupas when they arise now, there can never be an understanding of dhammas as anatta as I see it. The theory and practice have to be in accord. The practice has to be the development of understanding now of whatever dhamma appears. Actually, I remember bringing up some of this points a little with Mr Goenka at the time, but he didn't wish to discuss them - he'd just suggest I go away and meditate some more! So I'm very interested to hear about your Abhidhamma classes in Bangalore as well. It's good to read a little, consider and discuss - otherwise it can all be blind theory or academic study. I wonder if you've read Nina's book "Abhidhamma in Daily Life?" I found it really helpful when I first started reading the chapters in manuscript form soon after that retreat with Mr Goenka. In fact, beginning to read the first couple of chapters on namas and rupas and listening to some recordings of Ajahn Sujin talking about the experience of visible object or sound now, followed by all the conjuring up of stories leading to the ideas of people and things, led me to really appreciate that the Buddha's teachings are about anatta now - dhammas beyond anyone's control. I've never meditated (as commonly understood) since. Before that, I was a very serious meditator in the temple in Sri Lanka. Your familiarity with Pali terms will be helpful for you here. I appreciate your interest in classifications and Patthana relationships. Again, we can get lost in the detail and forget that all the Teachings come down to the understanding of the presently arising dhammas now as anatta - mere elements that don't belong to anyone and are not in anyone's control. The understanding means no selection, no attachment to having any dhamma arise now - any dhamma can be the object of understanding now, depending on the accumulations for such. From this point of view, whether you're at work as an engineer in Dallas or Bangalore, whether you're sitting quietly, whether you're with family and friends, there can be meditation, i.e. the development of understanding of seeing, visible object, thinking or any other presently appearing dhamma. I've written more than I planned to do. I'll look forward to any further discussion on any of the points if they're of interest to you. If you (or any other new members) have a photo to add to the Member Album to be found on the home-page, it's always nice to see them. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Prasad Praturi wrote: > > Dear Sarah, Thanks for invitation. last few years I am living part time in Dallas, Texas and part time in Bangalore, India but next thursday onward i am moving to Bangalore permanently. I mediatate regularly vipassana practice taught by shri SN Goenkaji in the tradition of U Ba Khin. <...> #123695 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:54 pm Subject: Re: Lukas. trip to england sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > L: I dont care much of others. .... S: As K.Sujin would say, those that don't care have to learn to care. Whilst we always think of ourselves and don't care much for others, we'll always be miserable, we'll always be obsessed with "Me" and "My problems". It's not just you but everyone finds themselves most important - no wonder there's so much distress when life doesn't work out as we'd like it to! As discussed before, (and as I've quoted before) King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika concluded that indeed there was indeed no one dearer than themselves. The Buddha spoke these lines in Udana, 5-1, `Dear' (Masefield trans): "Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain That dearer than the self in any place; thus is the self dear separately To others - therefore one desiring self should not harm another." The commentary adds: ".....One would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place (n'ev'ajjhagaapiyataram attanaa kvaci): whatever man, seeking out with every endeavour someone else (more) excessively dear than the self, would neither attain nor behold (such) in any place, anywhere in the (ten) quarters.Thus is the self dear separately to others (evam piyo puthu attaa paresa.m): thus is the self alone dear separately, severally, to this and that being, by way of the non-discovery of anyone dearer than the self. "Therefore one desiring self should not harm another (tasmaa na hi.mse param attakaama): since each being holds the self dear in that way, is one desiring happiness for that self, one for whom dukkha is repulsive, therefore one desiring self, in wanting well-being and happiness for that self, should not harm, should not kill, should not even antagonise with the hand....and so on, another being, upwards from and including even a mere ant or (other) small insect. For when dukkha is caused by oneself to some other, that (dukkha) is, after an interval of time, observed in one's (own) self, as though it were passing over therefrom. For this is the law of karma." S: We don't wish to be distressed and yet when we harm others through speech or deeds, when we don't care about others, are rude or treat others with disrespect, actually we harm ourselves by accumulating more lobha, dosa and moha and the very results we find so distressing. Metta Sarah ===== #123696 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Dear Pt & all, >Pt: The occurrence of death would be the cuti citta of the person being > killed, right? However, I think Sarah mentioned recently that cuti > citta of the person being killed is conditioned by his kamma alone, > not by the the action of the killer. So, I don't quite understand > why would the cuti citta of the person being killed be a > requirement for killer's kamma patha, since the two seem > unconnected? Perhaps I don't see the connection. > ------ S: As Nina said, the different cittas of killer and victim have to be distinguished and not mixed. They are conditioned by different factors. I would add, it's just like the example of hearing the Buddha's teachings. It depends entirely on past kamma whether or not there is the hearing of the sounds (or seeing of the visible objects) which we refer to as the Buddha's Teachings. Having heard those sounds, it just depends on accumulations (natural decisive support condition) as to whether there is any wise consideration, any understanding of what is heard or not. Of course, if those sounds had not been uttered, there'd be no opportunity for past kamma to condition the hearing of those sounds. Even so, we cannot say it was the Buddha or anything/anyone else that conditioned the hearing of the sounds at that instance - just kamma. How many beings even in born at the time of the Buddha failed to hear the sounds or if they heard them, had no understanding at all? So in the case of the cuti citta - this is conditioned by past kamma. Prior moments of experiencing hardness through the body-sense and other sense experiences are also conditioned by past kamma. I think that kamma only begins to make sense when we consider more about dhammas and appreciate that in reality, there are no beings, no people at all. I was listening to a tape yesterday when I was feeling a little unwell and heard K.Sujin advising me not to "look for the fine line" with regard to the details of kamma patha. In other words, when we try to work out all the details, there is usually a forgetting to be aware of the present dhamma - the thinking about the story, worrying, present seeing and so on. It was a good reminder at the time and when I heard it again yesterday. Metta Sarah ===== #123697 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary th... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and welcome, Prasad) - In a message dated 4/12/2012 3:42:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Instead of developing detachment at the present moment from whatever is conditioned, there is the intention and wish to focus on sensations. -------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, yes, after a few days of attending mainly to the breath, bodily sensations are made the primary focus of attention by means of the "body sweeping". It was my experience, though, that after a day or two of the "sweeping", the process became rather automatic/self-perpetuating, and a flow of particle-like sensations/pulses was felt everywhere in the body. Once that phase began, there was no evident intentional effort, and no focusing. ---------------------------------------------- Rupas and Vedana are mixed up usually. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes! Rupa and vedana are conflated, a clear error of understanding, IMO. The Goenka folks experience what they experience, but their definitions are "off" as far as I'm concerned. --------------------------------------------- Without a clear understanding of the distinction between namas and rupas when they arise now, there can never be an understanding of dhammas as anatta as I see it. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, not a proper definitional understanding, for sure, but an experiential grasp of anicca definitely develops, and, from that, a grasp of anatta. At least this seems to have been the case for me, especially as regards experiencing an absence of self/identity in "myself". My main "criticism" of the Goenka practice for me was that I found it to be not practical for continued practice when living life! I found it more suitable to move to anapanasati (what some will call, not so lovingly - LOL, "formal meditation") and to quite regular, ongoing introspection (this latter being a combination of kayanupassana and dhammanupassana in daily life). --------------------------------------------- The theory and practice have to be in accord. The practice has to be the development of understanding now of whatever dhamma appears. --------------------------------------------- HCW: The most important understanding, IMO, is the clear experiential understanding of the tilakkhana and of conditionality, and that did seem to me to be furthered by the Goenka practice. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous #123698 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:08 am Subject: Re: eating animal corpses epsteinrob Hi Vince. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Vince wrote: > > Robert wrote: > > >> HCW: > >> I don't eat meat, and not because of my kamma vipaka. I don't eat > >> meat, because > >> I don't want to support the killing of animals, and that because I don't > >> want to cause distress. > >> ---------------------------------------------- > > > That is laudable, and I understand those sentiments, although I am someone who both > > loves animals and also eats meat - a contradiction which I can't easily resolve. > > However, our personal response to animals, for better or for worse, seems to be a little > > bit different than the Buddha's teaching on meat-eating. > > I think - just my view - when we feel compassion in front the killing of some animal, it > is something arising in the present moment. When we feel the same in front a piece of meat > without any life, then here we are using the imagination. ... > Virtue is the attempt to establish morality with our actions: we wish the reality should be > in this or that way. I think the distinction between our desires to do "good" and the reality that arises in the moment is worth thinking about. However, there is also a thought of the good of the beings represented by the animals, and not to do actions that cause suffering for others. That may or may not be in the moment, but may still benefit the animals even if it is a sort of false virtue. So in conventional terms - meaning, in our everyday world where we accept ourselves and animals as existent - virtue as you define it has an important place. In conventional life I would not advocate only following the true arising of the moment, as in the absurd case this could lead to murdering people if we "feel like it" or other very negative consequences. It may be a false idealism for Dhamma, when we are looking at what is really there in our heart or mind, but it is still important for social life, and I don't dismiss the importance of treating people and animals well in everyday life for whatever reason. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123699 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:04 am Subject: Fw: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 moellerdieter Hi All, time for a new cetasika to discuss (and sorry , Sarah, for the length , overview .. ) Viriya (effort) , which belongs to the 13 ethically variable factors (Annasammana cetasikas) 7 of them are universals , 6 occasionals . Not hard to guess that effort belongs to the latter , its counterpart likely the 3 of the dullness group (akusala cetasikas). As an introduction a couple of quotations I stumbled upon , certainly there are many more ..(Alex , please add .. ) Next : interpretation.... coming soon .. ;-) with Metta Dieter Probably synonyms for 'effort' in Pali ( to be checked with context ..) PTS: Padhāna (nt.) [fr. pa+dhā, cp. padahati] exertion, ener- getic effort, striving, concentration of mind D iii.30, 77, 104, 108, 214, 238; M ii.174, 218; S i.47; ii.268; viriya (adj.) strenuous, energetic, resolute Vin i.182; D iii.252, 268, 282, 285; A i.24; Sn 68, 344; It 71 (opp. hīna-- viriya); Nd2 131; Ps i.171; ThA 95. Cp. Vāyāma [fr. vi+ā+yam] striving, effort, exertion, en- deavour S ii.168; iv.197; v.440; A i.174 (chando+), 219; ii.93; iii.307; samma vayama (Right Effort ) : 6. "What now, o monks, is right effort? If the disciple rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, demeritorious things that have not yet arisen; ... if he rouses his will to overcome the evil, demeritorious things that have already arisen; ... if he rouses his will to produce meritorious things that have not yet arisen; ... if he rouses his will to maintain the meritorious things that have already arisen and not to let them disappear, but to bring them to growth, to maturity and to the full perfection of development; he thus makes effort, stirs up his energy, exerts his mind and strives (s. padhāna). padhāna: 'effort.' The 4 right efforts (samma-padhāna), forming the 6th stage of the 8-fold Path (i.e. sammā-vāyāma, s. magga) are: (1) the effort to avoid (saṃvara-padhāna), (2) to overcome (pahāna-padhāna), (3) to develop (bhāvanā-padhāna), (4) to maintain (anurakkhaṇa-padhāna), i.e. (1) the effort to avoid unwholesome (akusala) states, such as evil thoughts, etc. (2) to overcome unwholesome states, (3) to develop wholesome (kusala) states, such as the 7 elements of enlightenment (bojjhaṅga, q.v.), (4) to maintain the wholesome states. (quote Nyantiloka Buddh.Dict.) AN 8.54 PTS: A iv 281 Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: Conditions of Welfare Four conditions, Vyagghapajja,[3] conduce to a householder's weal and happiness in this very life. Which four? "The accomplishment of persistent effort (utthana-sampada), the accomplishment of watchfulness (arakkha-sampada), good friendship (kalyanamittata) and balanced livelihood (sama-jivikata). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html     AN 8.80 PTS: A iv 332 Kusita-Arambhavatthu Sutta: The Grounds for Laziness & the Arousal of Energy Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth grounds for the arousal of energy. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.080.than.html AN 10.54 PTS: A v 98 Samatha Sutta: With Regard to Tranquility But if, on examination, the monk knows, 'I am one who achieves neither internal tranquility of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment,' then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for gaining those very same skillful qualities. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, 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, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for gaining those very same skillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.054.than.html   AN 10.51 PTS: A v 92 Sacitta Sutta: One's Own Mind   "And how is a monk skilled in reading his own mind? Imagine a young woman — or man — fond of adornment, examining the image of her own face in a bright, clean mirror or bowl of clear water: If she saw any dirt or blemish there, she would try to remove it. If she saw no dirt or blemish there, she would be pleased, her resolves fulfilled: 'How fortunate I am! How clean I am!' In the same way, a monk's self-examination is very productive in terms of skillful qualities:[2] 'Do I usually remain covetous or not? With thoughts of ill will or not? Overcome by sloth & drowsiness or not? Restless or not? Uncertain or gone beyond uncertainty? Angry or not? With soiled thoughts or unsoiled thoughts? With my body aroused or unaroused? Lazy or with persistence aroused? Unconcentrated or concentrated?' "If, on examination, a monk knows, 'I usually remain covetous, with thoughts of ill will, overcome by sloth & drowsiness, restless, uncertain, angry, with soiled thoughts, with my body aroused, lazy, or unconcentrated,' then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, 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, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.051.than.html     MN 141 PTS: M iii 248 Saccavibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Truths   "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html     AN 6.20 PTS: A iii 306 Maranassati Sutta: Mindfulness of Death (2) I have heard that at one time the Blessed One was staying at Nadika, in the Brick Hall. There he addressed the monks, "Monks, mindfulness of death — when developed & pursued — is of great fruit & great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end. And how is mindfulness of death developed & pursued so that it is of great fruit & great benefit, gains a footing in the Deathless, and has the Deathless as its final end? "There is the case where a monk, as day departs and night returns, reflects: 'Many are the [possible] causes of my death. A snake might bite me, a scorpion might sting me, a centipede might bite me. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me. Stumbling, I might fall; my food, digested, might trouble me; my bile might be provoked, my phlegm... piercing wind forces [in the body] might be provoked. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me.' Then the monk should investigate: 'Are there any evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by me that would be an obstruction for me were I to die in the night?' If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. 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. But if, on reflecting, he realizes that there are no evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then for that very reason he should dwell in joy & rapture, training himself day & night in skillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html AN 6.38 PTS: A iii 337 Attakārī Sutta: The Self-Doer Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’"[1] "I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?"[3] "Just so, Venerable Sir." "When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?" "Just so, Venerable Sir." "So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5] "What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ... is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is there an element of endeavoring?" [10] "Just so, Venerable Sir." "When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?" "Just so, Venerable Sir." "So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html   Dhammapada 112. It is better to have a single day in one's life, which makes an internse effort than to have a hundred year in one's life, which is idle and inactive. 143:143. Only rarely is there a man in this world who, restrained by modesty, avoids reproach, as a thoroughbred horse avoids the whip. 144. Like a thoroughbred horse touched by the whip, be strenuous, be filled with spiritual yearning. By faith and moral purity, by effort and meditation, by investigation of the truth, by being rich in knowledge and virtue, and by being mindful, destroy this unlimited suffering. 226. Those who are ever vigilant, who discipline themselves day and night, and are ever intent upon Nibbana — their defilements fade away. 235. Like a withered leaf are you now; death's messengers await you. You stand on the eve of your departure, yet you have made no provision for your journey! 236. Make an island for yourself! Strive hard and become wise! Rid of impurities and cleansed of stain, you shall enter the celestial abode of the Noble Ones. 237. Your life has come to an end now; You are setting forth into the presence of Yama, the king of death. No resting place is there for you on the way, yet you have made no provision for the journey! 238. Make an island unto yourself! Strive hard and become wise! Rid of impurities and cleansed of stain, you shall not come again to birth and decay. 239. One by one, little by little, moment by moment, a wise man should remove his own impurities, as a smith removes his dross from silver. 276. You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds of Mara. 282. Wisdom springs from meditation; without meditation wisdom wanes. Having known these two paths of progress and decline, let a man so conduct himself that his wisdom may increase. 288. For him who is assailed by death there is no protection by kinsmen. None there are to save him — no sons, nor father, nor relatives. 289. Realizing this fact, let the wise man, restrained by morality, hasten to clear the path leading to Nibbana. 326. Formerly this mind wandered about as it liked, where it wished and according to its pleasure, but now I shall thoroughly master it with wisdom as a mahout controls with his ankus an elephant in rut. 327. Delight in heedfulness! Guard well your thoughts! Draw yourself out of this bog of evil, even as an elephant draws himself out of the mud. 348. Let go of the past, let go of the future, let go of the present, and cross over to the farther shore of existence. With mind wholly liberated, you shall come no more to birth and death. 360. Good is restraint over the eye; good is restraint over the ear; good is restraint over the nose; good is restraint over the tongue. 361. Good is restraint in the body; good is restraint in speech; good is restraint in thought. Restraint everywhere is good. The monk restrained in every way is freed from all suffering. 362. He who has control over his hands, feet and tongue; who is fully controlled, delights in inward development, is absorbed in meditation, keeps to himself and is contented — him do people call a monk. 363. That monk who has control over his tongue, is moderate in speech, unassuming and who explains the Teaching in both letter and spirit — whatever he says is pleasing. 364. The monk who abides in the Dhamma, delights in the Dhamma, meditates on the Dhamma, and bears the Dhamma well in mind — he does not fall away from the sublime Dhamma. 372. There is no meditative concentration for him who lacks insight, and no insight for him who lacks meditative concentration. He in whom are found both meditative concentration and insight, indeed, is close to Nibbana.   Ardent". Herein, what is ardour? Ātāpī and ātappaṁ are both from root √tap, to make heat, exert oneself. An ascetic is known as a tapassī, one who is striving (in a spiritual sense).09 Whatever mental exercise of effort, exertion, great exertion, enterprise, endeavour, attempt, travail, vigour, courage, exertion that is not lax, not putting aside of (wholesome) desire, not putting aside of responsibility, being taken up with responsibility, effort, the Faculty of Effort, the Strength of Effort, Right Endeavour – this is called "ardour". With this ardour he is endowed, truly endowed, having attained, truly attained, being possessed, truly possessed, furnished (with it). Because of this "ardent" is said. "Mindful". Herein, what is mindfulness? That which is mindfulness, recollection, recall, mindfulness, remembrance, bearing (in mind), not losing, not confusing, mindfulness, the Faculty of Mindfulness, the Strength of Mindfulness, Right Mindfulness – this is called "mindfulness". Sati has the unusual distinction of appearing three times in its own definition in this list, but the list is interesting in showing how much emphasis is placed, not on awareness, but good memory or recall, which is indeed its most basic meaning.11 With this mindfulness he is endowed, truly endowed, having attained, truly attained, being possessed, truly possessed, furnished (with it). Because of this "mindful" is said. http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/English-Texts/Mindfulness-Analysis/Mindful\ ness-Analysis-2.htm #123700 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:36 am Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Hi KenH, you wrote: (D: well, perhaps .. I usually manage to get the message across ( How about your experience with a language other than English?). But I wonder how much understanding of the Dhamma you concede to me .. -------- KH: I don't know how much understanding you have. But I don't know much about anyone else's understanding either. D: well I meant that you supposed I don't understand that the raft can left behind after reaching the other shore KH:I know you and I use different words when we express our respective understandings of the Dhamma. And I think that is an indication of disagreement. But even when people do use the same words, their ways of understanding them can be very different. D: I fully agree ..that is the trouble with language assuming that the other shares the definition of certain terms , in particular when different languages are involved. KH:Generally it comes down to the question of "hands and feet" that you and I have been discussing. Does the Dhamma teach us about concepts - such as making and effort with hands and feet - or does it teach us *exclusively* about dhammas - such as viriya cetasika? D: you triggered a new topic of the ' cetasika in daily life -project' ;-) but our communication at Febr. 2nd comes into my mind:- quote: ------------------------------------- > D: Moreover there is a need to "try" the training of the Noble Path ( sila , samadhi , panna ) , which the Buddha even repeated before his passing away. -------------------------------------- KH: We must be very careful of wrong view. Wrong view is the view that denies and repudiates the Buddha's teaching. No matter how many times the true (profound, deep, concerned with anatta) Dhamma is explained, wrong view will always insist it is a just an ordinary, conventional, teaching. ------------------- > D: The trap one can fall into is when one believes to have understood the ultimate truth, that now the conventional one can be left beside.------------------- KH: Yes, the conventional truth is that the Buddha was a sentient being with great power and control. But the ultimate truth is profoundly different. In ultimate truth there was no Buddha, there were only conditioned dhammas. They were conditioned purely by other conditioned dhammas (just like now). There was no influence exerted over them by a sentient being, or by any other concept. D: Ken, as I tried to explain : the Buddha Dhamma is concerned with suffering and to make an end of it. All 84000 headings are related to this fact. Perhaps not your concern /priority , but then we do not have a base to discuss. --- KH: There are only dhammas. Apart from dhammas there are no worldlings, no Buddhas, and no other beings. unquote D: forgive me : in reality there are only particles , said the Quantum physicist after stepping into a cow pie ------------------------------------ <. . .> >> KH: It is not ordinary; it is direct right understanding of conditioned reality. So it is unique and profound, known only to the wise.>> > D: as far as I know the issue of conditioned reality is treated by the Patthana of Abh. , in a nutshell what means this extensive work to you as mean of practise? --------------------------------------- KH: The teaching of conditionality is not confined to the Pathana. Every word of the Dhamma is about conditioned dhammas. ----------------------- D: the Dhamma of the conditioned dhamma is Abhidhamma <. . .> > D: you miss the point of volition,Ken , which indeed is conditioned by Sankhara (2nd of the common D.O., old kamma) and Sankhara Khanda (4th new kamma..which concerns 50 of the 52 cetasikas).And this volition best described by chanda is a necessity for the path training of Sila, Samadhi and Panna.Do you like me to quote about this training? ------------------------ KH: Yes, but you must know by now how I will interpret any quote from the Pali Canon. No matter how conventional it might sound (to the untrained ear) it will be about dhammas. Dhammas function purely in accordance with conditions; there is no control over them. Therefore, no Dhamma quote can be correctly interpreted as a conventional (formal) instruction. ----------------------------------- D: have mercy with the quantum physicist <. . .> > D: So far I haven't read something what allows the judgement of heterodoxy. Certainly we wouldn't talk about him anymore if he indeed replaced samma ditthi with sakkaya-ditthi , but as I said already : pls quote from his essay to show that it is not only a misinterpretation .----------------------------------- KH: No, I am not going to play that game anymore. The heterodoxy is undeniably present in Thanissaro's essays. There is no reasonable doubt about that. The onus is now on the writer and his supporters to justify their heterodoxy D: says KenH.. but with which authority ? Any backing of a Dhamma scholar? with Metta Dieter #123701 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:41 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts ppraturi Dear Sarah, Thanks for the email. S: Thank you for your interesting and informative introduction. Dallas and Bangalore - two very different places, two very different cultures and yet, and yet - still just experiences through 6 doorways wherever we are! Still, many, many moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching with lots and lots of thinking in between. ------------------------------- P: Now I will be in Bangalore and Dhammagiri.... Yes.. lots and lots of thinking... That is my biggest hindrance... ---------------------------------------------------------------- S: I think the technique may well have all sorts of health benefits as it did for Mr Goenka himself, but I think it leads people astray when it comes to understanding the Buddha's teachings. ------------------------------------------------------------- P: Yes. it may be. ( but many belive).... continuous awareness of sensations and equanimity with realiazation of those changing nature (sampajanya) will lead to direct knowledge of annatta, dukka and anatta and final emancipationn eventually .... even without intellectually understanding a word in tripithka. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ------------------------------ S: Instead of developing detachment at the present moment from whatever is conditioned, there is the intention and wish to focus on sensations. Rupas and Vedana are mixed up usually. Without a clear understanding of the distinction between namas and rupas when they arise now, there can never be an understanding of dhammas as anatta as I see it. The theory and practice have to be in accord. The practice has to be the development of understanding now of whatever dhamma appears. ----------------------------------------------------------------- P: Sensations is very clear tangible object (Kammathana) to mediatate on... (if some one correctly doing and not playing games with sensations)....That is why it is easy to practice for the ordinary house holders... Always some effort (viriya) has to be put initally to watch sensations from top to bottom. But as practice increases ... observing becomes effortless. Vedana is universal chetasika with every chitta... "Vedana-samosarana sabbe dhamma".... Everything that arises in the mind is accompanied by sensation. This sensation arise on body. That is why Goenkaji points out sensatiosn are more important. -------------------------------------------------------------- S:Actually, I remember bringing up some of this points a little with Mr Goenka at the time, but he didn't wish to discuss them - he'd just suggest I go away and meditate some more! S: So I'm very interested to hear about your Abhidhamma classes in Bangalore as well. It's good to read a little, consider and discuss - otherwise it can all be blind theory or academic study. ------------------------------------------------------------------ P: There is a monastry in the middle of banaglore city. http://www.mahabodhi.info/ There are monks there. But they are lot of lay people meet every evening and weekends and discussing dhamma and stay together.. Monks generally qoute suttas only not abhidhamma. You are right it miight end up into blind theory. But this DSG Group seems be much more adavanced and seasoned understanding of dhamma. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ---------------------------------- S: I wonder if you've read Nina's book "Abhidhamma in Daily Life?" I found it really helpful when I first started reading the chapters in manuscript form soon after that retreat with Mr Goenka. In fact, beginning to read the first couple of chapters on namas and rupas and listening to some recordings of Ajahn Sujin talking about the experience of visible object or sound now, followed by all the conjuring up of stories leading to the ideas of people and things, led me to really appreciate that the Buddha's teachings are about anatta now - dhammas beyond anyone's control. I've never meditated (as commonly understood) since. Before that, I was a very serious meditator in the temple in Sri Lanka.--------------------------------------------------P: Yes. I have read Nina's " Abhidhamma in Daily life" . Most Lucid and clear explanation of abhidhamma concepts. I have also read other works (Such as chetasika etc..) and they are in my soft library collection. I keep refering them. I have lot of respect to Nina. When I found her email address on this list, I have sent my questions to her priavately.. Then she encouraged me to go on this group, so that others also can see the discussion and get benefit. ------------------------------------------------------------------ S: Your familiarity with Pali terms will be helpful for you here. I appreciate your interest in classifications and Patthana relationships. Again, we can get lost in the detail and forget that all the Teachings come down to the understanding of the presently arising dhammas now as anatta - mere elements that don't belong to anyone and are not in anyone's control. The understanding means no selection, no attachment to having any dhamma arise now - any dhamma can be the object of understanding now, depending on the accumulations for such. ------------------------------- P: Yes. that danger is there.. As one of my dhamma well wisher put it to me... This is like Dhamma Television is playing dhamma soap opera... I constantly engage in this dhamma entertainment (discussions, questions, answers, meeting people etc) and keep grasping on this and develop dhamma craving.. (This is definitely better than ordinary soap opera on ordinary TV channel). He said.. when the real experience comes... all this questions and entertainment willl vanish... ________________________________________________ S: From this point of view, whether you're at work as an engineer in Dallas or Bangalore, whether you're sitting quietly, whether you're with family and friends, there can be meditation, i.e. the development of understanding of seeing, visible object, thinking or any other presently appearing dhamma. --------------------------------P: fortunately.. i am retired some time ago... working in States Many years. Few hours I will be taking my flight to Banaglore -------------------------------- S: I've written more than I planned to do. I'll look forward to any further discussion on any of the points if they're of interest to you. --------------------------- P: Thanks. Certainly open for dhamma discussion.------------------------------------ S: If you (or any other new members) have a photo to add to the Member Album to be found on the home-page, it's always nice to see them.-------------------------P: I am not a big photo person. I will see Metta Prasad #123702 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:04 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary th... ppraturi Dear Howard, Thanks.. Hi, Sarah (and welcome, Prasad) - Rupas and Vedana are mixed up usually. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes! Rupa and vedana are conflated, a clear error of understanding, IMO. The Goenka folks experience what they experience, but their definitions are "off" as far as I'm concerned. --------------------------------------------- P: Need more eloboration of this point to understand the view point================================== S: Without a clear understanding of the distinction between namas and rupas when they arise now, there can never be an understanding of dhammas as anatta as I see it. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, not a proper definitional understanding, for sure, but an experiential grasp of anicca definitely develops, and, from that, a grasp of anatta. At least this seems to have been the case for me, especially as regards experiencing an absence of self/identity in "myself". My main "criticism" of the Goenka practice for me was that I found it to be not practical for continued practice when living life! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------P\ : ordinary people who practice in daily life will defintely develop equanimity factor.. (if they practice properly)Which is directly applied daily events ... It helps them to deal with up and downs... That is why there is some what popular with approximately 160 centers worldwide and so far 1.5 million people did 10 day courses...But many of them will return. But some one who wants to become Arhanth... it might take a lot more... ------------------------------------------------- I found it more suitable to move to anapanasati (what some will call, not so lovingly - LOL, "formal meditation") and to quite regular, ongoing introspection (this latter being a combination of kayanupassana and dhammanupassana in daily life). --------------------------------------------- The theory and practice have to be in accord. The practice has to be the development of understanding now of whatever dhamma appears. --------------------------------------------- HCW: The most important understanding, IMO, is the clear experiential understanding of the tilakkhana and of conditionality, and that did seem to me to be furthered by the Goenka practice. ============================== P: all the paths (Four satipattanas ) lead to same place,, from which become single expereintial path develops.. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous #123703 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary th... upasaka_howard Hi, Prasad (and Sarah) - In a message dated 4/12/2012 3:42:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ppraturi@... writes: Dear Howard, Thanks.. Hi, Sarah (and welcome, Prasad) - Rupas and Vedana are mixed up usually. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes! Rupa and vedana are conflated, a clear error of understanding, IMO. The Goenka folks experience what they experience, but their definitions are "off" as far as I'm concerned. --------------------------------------------- P: Need more eloboration of this point to understand the view point================================== ----------------------------------------------- HCW: The central meditative practice that Goenka teaches is sweeping the attention across the body, missing no areas, wordlessly noting any and all sensations that arise. These sensations are, in fact, body-door rupas, but Goenka calls them "vedana". That is incorrect terminology: Vedana is the mental operation of "tasting" any object of consciousness affectively; i.e., as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. ------------------------------------------------- S: Without a clear understanding of the distinction between namas and rupas when they arise now, there can never be an understanding of dhammas as anatta as I see it. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, not a proper definitional understanding, for sure, but an experiential grasp of anicca definitely develops, and, from that, a grasp of anatta. At least this seems to have been the case for me, especially as regards experiencing an absence of self/identity in "myself". My main "criticism" of the Goenka practice for me was that I found it to be not practical for continued practice when living life! ----------------------------------------------------------P: ordinary people who practice in daily life will defintely develop equanimity factor.. (if they practice properly)Which is directly applied daily events ... It helps them to deal with up and downs... That is why there is some what popular with approximately 160 centers worldwide and so far 1.5 million people did 10 day courses...But many of them will return. But some one who wants to become Arhanth... it might take a lot more... ------------------------------------------------- I found it more suitable to move to anapanasati (what some will call, not so lovingly - LOL, "formal meditation") and to quite regular, ongoing introspection (this latter being a combination of kayanupassana and dhammanupassana in daily life). --------------------------------------------- The theory and practice have to be in accord. The practice has to be the development of understanding now of whatever dhamma appears. --------------------------------------------- HCW: The most important understanding, IMO, is the clear experiential understanding of the tilakkhana and of conditionality, and that did seem to me to be furthered by the Goenka practice. ============================== P: all the paths (Four satipattanas ) lead to same place,, from which become single expereintial path develops.. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123704 From: Vince Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: eating animal corpses cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Hi Robert you wrote: >> Virtue is the attempt to establish morality with our actions: we wish the reality should be >> in this or that way. > In conventional life I would not advocate only following the true > arising of the moment, as in the absurd case this could lead to murdering people if we > "feel like it" or other very negative consequences. It may be a false idealism for > Dhamma, when we are looking at what is really there in our heart or mind, but it is > still important for social life, and I don't dismiss the importance of treating people > and animals well in everyday life for whatever reason. yes, of course. I agree with what you says. And I don't think it is false idealism. My point was around the root of that contradiction that we can feel. Also I experience it. I think the understanding of present moment can cause a better understanding of the nature of the virtue, and maybe of the contradiction. But I don't think it means the virtue is useless. On the contrary. best, Vince. #123705 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:45 am Subject: Re: 'tor ruen' - carrying on the story~~~~~~ sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Prasad & all, You asked me (off-list) about the transcription of the following. This is from an old message I wrote (#57588). I think it's what you are referring to. (Pls note the trip was 1974) >I just mentioned one segment of a tape which made a big impact as soon as I heard it whilst I was in Sri Lanka. K.Sujin had been on a trip to India the previous year, 1974 (also with Nina, Jonothan, Phra Dhammadharo and other friends). I mentioned that what struck me was `the emphasis on anatta(no-self) and no control. What we think of as people and things are merely stories in our imagination. In truth, there are only namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena). I also learnt about `tor ruen', a Thai phrase A.Sujin used. Here is a tidied up transcript of the segment of discussion at the Hotel de Paris in Varanasi (Benares). I hope others find it helpful too. ***** Phra D: I found that what you said to me on the bus yesterday extremely useful about `tor ruen' .. Nina: What is that, `tor ruen'? .. Phra D: Jonothan yesterday said he heard the sound of the drum and immediately he had a picture in his mind of what people might be doing, beating the drums. He imagined something going on. .. Sujin,(translated by Phra D): When we see just for a moment then what we see has already fallen away. When we see things with which were familiar then immediately there's the tendency to build up or make up long stories about them. Things with which we're familiar, we tend to think about for a long time, whereas things we just know vaguely may only be with us for a moment or two and then we drop them. But things we're very familiar with, we carry on and on and on. They're both the same say visual object appearing through the eyes in both cases, carrying on the story, `tor ruen', fantasizing. The thinking about the visual object can go on and on and on, short or long depending, but really in both cases it's just visual object. It's the same with every doorway. Benares, the Hotel de Paris, this garden and all the people who are sitting in it, talking about dhamma - put them together in one moment of citta which is in fact what is happening because we have the concept of that all in one moment of citta, then suppose we should die at this very moment. Then as the citta containing the world, Benares, Hotel de Paris, people sitting in the garden, falls away, so does Benares, do does the Hotel de Paris, so do all the people sitting in the garden, all fall away with that citta, never to appear again. But the only reason that it seems to us that Benares, the Hotel de Paris, the people sitting in the garden talking about dhamma don't fall away is because of `tor ruen', carries on the story, one after the other, keeps it going. But if we should die, end of the story. Phra D: this must lead to more detachment. ***** Even now, most of the day - long, long stories about what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched, and so very little awareness! But, knowing (at any level) that life, that all we find dear and important exists just in this one citta is extremely liberating and inspiring I find. Metta, Sarah ================================== #123706 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: eating animal corpses epsteinrob Hi Vince. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Vince wrote: > My point was around the root of that contradiction that we can feel. Also I experience it. > I think the understanding of present moment can cause a better understanding of the nature > of the virtue, and maybe of the contradiction. But I don't think it means the virtue is > useless. On the contrary. I think that is sensible. Of course it helps you understand where different ideals are coming from if you are in touch with what is actually arising in the moment. I think you have a good point. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123707 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:15 pm Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, --------- <. . .> > D: well I meant that you supposed I don't understand that the raft can left behind after reaching the other shore ---------- KH: I don't remember saying that. I remember saying the opposite: that is, that you seemed to rate the teaching of "raft abandonment" very highly amongst the other Dhamma teachings, and I wondered why. ------------------ <. . .> >>> KH: There are only dhammas. <. . .> > D: forgive me : in reality there are only particles , said the Quantum physicist after stepping into a cow pie -------------------- KH: Good for him! What else would you want an educated man to say? It's a shame he hadn't studied Abhidhamma. Then he could have been even less attached. ------------------ <. . .> >> KH: Every word of the Dhamma is about conditioned dhammas. > D: the Dhamma of the conditioned dhamma is Abhidhamma ------------------ KH: If you understood the Abhidhamma Pitaka you would know it and the Sutta Pitaka contained exactly the same teaching. ----------------------- <. . .> >> KH: no Dhamma quote can be correctly interpreted as a conventional (formal) instruction. > D: have mercy with the quantum physicist ----------------------- KH: There are no cow pies in quantum physics, and there are no formal practices in the Dhamma. ---------------------- <. . .> >> KH: The onus is now on the writer and his supporters to justify their heterodoxy D: says KenH.. but with which authority ? Any backing of a Dhamma scholar? ---------------------- KH: A few posts back (#123581) I quoted from a well-known Thanissaro essay and asked your opinions on the following questions that it raised: "KH: . . . " does the idea of there being no self fit well with other Buddhist teachings? Or does it not fit well with them? If there is no eternal soul or self, can there be a purpose to a spiritual life (a life based on Dhamma study)? Does the Pali Canon try to answer (or address) those questions? In your opinion, is anatta a no-self teaching or a not-self teaching? Has TB made it perfectly clear to you that, in his opinion, there is a self? If not, what more would he need to say in order to give you that impression?" (end quote) You refused to answer. And that is typical of the response I get from all Thanissaro supporters: no discussion, just allegations of quoting out of context. But, if you would like to answer them now, we could still have a discussion. Ken H #123708 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attention Lukas. 'tor ruen' - carrying on the story~~~~~~ nilovg Dear Sarah, wonderful. I still hear Phra Dhammadharo say it. I send it on to Tadao. Really very helpful. ----- Nina. Op 13-apr-2012, om 3:45 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > > I mentioned that what struck me was `the emphasis on anatta(no- > self) and > no control. What we think of as people and things are merely > stories in > our imagination. In truth, there are only namas and rupas (mental and > physical phenomena). > > #123709 From: "ymanatta" Date: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:45 pm Subject: Sakkaya Ditthi vv Kamma ymanatta Dear Nina, Can you please enlighten me? Viewing Sakkaya Dithi as "This is not mine, This i am not & This is not myself" on things when it arises to separate the materiality & mentality & also to contemplate on the phenomena as Anicca.. as Dukkha .. as Anatta. Then, how about applying it base on understanding of kamma? If treat phenomena when it arises as the above, then, when things arises do we contemplate that this is due to our Kamma or just viewing as Cause & Effect of materiality & mentality? Hope you can reply. Thank you. With Metta, ym #123710 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:13 am Subject: Re: Sakkaya Ditthi vv Kamma szmicio Hi ym, > If treat phenomena when it arises as the above, then, when things arises do we contemplate that this is due to our Kamma or just viewing as Cause & Effect of materiality & mentality? L: It depends on that moment. The mind can contemplate with right understaning, the kamma and vipaka(result), but also it can know more kamma at that moment, how it is accumulated from moment to moment. Pakatupanisayapaccaya. What is kamma? Best wishes Lukas #123711 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:36 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123691) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: As I've pointed out before, the enlightened being also thinks in terms of people and things, but does so without any misconception as to there being anything paramattha about people and things. So it is not correct to characterise conceptual thinking as somehow defective or incomplete (or hallucinatory, as you do in another post). > > RE: It's been described that way to me here on dsg, so there may be some variety in the way in which conceptual reality is regarded. That has been one of the main issues I have tried to resolve for myself, without complete success - whether, as Rob K. recently paraphrased from the Abhidhamatha Sangaha that concepts are like the shadows of dhammas - which is what I mean by conventional events and things being "dhammas seen wrongly or incompletely or distortedly," or whether they are "wholly other" and not related to dhammas at all, eg, hallucinatory and not reflecting any kind of real existence, even a shadowy or distorted version of the real dhammas that are arising and falling away. > =============== J: Regarding "It's been described that way to me here on dsg, ", I hope you're not asking me to comment on what others may have said (or, more correctly, on your recollection/impression of what others may have said) :-)) I find it complex enough to follow the back and forth between us :-)) Regarding, "as Rob K. recently paraphrased from the Abhidhamatha Sangaha concepts are like the shadows of dhammas - which is what I mean by conventional events and things being "dhammas seen wrongly or incompletely or distortedly": The reference in the Abhidhamattha Sangaha to concepts being like the 'shadows of dhammas' does not, to my understanding, necessarily imply wrong, incomplete or distorted perception of dhammas (note that, as mentioned previously, the enlightened being also thinks in terms of concepts). What the reference implies, I think, is that the shadows are not the 'real thing'. (And note that the idea of gaining a better understanding of the 'shadow' is not likely to lead to a better understanding of the 'real thing'.) > =============== > RE: In this thread you seem to have accorded to some of the talk about "really experiencing dhammas" when you think you are experiencing concepts. This would be in line with touching a table not really being touching a table, but the experience of hardness, etc., which are the actual dhammas. At other times, such as in this post and the last one, you seem to be stressing the idea that concepts have no relation to dhammas at all. > =============== J: Regarding, "you seem to be stressing the idea that concepts have no relation to dhammas at all": If I seem to be doing that it's because you are claiming a relationship that (a) cannot really be stated any more precisely than that ('a relationship'), and (b) as far as I know, has not been asserted in the texts. So naturally I'm not in a hurry to agree with you on this point :-)) And I can't for the life of me see the relevance of this line of thinking. There are dhammas arising now that may or may not have any 'relationship' to what we're thinking about. It is the reflecting about the teaching on dhammas that will sooner or later condition awareness of dhammas. > =============== > RE: What I am saying is for someone who is not a sotapanna, the real cetana dhammas have to arise in relation to a conceptual being in order for kamma patha to take place. They are dhammas in response to a concept, carrying out real arisings of namas and rupas in relation to a fictitious being. In fact, that being, which is a concept, has to be eradicated to complete the kamma patha. > =============== J: I think not so. The way I see it is as follows: - "cetana dhammas have to arise in relation to a conceptual being in order for kamma patha to take place". The concept of a being is (merely) the *object* of the citta. And that is what a concept is: something that is formed in the mind (only); concepts have no 'existence' at any level other than as mental object at the very moment of being such. - "They are dhammas in response to a concept, carrying out real arisings of namas and rupas in relation to a fictitious being". The cittas in question are cittas rooted in dosa that have a concept as their object. And that concept is mind-created; it's not a case of there *being* a concept in relation to which a citta then arises and takes as its object. - " In fact, that being, which is a concept, has to be eradicated to complete the kamma patha". It is only in the mind of the 'killer' that the concept of a (particular) being is eradicated. In reality, there is no eradication of anything. There is action on the part of the 'killer' that results in the arising of cuti citta in another stream of namas. > =============== > RE: The point is that in kamma patha, dhammas and concepts are both involved, and are related to each other. This seems to me to be a problem if one believes that dhammas and concepts have no relationship to each other, do not act upon each other, and cannot be conditions for each other. There are no dhammas of kamma patha unless there is a being - a concept - as a supporting condition. > =============== J: The only role of the concept of a being, as far as I can see, is as the object of the citta. It's the dosa and wrong view arsing in respect of that object that conditions the act of killing. In terms of conditions, I would not say the concept of a being is a *supporting* condition (but I may be wrong -- perhaps someone with a knowledge of conditions could comment). Jon #123712 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:02 pm Subject: Re: Sakkaya Ditthi vv Kamma sarahprocter... Dear Yitmay/ym (?)*, Welcome to DSG! Nina is taking a break for a few days, so she may not have time to reply before she leaves today. Why not introduce yourself a little....where do you live, for example? You've obviously been studying the Dhamma for some time. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ymanatta" wrote: > Viewing Sakkaya Dithi as "This is not mine, This i am not & This is not myself" .... S: First of all, let's be clear that "This is mine" (eta"m mama) refers to craving (without wrong view), "this am I" (eso'ham asmi) to conceit (without wrong view) and "this is myself" (eso me attaa") to wrong view of atta. Therefore, "This is not mine, This i am not & This is not myself" refer to the absence of craving, conceit and wrong view of atta. Sakkaya ditthi falls within "eso me attaa". A sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami still have craving and conceit, but no sakkaya ditthi or wrong view of any kind. What the Buddha is 'rejecting' is the idea that dhammas which arise and fall away and which are thereby unsatisfactory should be clung to with attachment, conceit or wrong view of atta. Only the arahat has no more craving or conceit at all. ... >YM: ....on things when it arises to separate the materiality & mentality & also to contemplate on the phenomena as Anicca.. as Dukkha .. as Anatta. ... S: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your meaning. There is no atta at all to make an effort or control dhammas in anyway. There are just conditioned dhammas rolling on. Nama and rupa (mentality and materiality) have to be clearly understood as anicca, dukkha and anatta in order for sakkaya ditthi (and all other wrong views) to be completely eradicated. Please let me know if I've misunderstood you. ... > >YM: Then, how about applying it base on understanding of kamma? .... S: Again, it is namas and rupas as realities now in daily life which have to be understood first. Without an understanding of namas and rupas, kamma can never be properly understood because there will always be an idea of people causing and receiving effects. ... >YM: If treat phenomena when it arises as the above, then, when things arises do we contemplate that this is due to our Kamma or just viewing as Cause & Effect of materiality & mentality? ... S: Again by understanding what is nama now, what is rupa now, what reality is kamma now, what reality is vipaka (result of kamma) now, gradually the understanding of these dhammas will grow. For example, now there is seeing consciousness. This is vipaka, the result of kamma. It is a nama. On account of the seeing of visible object (a rupa), there may be delight and attachment (namas). At such moments there is intention (cetana cetasika - a nama), accompanying the cittas (namas). When it is strong enough to prompt action, such as the taking of something belonging to another, the kamma is of a strength that it can produce vipaka in future. So there are said to be 3 rounds: kusala/akusala, kamma and vipaka. I know Nina will be delighted to discuss more on these details when she returns next week, but meanwhile let's clarify any of the points as best we can. (*We ask everyone to sign off with commonly used names if possible. is Yitmay your name? If so, may we use this?) Metta Sarah p.s Just seen that Lukas has replied too - hope you find time to let us know if we've understood your questions. ===== #123713 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:32 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Vedana just "feels", just "tastes" the object in a pleasant, unpleasant or neutral manner, depending on the citta and other mental factors it accompanies (amongst other conditions). <...> >R: It seems like vedana "feels" in the sense of having a very basic "emotional" reaction, even though I know it's not an emotion on the level of the more complex formations that are mental/proliferational in nature. But it is not just that something has an unpleasant sensation, if I am correct, but that there is an unpleasant "reaction" to the sensation. Is this correct? ... S: Remember that vedana (feeling) arises with every single citta. It just experiences the same object as that citta with pleasant, unpleasant or neutral feeling. Even if the citta is a "result" citta, a vipaka citta, such as seeing consciousness, hearing or a life-continuum citta (bhavanga citta), it is accompanied by vedana. What we refer to commonly as "emotion" is quite different - as you suggest, more complex thinking with attachment, aversion or other mental factors, usually. So remember, even at the moment of experiencing rupas through the senses (I don't know if the rupas experienced through the body-sense are what you are calling "sensations"?), that there is already vedana experiencing those rupas at each moment they are experienced as well as at each moment that they are thought about afterwards. Pls let me know if this needs further clarification. .... >R: There has always been a lot of confusion about this because of the English "feel" meaning both the perception of a sensation and sometimes an emotion, eg, "I feel the texture of the wood," as opposed to "I feel sad today." I don't know if there's a similar confusion in the equivalent words in other languages. ... S: Yes, and then there's "I feel for you". None of these English uses of "feel" help us to understand vedana at all. This is why we really have to consider the meaning of some of these basic Pali terms very carefully and to direct understand them in daily life. ... >R: I have concluded that vedana is more emotional than simply sensation, that it is a basic reaction, so it would be good to clarify this. ... S: I think it would be better to just drop terms like "emotion" and "sensation" here. The most important thing is to clearly understand the distinction between namas and rupas. So cittas and cetasikas (including vedana) are namas. They can experience an object. Citta and the universal cetasikas, including vedana, experience an object at every instant. The dhammas experienced through the sense doors, including temperature, solidity and motion, are all rupas. They don't experience anything at all. The same applies to the other subtle rupas which are only ever experienced through the mind-door, such as cohesion/water element, masculinity or femininity. It's very important that namas such as vedana and rupas such as temperature are not confused together. The only way to understand anatta is to understand the clear distinction between elements which are namas and those which are rupas. Otherwise they all get fused together into an idea of self or thing which experiences, has sensations, emotions and so on. How is this sounding? ... >R: As I understand it, if the vedana is known as vedana at the moment of "feeling" then it ends and doesn't grow into a more complex reaction, but if there is proliferation in response to the vedana, then a full "formational" emotion complete with thoughts and more reactions ensues, creating new kamma. Is this correct? .... S: Just remember that all dhammas are conditioned. So there may be conditions one moment for awareness of vedana (or rupa or any other dhamma appearing) and the next moment there may be thinking and proliferating about the object of that feeling or about the feeling itself. For example, at the moment of tasting an ice-cream, there maybe a moment of awareness of the pleasant feeling or the cold experienced, but this doesn't mean there aren't going to be lots of proliferations about the tasty ice-cream. If there's an idea of trying to 'stop' the responses or thoughts, again it's Self at work. Better to just understand what appears with detachment and not cling to having awareness, having good or no thoughts or anything else. We don't need to be afraid of ordinary common attachment and proliferations. No one can stop them at all. Just develop more understanding of such dhammas as anatta, that's all. As awareness grows, there is more "guarding" of the sense doors. For the arahat, there is no proliferation, no papanca at all. However, if we try to do something to imitate the life of an arahat, instead of understanding the present realities, we go very wrong. .... >R: Also, is the initial vedana of the nature of vipaka, or does it too cause kamma? ... S: As discussed, vedana arises with every single citta, including vipaka cittas. Vipaka cittas are results. They cannot 'cause kamma'. Vedana also arise with kiriya (inoperative cittas), such as the cittas of the arahat. Kiriya cittas also cannot bring results. (Lots more to say here on the meaning of kamma and the two kinds of kamma, but will leave it for another time.) [part 2 of your post later] Metta Sarah ==== #123714 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:56 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, part 2 > >S: At other times when there are kusala cittas with concept as object, such as at moments of giving or kindness or sila, there may not be any panna arising. >R: Can you explain how the clear discernment of sati can be there without panna, and if so, what is the nature or status of that sati without panna? ... S: The sati is just aware of the object. It is non-forgetful of kusala at such moments so there has to be sati at moments of dana, sila and bhavana. It says in the texts that it "does not allow the floating away of moral states". It doesn't "wobble" like a pumpkin in water. Panna, on the other-hand, does not accompany all wholesome cittas. When there is generosity or morality, there is not necessarily any understanding, even though sati remembers kusala at such moments. Only if there is an understanding at some level of the benefit of good deeds or the harm of bad deeds or an understanding of the realities at such moments, for example, does panna arise. Again, good question. We can discuss it further if you like. ... >R: I always thought that sati would know "heat as heat" and that panna would have a greater understanding of the nature of the heat. But it seems that you are assigning that basic knowing of the dhamma's basic "isness" to panna. If so, then what does sati do, and how is that augmented when sati arises with panna? ... S: Sati is just aware, it doesn't know anything. So it is aware of heat in a wholesome way, even when it arises with the vipaka citta, body-consciousness. Panna never arises with moments of sense cognition such as seeing or body-consciousness, so if there is any understanding of that reality of heat as heat, it is later with the javana cittas in the sense and following mind door process(es). At such moments when panna arises, sati is also performing is task of being aware, of 'guarding'. At such moments, the sati and panna are the sati sampajanna referred to in the texts, such as the Satipatthana Sutta. ... >>S: The seventeen moments of > > citta are as follows: > > > > 1. atita-bhavanga (past bhavanga). > > > > 2. bhavanga calana (vibrating bhavanga). > > > > 3. bhavangupaccheda (arrest bhavanga), the last bhavanga > > arising before the object is experienced through the sense-door. > > > > 4. five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness > > (pancadvaravajjana-citta), which is a kiriyacitta. > > > > 5. sense-cognition (dvi-pancavinnana, seeing-consciousness, > > etc.), which is vipakacitta. > > > > 6. receiving-consciousness (sampaticchana-citta), which is > > vipakacitta. > > > > 7. investigating-consciousness (santirana-citta) which is > > vipakacitta. > > > > 8. determining-consciousness (votthapana-citta) which is > > kiriyacitta. > > > > 9-15. seven javana-cittas ("impulsion", kusala citta or > > akusala citta in the case of non-arahats). > > > > 16. registering-consciousness (tadarammana-citta) which may > > or may not arise, and which is vipaka citta. > > > > 17. registering-consciousness. After a sense object has > > been experienced through a sense-door it is experienced through the > > mind-door, and then that object has just fallen away** > > .... > > > > S: We've been discussing no 5) the sense-cognition, such as the moment of seeing or body consciousness and 9) -15) the seven javana-cittas in the process which are the kusala or akusala cittas. As I mentioned, the moment of seeing or body consciousness is just one vipaka citta, (followed by other vipaka cittas), whereas the javana cittas are where the "second arrow" may occur, when akusala cittas arise. > > > > After the sense-door processes, there are mind-door processes and many more opportunities for "second arrows". Hence we see that most the unpleasant feeling which arises, occurs as accompanying the javana cittas if dosa arises. > >R: That is very interesting. I haven't yet seen that level of detail, slow beginner that I am, so that is good to look at and study a bit. So, if you have the chance, where in that grouping would the vedana arise? ... S: Vedana arises with every single citta. So in the above sense-door process, it arises with 1-17 cittas. Every citta!! ... >R: I understand that the initial proliferation if any would be in the javana cittas, but not sure if vedana is earlier or part of the javana group. ... S: Yes, the proliferation is in the javana cittas, in particular in the javana cittas arising in the following mind-door processes (the above are just the cittas of one sense-door process) as thinking with lobha, mana and ditthi occurs, conceptualising about objects. ... R:. Also, it seems like somewhere around 5 or 6 would be where "contact" would take place? ... S: Phassa, contact, like vedana arises with every single citta. So again, in the sense door process above, it arises with cittas 1 -17. They also arise with every mind door citta and with every bhavanga citta in between the processes. Even at moments of jhana or enlightenment, there is always vedana and phassa. ... >Which of those moments constitute contact, and how many moments does it last? Thanks. .. S: See above. Metta Sarah > No rush, ha ha ha. :-) I'll be happy to hear your responses whenever it is convenient. Hope you have a nice Easter with family! I enjoy those kinds of events. ... S: A rare treat for us to have family at Easter. Next week will be a little busy with family too, so more excuses for delays, ha ha:) ===== #123715 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:38 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Azita, Good to hear from you! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > Azita: thanks Sarah, good comments. Three of the most important words in my vocabulary - citta, cetasika, rupa - all conditioned and IMHO good to have some basic knowledge of the way they condition each other. Feel very fortunate to have had that basic grounding in Buddhas teaching back in Wat Pleng. ... S: Yes, fortunate indeed. ... > No matter how much calm we try for in meditation practices, unless its realised that its only a passing dhamma, there can be lots a attachment to calm. There can also be lots of attachment to 'my understanding of Buddha's teaching' > As Elle said in a recent email to me, attachment arises nearly all day long, we eat - we like, we see -we like, and can be sooo subtle this liking. ... S: Yes, liking all day - even when it seems we're miserable as I was discussing with Lukas. We mind the unpleasant feelings, but not the pleasant ones. ... > The ocean of concepts that only panna can see thro. ... S: Always good when you chip in with comments and reminders, Azita. I know you'd probably like to be in Bangkok, but it helps a lot to know the dhammas are just the same. The awareness and understanding can arise anytime at all. Hope you and family are doing well. My brother and family are up your way in Cairns at the moment. They've hired a camper-van and gone up the coast, expecting them back here on Monday. How's the new grandchild, the new bundle of dukkha? Metta Sarah ==== #123716 From: "ymanatta" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:30 pm Subject: Re: Sakkaya Ditthi vv Kamma ymanatta Dear Sarah & Lukas, Sadhu for the explanation. The Dhamma is always there. Thank you for pointing to me this part : " For example, now there is seeing consciousness. This is vipaka, the result of kamma. It is a nama. On account of the seeing of visible object (a rupa), there may be delight and attachment (namas). At such moments there is intention (cetana cetasika - a nama), accompanying the cittas (namas). When it is strong enough to prompt action, such as the taking of something belonging to another, the kamma is of a strength that it can produce vipaka in future. So there are said to be 3 rounds: kusala/akusala, kamma and vipaka. " It is good for undersatnding & contemplation. With Metta, ym --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: <...> > S: First of all, let's be clear that "This is mine" (eta"m mama) refers to craving (without wrong view), "this am I" (eso'ham asmi) to conceit (without wrong view) and "this is myself" (eso me attaa") to wrong view of atta. Therefore, "This is not mine, This i am not & This is not myself" refer to the absence of craving, conceit and wrong view of atta. Sakkaya ditthi falls within "eso me attaa". A sotapanna, sakadagami and anagami still have craving and conceit, but no sakkaya ditthi or wrong view of any kind. > > What the Buddha is 'rejecting' is the idea that dhammas which arise and fall away and which are thereby unsatisfactory should be clung to with attachment, conceit or wrong view of atta. Only the arahat has no more craving or conceit at all. <...> #123717 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Rob E (123593) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: Well in the past I have not given meditation such a neat and specific definition, though I can tell you what I think are some conventional and non-conventional attributes. I understand your interest. As I suggested in the last post, I don't think it is such a neat dividing line between meditation and everyday life, and as I said, I think that those aspects of "formal" practice that are meditative in nature are meant to apply to everyday life as well, so practice exists on a continuum. > > On the other hand, I see meditation practice as certain exercises, or in some cases the application of certain principles, which build mental states and skills and lead to spiritual evolution through the development of those states and skills. > =============== J: Here you give a possible definition: 'Certain exercises, or in some cases the application of certain principles, which build mental states and skills and lead to spiritual evolution through the development of those states and skills.' Perhaps that could be rephrased as follows: 'Mental exercises that build mental states and which lead to the development of those mental states.' That of course would be for meditation in general. In the context of the Teachings, it would be: Mental exercises prescribed by the Buddha to build kusala mental states (including insight) and which lead to the development of those mental states. Would that be a fair description of what you mean by meditation? > =============== > RE: I look at meditation as being largely non-conceptual, so if one is attending the sensation of the breath as a sensation, or if one is regarding a thought as thought and being aware of its nature or attributes - whatever the object is, meditation is the direct awareness of its existence as itself and its attributes. > > If one is thinking about concepts and developing a conceptual understanding I would call that contemplation rather than meditation. > =============== J: In samatha bhavana the object is a concept (breath, a kasina, death, etc.). According to what you say above, exercises designed to develop samatha bhavana would be contemplation rather than meditation(??). > =============== > RE: Sitting still, in conventional terms, seems an ideal setting for this kind of direct [meditative] development, but walking, doing other activities, or just attending the direct reality of various experiential moments as they arise, can also be meditative in nature. I believe it is harder to have a concentrated awareness of what is taking place in a moment while moving around or doing activities, but meditation can take place in various circumstances depending on one's accumulations and abilities. > =============== J: Since we are trying to clarify what is meant by the term 'mediation' (as you use the term), I suggest we leave specific instances for discussion later. > =============== > RE: When The Buddha talks about techniques that develop direct discernment through direct attention on the object, I would consider those meditation, whether they are practice that attempts that direct awareness, or the direct awareness itself; and where the Buddha talks about techniques that involve thought and intellectual understanding, I would regard those as contemplative in nature. > =============== J: OK, so meditation is also: 'Techniques prescribed by the Buddha that are practice for direct awareness (as well as the direct awareness resulting from the undertaking of such techniques)'. Comparing this to the earlier definition ('Mental exercises prescribed by the Buddha to build kusala mental states (including insight) and which lead to the development of those mental states'), perhaps you would settle on something like this: 'Mental exercises or techniques prescribed by the Buddha that, if properly carried out, give rise to kusala mental states (including insight) thereby leading to the development of those mental states.' Would this be a fair and comprehensive definition of meditation as you use the term? > =============== > RE: I see the correct attempt to discern realities as part of meditation rather than non-meditation, and that such attempts - like practicing with a hammer and missing the nail until eventually your aim gets better and you hit the nail - are part of meditation; > > and: I think that, like hitting the nail, the regular practice of such focus on awareness increases the development of such awareness, rather than being a futile exercise in control. > =============== J: Yes, the analogy of learning to hit the nail on the head is clear enough. First there are many attempts and almost as many misses, but in time there are almost as many hits as there are attempts (and this success can be reasonably attributed to the previous attempts including the many misses). But I know of no similar/corresponding analogy in the texts. What is spoken of in the texts, it seems to me, is the importance of repeated listening and considering, and the actual arising of kusala. Jon #123718 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Alex (123535) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, > ... > A: The Satipatthana sutta clearly says that "sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect" is one of the things to be done. > > It also recommends "wilderness, shade of a tree, or to an empty building" as the place where this is done. So again, not every place is equally suitable (VsM goes in detail about this) and this is part of Satipatthana. > =============== J: Right. As I said before, I understand why you would consider the section on mindfulness of breathing to be about 'meditation'. But what about the other sections in the 'body' division, and the 'feeling', 'citta' and 'dhammas' divisions, do they specifically describe meditation also (and if 'yes', what makes it so)? Jon #123719 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Pt (Rob E & Alex), #123528 - again, some good points. Just a couple of comments: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > Anyway, to return to the original example, when one is truly "mindful of breathing", the following could be objects of consciousness (citta) and associated cetasikas (sati, concetration, etc): > > 1. a dhamma (such as a rupa for example), making it vipassana bhavana. ... S: If panna arises, if reality is the object... Of couse, rupa is the object of all cittas in the sense door process, usually the object of akusala cittas too. Likewise in the first processes through the mind-door. ... > 2. a concept, which I think would have to do with conceptualising breathing, such as a concept about the tip of the nose, touch of breath on the upper lip, "I'm breathing", belly going up, etc (I think many, many are possible and they keep changing very quickly all the time unless there's jhana and then one and the same concept becomes the object of many successive cittas). This would be samatha bhavana or akusala citta and thus no-bhavana. ... S: If there is one of the concepts you refer to above, such as concept about the tip of the nose....belly going up etc, why might this be samatha bhavana? What is the wise reflection at such times? Metta Sarah ===== > > Agreed so far? > > Best wishes > pt > #123720 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Looking for Nina van Gorkum sarahprocter... Dear Rinus, Welcome to DSG! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "r.laban@..." wrote: ar All, > We just started the Netherlands Buddhist Archive in Holland (on behalf if the BUN, Buddhist Union Netherlands) and we are searching for our pioneers in Buddhism. Nina van Gorkum is certainly one of them. Is there anybody who can bring me in contact with here?. ... S: As Nina mentioned, she's here - you or other members can ask her any questions. (There will be a delay for the next few days). Do you have an interest in studying and discussing Dhamma? You may also like to check the links on DSG where you'll find more sources and websites for Nina's books and materials. Metta Sarah ==== #123721 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:11 pm Subject: Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. sarahprocter... Dear Chuck (& Connie), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "charlest" wrote: > Yes, you are most correct on the development of the rules... If I remember correctly, all the rules were promulgated because one or more laypersons complained about a monk's action(s). .... S: I had meant to check this, but I haven't - it is all in the explanations of the circumstances leading to the setting out of the rules in the Vinaya. From memory, I'd say however that the rules were set down by the Buddha not just in response lay complaints but also many in response to incidents that occurred within the Sangha of bhikkhus as well. > > I think only one rule was made because of the action of an arahant!!!" ... S: Do you remember which rule this was? Connie has been reading the Vinaya more recently. Do you have anything to add, Connie? Metta Sarah ==== #123722 From: "Christine" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:43 pm Subject: Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Chuck (& Connie), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "charlest" wrote: > > > Yes, you are most correct on the development of the rules... If I remember correctly, all the rules were promulgated because one or more laypersons complained about a monk's action(s). > .... > S: I had meant to check this, but I haven't - it is all in the explanations of the circumstances leading to the setting out of the rules in the Vinaya. > > From memory, I'd say however that the rules were set down by the Buddha not just in response lay complaints but also many in response to incidents that occurred within the Sangha of bhikkhus as well. > > > > I think only one rule was made because of the action of an arahant!!!" > ... > S: Do you remember which rule this was? > > Connie has been reading the Vinaya more recently. Do you have anything to add, Connie? > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > Hello Sarah, Perhaps Chuck was referring to the arahant Pindola Bharadwaja? http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_26lbud.htm with metta Chris #123723 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:43 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & all, OOps! Just reading through the messages.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > part 2 > S: Sati is just aware, it doesn't know anything. So it is aware of heat in a wholesome way, even when it arises with the vipaka citta, body-consciousness. ... S: This was a bit of nonsense that I wrote! Sati arises with some vipaka cittas, such as bhavanga cittas, but never with the sense cognitions such as body-consciousness. Only the seven universal cetasikas arise with these. In the sense door process after body-consciousness and the other vipaka cittas have fallen away, sati can arise with the javana cittas in that process. Metta Sarah ==== #123724 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the householders moellerdieter Hi All, I like to add to the sources of effort AN 8.54 PTS: A iv 281 Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: Conditions of Welfare translated from the Pali by Narada Thera see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html here eight conditions of welfare for the householder are stated by the Buddha , interesting the distinction between this life and future lives. Furthermore the passage :"Herein a householder is wise: he is endowed with wisdom that understands the arising and cessation (of the five aggregates of existence); he is possessed of the noble penetrating insight that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is called the accomplishment of wisdom." The Venerable notes : (of the five aggregates of existence)" which I think is better commented by 'phenomena' ( dhammas) By the way : I suppose this condition (of wisdom) may please some members more than the recommendation of jhana practise as stated in another sutta. ;-) with Metta Dieter #123725 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:17 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hello Jon, I believe that others sections of satipatthana a) Do not contradict anapanasati section of satipatthana b) Explain what can be perceived during anapanasati. ie: as one is watching in/out breath, one can also be aware of feelings and mental states that occur with each breath. One can also be aware of hindrances that can be present in relation to anapanasati. With metta, Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > (123535) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello Jon, > > ... > > A: The Satipatthana sutta clearly says that "sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect" is one of the things to be done. > > > > It also recommends "wilderness, shade of a tree, or to an empty building" as the place where this is done. So again, not every place is equally suitable (VsM goes in detail about this) and this is part of Satipatthana. > > =============== > > J: Right. As I said before, I understand why you would consider the section on mindfulness of breathing to be about 'meditation'. > > But what about the other sections in the 'body' division, and the 'feeling', 'citta' and 'dhammas' divisions, do they specifically describe meditation also (and if 'yes', what makes it so)? > > Jon > #123726 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:02 am Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Hi KenH, you wrote: (D: forgive me : in reality there are only particles , said the Quantum physicist after stepping into a cow pie) -------------------- KH: Good for him! What else would you want an educated man to say? D: well , how about : Close-to-complete Ideology and Religion Shit List a.. Taoism: Shit happens. b.. Confucianism: Confucius say, "Shit happens." c.. Buddhism: If shit happens, it isn't really shit. d.. Zen Buddhism: Shit is, and is not. e.. Zen Buddhism #2: What is the sound of shit happening? f.. Hinduism: This shit has happened before. g.. Islam: If shit happens, it is the will of Allah. h.. Islam #2: If shit happens, kill the person responsible. i.. Islam #3: If shit happens, blame Israel. j.. Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it. k.. Protestantism: Let shit happen to someone else. l.. Presbyterian: This shit was bound to happen. m.. Episcopalian: It's not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve the right wine with it. n.. Methodist: It's not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve grape juice with it. o.. Congregationalist: Shit that happens to one person is just as good as shit that happens to another. p.. Unitarian: Shit that happens to one person is just as bad as shit that happens to another. q.. Lutheran: If shit happens, don't talk about it. r.. Fundamentalism: If shit happens, you will go to hell, unless you are born again. (Amen!) s.. Fundamentalism #2: If shit happens to a televangelist, it's okay. t.. Fundamentalism #3: Shit must be born again. u.. Judaism: Why does this shit always happen to us? v.. Calvinism: Shit happens because you don't work. w.. Seventh Day Adventism: No shit shall happen on Saturday. x.. Creationism: God made all shit. y.. Secular Humanism: Shit evolves. z.. Christian Science: When shit happens, don't call a doctor - pray! aa.. Christian Science #2: Shit happening is all in your mind. ab.. Unitarianism: Come let us reason together about this shit. ac.. Quakers: Let us not fight over this shit. ad.. Utopianism: This shit does not stink. ae.. Darwinism: This shit was once food. af.. Capitalism: That's MY shit. ag.. Communism: It's everybody's shit. ah.. Feminism: Men are shit. ai.. Chauvinism: We may be shit, but you can't live without us... aj.. Commercialism: Let's package this shit. ak.. Impressionism: From a distance, shit looks like a garden. al.. Idolism: Let's bronze this shit. am.. Existentialism: Shit doesn't happen; shit IS. an.. Existentialism #2: What is shit, anyway? ao.. Stoicism: This shit is good for me. ap.. Hedonism: There is nothing like a good shit happening! aq.. Mormonism: God sent us this shit. ar.. Mormonism #2: This shit is going to happen again. as.. Wiccan: An it harm none, let shit happen. at.. Scientology: If shit happens, see "Dianetics", p.157. au.. Jehovah's Witnesses: >Knock< >Knock< Shit happens. av.. Jehovah's Witnesses #2: May we have a moment of your time to show you some of our shit? aw.. Jehovah's Witnesses #3: Shit has been prophesied and is imminent; only the righteous shall survive its happening. ax.. Moonies: Only really happy shit happens. ay.. Hare Krishna: Shit happens, rama rama. az.. Rastafarianism: Let's smoke this shit! ba.. Zoroastrianism: Shit happens half on the time. bb.. Church of SubGenius: BoB shits. bc.. Practical: Deal with shit one day at a time. bd.. Agnostic: Shit might have happened; then again, maybe not. be.. Agnostic #2: Did someone shit? bf.. Agnostic #3: What is this shit? bg.. Satanism: SNEPPAH TIHS. bh.. Atheism: What shit? bi.. Atheism #2: I can't believe this shit! bj.. Nihilism: No shit. bk.. Narcisism: I am the shit! ------------------ <. . .> >> KH: Every word of the Dhamma is about conditioned dhammas. > D: the Dhamma of the conditioned dhamma is Abhidhamma ------------------ KH: If you understood the Abhidhamma Pitaka you would know it and the Sutta Pitaka contained exactly the same teaching. ----------------------- D: If you would understand that there is teaching in a conventional and absolute way <. . .> >> KH: no Dhamma quote can be correctly interpreted as a conventional (formal) instruction. > D: have mercy with the quantum physicist ----------------------- KH: There are no cow pies in quantum physics, and there are no formal practices in the Dhamma. ---------------------- D:but there are quantum physicists who may step into cow pies ... and yes : we disagree <. . .> >> KH: The onus is now on the writer and his supporters to justify their heterodoxy D: says KenH.. but with which authority ? Any backing of a Dhamma scholar? ---------------------- KH: A few posts back (#123581) I quoted from a well-known Thanissaro essay and asked your opinions on the following questions that it raised: "KH: . . . " does the idea of there being no self fit well with other Buddhist teachings? Or does it not fit well with them? If there is no eternal soul or self, can there be a purpose to a spiritual life (a life based on Dhamma study)?Does the Pali Canon try to answer (or address) those questions? In your opinion, is anatta a no-self teaching or a not-self teaching? Has TB made it perfectly clear to you that, in his opinion, there is a self? If not, what more would he need to say in order to give you that impression?" (end quote) You refused to answer. And that is typical of the response I get from all Thanissaro supporters: no discussion, just allegations of quoting out of context. D:I don't know what your rhetorical questions have to do with the backing of your claim KH: But, if you would like to answer them now, we could still have a discussion. D: never mind .. I thought you have facts to offer instead of opinion with Metta Dieter #123727 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:32 am Subject: Happy Thai New Year dhammasaro Good friends all, May you all have a happy Thai New Year... http://justin.tv/room134/b/314950815 Above appears to be somewhere in Thailand. The men/women in uniform are Tourist Police. They were formed to help/protect the tourist should a tourist he/she felt a merchant /bar cheated/robbed them. http://www.justin.tv/room134/b/314950815 May be the same as above. Splashing/throwing water is a popular sport on the three day Thai New Year celebration. Also, smearing with a white substance... http://www.justin.tv/room134 The above should be Wat Thai Washington DC where I first ordained. The Royal Thai Air Force staff and many others from the Royal Thai Embassy attended my ordination as I was introduced to Buddhism when I taught a segment of the Royal Thai Air Force at Don Mueang Air Base near Bangkok. Happy Thai New Year... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #123728 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:12 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. dhammasaro Good friends all, A repeat... An excerpt: The monastic tradition and the rules upon which it is built are sometimes navely criticized particularly here in the West as irrelevant to the "modern" practice of Buddhism. Some see the Vinaya as a throwback to an archaic patriarchy, based on a hodge-podge of ancient rules and customs quaint cultural relics that only obscure the essence of "true" Buddhist practice. This misguided view overlooks one crucial fact: it is thanks to the unbroken lineage of monastics who have consistently upheld and protected the rules of the Vinaya for almost 2,600 years that we find ourselves today with the luxury of receiving the priceless teachings of Dhamma. Were it not for the Vinaya, and for those who continue to keep it alive to this day, there would be no Buddhism. It helps to keep in mind that the name the Buddha gave to the spiritual path he taught was "Dhamma-vinaya" the Doctrine (Dhamma) and Discipline (Vinaya) suggesting an integrated body of wisdom and ethical training. The Vinaya is thus an indispensable facet and foundation of all the Buddha's teachings, inseparable from the Dhamma, and worthy of study by all followers lay and ordained, alike. Lay practitioners will find in the Vinaya Pitaka many valuable lessons concerning human nature, guidance on how to establish and maintain a harmonious community or organization, and many profound teachings of the Dhamma itself. But its greatest value, perhaps, lies in its power to inspire the layperson to consider the extraordinary possibilities presented by a life of true renunciation, a life lived fully in tune with the Dhamma. Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/index.html peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123729 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. colette_aube Hi Chuck, Interesting thread and post. Christine thank you for mentioning the sutta of advertising and showing off to gratify the ego. Here, though, as I read this post I thought of THE SHURANGAMA SUTRA at least the copy that I got somewhere in the mess I have downstairs, called "Filing". I recall that Sutra actually saying that as long as one person can remember the Shurangama Sutra then it's power will not be lossed, which is why he taught it. My memory isn't up to par, lately but it may be Venerable Hsuan Hu who wrote the copy that I have. Why I think it is interesting is because of the intense meditation I've undertook and am trying to practice although my concentration does get sidetracked quite a bit. For instance WHERE would I begin to look for a "ROOT CAUSE"? I must admit, though, the real BUDDHISTS that have been watching my playfulness and methodology have always done some pretty strange things that, out of the blue, come to pass AND BOTH MY STUDY, OPERATION, METHODLOGY, comes into direct contact with their fruition, RIGHT BEFORE MY EYES. I am very well known for keeping my mouth shut, though, because I don't want to interfere with "their operation" which may interfere with my operation. Thank you for making that interesting post. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > > Good friends all, > > A repeat... > > An excerpt: > > The monastic tradition and the rules upon which it is built are > sometimes navely criticized particularly here in the West as > irrelevant to the "modern" practice of Buddhism. <...> #123730 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:19 pm Subject: Science and Buddhism rjkjp1 Some of you might be interested in my new website http://www.sciencebuddhism.com/ It begins with an article I wrote about the evolution debate. Which forms the outline for a new book I am writing. robert #123731 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:32 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Science and Buddhism dhammasaro Good friend Robert, I just scanned your web site... your thesis appears to be a scholarly tome... please continue... I am sure I will learn from your great effort as I am a mere learning pedestrian ... Sincere warm thanks in sharing... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: rjkjp1@... Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:19:01 +0000 Subject: [dsg] Science and Buddhism Some of you might be interested in my new website http://www.sciencebuddhism.com/ It begins with an article I wrote about the evolution debate. Which forms the outline for a new book I am writing. robert #123732 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:37 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > ...It's very important that namas such as vedana and rupas such as temperature are not confused together. The only way to understand anatta is to understand the clear distinction between elements which are namas and those which are rupas. Otherwise they all get fused together into an idea of self or thing which experiences, has sensations, emotions and so on. > > How is this sounding? It makes sense - it's one of the more specific explanations and helps to distinguish nama/rupa/self-concept. The idea of them fusing together to form the illusion of self is very helpful. > >R: As I understand it, if the vedana is known as vedana at the moment of "feeling" then it ends and doesn't grow into a more complex reaction, but if there is proliferation in response to the vedana, then a full "formational" emotion complete with thoughts and more reactions ensues, creating new kamma. Is this correct? > .... > S: Just remember that all dhammas are conditioned. So there may be conditions one moment for awareness of vedana (or rupa or any other dhamma appearing) and the next moment there may be thinking and proliferating about the object of that feeling or about the feeling itself. For example, at the moment of tasting an ice-cream, there maybe a moment of awareness of the pleasant feeling or the cold experienced, but this doesn't mean there aren't going to be lots of proliferations about the tasty ice-cream. If there's an idea of trying to 'stop' the responses or thoughts, again it's Self at work. Better to just understand what appears with detachment and not cling to having awareness, having good or no thoughts or anything else. > > We don't need to be afraid of ordinary common attachment and proliferations. No one can stop them at all. Just develop more understanding of such dhammas as anatta, that's all. As awareness grows, there is more "guarding" of the sense doors. For the arahat, there is no proliferation, no papanca at all. However, if we try to do something to imitate the life of an arahat, instead of understanding the present realities, we go very wrong. Thanks, this is a helpful explanation. Thanks for the taking the time to be this thorough. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #123733 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:11 pm Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) sarahprocter... Dear Dieter & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > D: The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. > And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it? .... S: As I understand, it is not the path factors, not the understanding of the 4NT that are left behind, but the attachment to such states (or any others) that is to be abandoned. I've quoted the following before from the Bodhi transl: > >Simile of the Raft: > > "Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you should abandon even good states, how much more so bad states." > > Note *255*: > "'Dhammaa pi vo phaatabbaa pageva adhammaa.' MA identifies the good states with serenity and insight (samatha-vipassanaa), and paraphrases the meaning: 'I teach, bhikkhus, even the abandoning of desire and attachment to such peaceful and sublime states as serenity and *insight*, how much more so to that low, vulgar, contemptible, coarse, and impure thing that this foolish Ari.t.tha sees as harmless when he says that there is no obstruction in desire and lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure.' The commentator cites MN 66.26-33 as an example of the Buddha teaching the abandonment of attachment to serenity, MN 38.14 as an example of his teaching the abandonment of attachment to insight. Note that it is in each case the ATTACHMENT to the good states that should be abandoned, not the good states themselves. The Buddha's injunction is not an invitation to moral nihilism or a proposal that the enlightened person has gone beyond good and evil. In this connection see MN 76.51" (end Bodhi quote>< More detail can be found under "Raft" in Useful Posts. Metta Sarah ===== #123734 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:26 pm Subject: RE: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) dhammasaro Good friend D, et al Imho, use the so called "raft" until you do not require... when you cross over; you will understand, yes? peace from a mere pedestrian... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123735 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:32 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, > > I believe that others sections of satipatthana > > a) Do not contradict anapanasati section of satipatthana > b) Explain what can be perceived during anapanasati. > > ie: as one is watching in/out breath, one can also be aware of feelings and mental states that occur with each breath. One can also be aware of hindrances that can be present in relation to anapanasati. > =============== J: I agree that the other sections of the sutta do not contradict the section on anapanasati. I also agree that the person developing anapanasati may have awareness of objects other than the breath, including the ones you mention (feelings, mental states and hindrances). However, the sutta also describes the awareness of feelings, mental states, hindrances, etc. independent of the development of anapanasati, that is to say, without the concurrent development of anapanasati. I'd be interested to know which of the sections of the sutta (apart from the section on anapanasati), taken on their own, would be classified as 'meditation' as you use the term (and why). Jon #123736 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:55 pm Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Dear Sarah (Chuck,all) you wrote: D: The raft stands for the 4 Noble Truth ,in particular the 8 fold Noble Path , which fullfilled its purpose and can be left behind after reaching the aim. > And that is the Dhamma (incl. anatta doctrine) all about , isn't it? .... S: As I understand, it is not the path factors, not the understanding of the 4NT that are left behind, but the attachment to such states (or any others) that is to be abandoned. I've quoted the following before from the Bodhi transl: >Simile of the Raft: > > "Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you should abandon even good states, how much more so bad states." snip> D: the other shore means full detachment, cessation of kamma , cessation of suffering, nibbana .. so the teaching , Dhamma with its core , the 4 Noble Truths , fulfilled its purpose and can be left behind like a raft. This includes good and bad states which are rooted in kamma (intended action) , abandon because they do not apply anymore. The understanding is not left behind otherwise an Arahant could hardly teach those still caught in samsara. Any disagreement ? with Metta Dieter #123737 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts sarahprocter... Dear Prasad, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Prasad Praturi wrote: > P: Now I will be in Bangalore and Dhammagiri.... Yes.. lots and lots of thinking... That is my biggest hindrance... .... S: Wishing you a happy move and retirement. Lots and lots of thinking for us all. It helps a lot to know it's only thinking - just dhammas, not Self. Also, it helps a lot to understand the concepts thought about are merely the objects of thinking, not realities. If we try to stop thinking, it's Self at work again, trying to control with attachment, not detachment. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------------- > P: Yes. it may be. ( but many belive).... continuous awareness of sensations and equanimity with realiazation of those changing nature (sampajanya) will lead to direct knowledge of annatta, dukka and anatta and final emancipationn eventually .... even without intellectually understanding a word in tripithka. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ - S: Just a couple of points: 1. Without right intellectual understanding of dhammas (pariyatti), there cannot be direct understanding of dhammas (patipatti) or direct realisation/insight of those dhammas (pativedha). This is why we're fortunate to live in a Buddha sasana. Without an opportunity to hear the Teachings, no chance of developing such insight. (Note, I'm not referring to a knowledge of Pali or academic study here). 2. Sampajanna refers to panna, the direct understanding of dhammas (realities) in this case. In order to understand the tilakkana (the 3 characteristics) of dhammas, all kinds of dhammas have to be understood. The very first stage of inisght is the clear comprehension of the distinction between namas and rupas. This is only possible by directly understanding all kinds of namas and all kinds of rupas when they appear at the present moment, not just rupas, not just feelings, for example. I know there are many different opinions, but I think the Buddha taught the "all" to be known - seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. ..... > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > P: Sensations is very clear tangible object (Kammathana) to mediatate on... (if some one correctly doing and not playing games with sensations)....That is why it is easy to practice for the ordinary house holders... Always some effort (viriya) has to be put initally to watch sensations from top to bottom. But as practice increases ... observing becomes effortless. > > Vedana is universal chetasika with every chitta... "Vedana-samosarana sabbe dhamma".... Everything that arises in the mind is accompanied by sensation. This sensation arise on body. That is why Goenkaji points out sensatiosn are more important. > -------------------------------------------------------------- S: As you say, vedana is a universal cetasika which arises with every citta. So at a moment of seeing consciousness which experiences visible object, vedana accompanies the seeing. At a moment of hearing consciousness, vedana accompanies the hearing. At a moment of thinking useless (or useful) thoughts, vedana accompanies each moment of thinking. Vedana are not tangible objects and vedana do not "arise on the body". The base of the vedana is the same as the citta it accompanies. Only one kind of citta arises at the body-sense and that is body-consciousness. No other cittas or vedana have this base. The tangible objects experienced by body-consciousness (and its accompanying vedana) are the following rupas (one at a time): temperature, solidity and motion. This means that the object of body-consciousness may be heat or cold or hardness or softness or motion. These are not vedana. After each sense door experience, such as an eye-door or body-door experience, it is always followed by mind-door experiences. It's therefore quite impossible that there can be continuous awareness of rupas through the body-door. The experience of heat, for example, may be experienced now by the 17 cittas in that sense process, but only one of these is experienced by body-consciousness. After those cittas have fallen away, there have to be bhavanga cittas and then mind-door cittas. I appreciate you may have a different understanding. .... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > P: There is a monastry in the middle of banaglore city. > http://www.mahabodhi.info/ > There are monks there. But they are lot of lay people meet every evening and weekends and discussing dhamma and stay together.. > Monks generally qoute suttas only not abhidhamma. You are right it miight end up into blind theory. > > But this DSG Group seems be much more adavanced and seasoned understanding of dhamma. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ - S: It sounds a good place to discuss Dhamma and enjoy good friendship on the path. Here, we are just beginners on the path, sharing our understandings and comments together, that's all. ... .-------------------------------------------------- >P: Yes. I have read Nina's " Abhidhamma in Daily life" . Most Lucid and clear explanation of abhidhamma concepts. I have also read other works (Such as chetasika etc..) and they are in my soft library collection. I keep refering them. I have lot of respect to Nina. When I found her email address on this list, I have sent my questions to her priavately.. Then she encouraged me to go on this group, so that others also can see the discussion and get benefit. ------------------------------------------------------------------ .... S: I'm glad she encouraged you to join us and perhaps some of your other friends in Bangalore will as well. Do you know Shalini or Krishnan who have both posted here and live in Bangalore? Maybe others too, I forget. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/115295 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15314 I like the first chapter in ADL (above) which discusses the distinction between namas and rupas. If you'd like to quote any short paras anytime for further discussion, we could do that. ..... S>>:...The understanding means no selection, no attachment to having any dhamma arise now - any dhamma can be the object of understanding now, depending on the accumulations for such. > > ------------------------------- >P: Yes. that danger is there.. As one of my dhamma well wisher put it to me... This is like Dhamma Television is playing dhamma soap opera... I constantly engage in this dhamma entertainment (discussions, questions, answers, meeting people etc) and keep grasping on this and develop dhamma craving.. (This is definitely better than ordinary soap opera on ordinary TV channel). He said.. when the real experience comes... all this questions and entertainment willl vanish... ________________________________________________ > ... S: And the main purpose of the teachings is to understand that all these different dhammas grasping after mirages, playing tricks like conjurers and so on are not Self. It's not you or me who engage or disingage in any activities - just dhammas rolling on, like the wheel of a vehicle. Understanding develops more detachment, less concern about dhammas being other than they are at this moment. ... >--------------------------------P: fortunately.. i am retired some time ago... working in States Many years. Few hours I will be taking my flight to Banaglore -------------------------------- S: It was good of you to reply just as you were about to take your flight. Now you'll be settling back in Bangalore with more visible objects, more sounds, more thinking:-) Let us know how it goes. ... Metta Sarah ===== #123738 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:16 pm Subject: RE: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) dhammasaro Good friend Dieter, et al I do not fully agree with what you wrote. However, as a mere pedestrian, I can not argue with you; I leave any argument to my betters - the most high elitist here... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123739 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:18 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (123532) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: What I've been saying over and over again is: > > 1. A sotapanna is incapable of certain conventional behaviors. > 2. The reason for this is that the corresponding kilesas have been eradicated that would cause those behaviors. > 3. This shows the correspondence between the kilesas and those conventional behaviors. > 4. This shows that there is a relationship between arising dhammas that are present or absent and conventional behaviors or activities. > =============== J: Superficially, if stated as you have put it here, there appears to be a relationship. But this ignores the teaching on dhammas. The 'certain conventional behaviors' are in fact certain akusala kamma patha (see the sutta text I quoted in an earlier message in this thread). So as far as the teachings are concerned, the relationship is between dhammas. > =============== > RE: This could be extrapolated in a positive way too. > > If an arahat is always truthful in speech, one can look at the dhammas that are involved in causing speech to be truthful, [and the lack of dhammas that would lead to untruthful speech.] There is a correspondence between the presence of certain dhammas and certain kinds of conventional behavior. > =============== J: From a dhamma point of view, in the case of the arahant there is just the lack of the kilesas that condition wrong speech (there are no 'dhammas that are involved in causing speech to be truthful'). Jon #123740 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:23 pm Subject: Fw: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, You provided many good quotes on samma vayama, right effort. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > Viriya (effort) , which belongs to the 13 ethically variable factors (Annasammana cetasikas) > 7 of them are universals , 6 occasionals . Not hard to guess that effort belongs to the latter , its counterpart likely the 3 of the dullness group > (akusala cetasikas). ... S: A couple of comments here: 1. Viriya is an ''occasional", (paki.n.nakaa) because it doesn't arise with every single citta. However, "occasional" can be a misleading translation of paki.n.nakaa ("particulars" is sometimes used) because viriya arises with almost all cittas. It arises with all akusala cittas, all kusala cittas, even with jhana and lokuttara cittas. The only cittas it does NOT arise with are: a) the 5 pairs of sense-cognition (i.e. seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching - each may arise as kusala or akusala vipaka, therefore there are 10 cittas) and b) 6 other ahetuka (rootless) cittas. Therefore, 73 out of the 89 kinds of cittas are accompanied by viriya. I think it's important to realise that even when akusala cittas arise (and all of these are rooted in moha or ignorance/dullness) viriya arises at every single moment. From the Commentary to the “Cariyapitaka” (translated by the B. Bodhi): “Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the purpose desired since it is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way. But when energy is conjoined with wisdom, there is nothing it cannot accomplish, if equipped with the proper means...” Metta Sarah ===== #123741 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:24 pm Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) moellerdieter Hi Chuck, we are all 'pedestrians' at least until we enter the stream (by the raft , simile of the Noble Path) , what is it you don't agree with? with Metta Dieter ----- Original Message ----- From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro To: DGG Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:16 AM Subject: RE: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) Good friend Dieter, et al I do not fully agree with what you wrote. However, as a mere pedestrian, I can not argue with you; I leave any argument to my betters - the most high elitist here... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123742 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Science and Buddhism rjkjp1 Thanks for the encouragement Chuck! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > > Good friend Robert, > > I just scanned your web site... your thesis appears to be a scholarly tome... please continue... I am sure I will learn from your great effort as I am a mere learning pedestrian ... > > Sincere warm thanks in sharing... > > peace... > > yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, > > Chuck > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > From: rjkjp1@... > Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:19:01 +0000 > Subject: [dsg] Science and Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of you might be interested in my new website > > http://www.sciencebuddhism.com/ > > It begins with an article I wrote about the evolution debate. > > > > Which forms the outline for a new book I am writing. > > robert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #123743 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:33 pm Subject: Trim reminder dsgmods Hi All, When replying to another post, please remember to trim any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply. If the post you are replying to is a recent one, you may assume that other members will have seen it. Trimming saves time and work for those who kindly back up the archives and makes it more convenient for all of us to read posts. It also assists those who print out messages, have limited bandwidth or receive messages in digest form. We appreciate your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS The full guidelines can now be found easily at the link on the home-page. Comments or questions off-list only. Thanks #123744 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:28 am Subject: RE: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) dhammasaro Sincere thanks, but no further comment as I am censured by der gazpacho (sic) here. [verily beeg Texican smiles] To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: moellerdieter@... Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:24:53 +0200 Subject: Re: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) Hi Chuck, we are all 'pedestrians' at least until we enter the stream (by the raft , simile of the Noble Path) , what is it you don't agree with? with Metta Dieter ----- Original Message ----- From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro To: DGG Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:16 AM Subject: RE: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) Good friend Dieter, et al I do not fully agree with what you wrote. However, as a mere pedestrian, I can not argue with you; I leave any argument to my betters - the most high elitist here... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123745 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:35 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: Can you explain how the clear discernment of sati can be there without panna, and if so, what is the nature or status of that sati without panna? > ... > S: The sati is just aware of the object. It is non-forgetful of kusala at such moments so there has to be sati at moments of dana, sila and bhavana. It says in the texts that it "does not allow the floating away of moral states". It doesn't "wobble" like a pumpkin in water. > > Panna, on the other-hand, does not accompany all wholesome cittas. When there is generosity or morality, there is not necessarily any understanding, even though sati remembers kusala at such moments. Only if there is an understanding at some level of the benefit of good deeds or the harm of bad deeds or an understanding of the realities at such moments, for example, does panna arise. > > Again, good question. We can discuss it further if you like. pt and I have become interested in the different kinds of kusala that have panna or not, and the different kinds of panna. pt mentioned that there is samatha with panna but that it is not the same as sati with panna, if I remember correctly. It would be good to understand this further. I am very interested in what you have said above about sati too. It makes me want to understand the difference between sati and panna more as well, as panna seems to have a different kind of intelligence than mindfulness. > >R: I always thought that sati would know "heat as heat" and that panna would have a greater understanding of the nature of the heat. But it seems that you are assigning that basic knowing of the dhamma's basic "isness" to panna. If so, then what does sati do, and how is that augmented when sati arises with panna? > ... > S: Sati is just aware, it doesn't know anything. So it is aware of heat in a wholesome way, even when it arises with the vipaka citta, body-consciousness. Panna never arises with moments of sense cognition such as seeing or body-consciousness, so if there is any understanding of that reality of heat as heat, it is later with the javana cittas in the sense and following mind door process(es). At such moments when panna arises, sati is also performing is task of being aware, of 'guarding'. At such moments, the sati and panna are the sati sampajanna referred to in the texts, such as the Satipatthana Sutta. I am always very interested in Sati Sampajanna, so I am happy to hear about this combination that exists when it arises. That makes a lot of sense. ... > S: Vedana arises with every single citta. So in the above sense-door process, it arises with 1-17 cittas. Every citta!! Okay, good. > ... > >R: I understand that the initial proliferation if any would be in the javana cittas, but not sure if vedana is earlier or part of the javana group. > ... > S: Yes, the proliferation is in the javana cittas, in particular in the javana cittas arising in the following mind-door processes (the above are just the cittas of one sense-door process) as thinking with lobha, mana and ditthi occurs, conceptualising about objects. Wow, lot of cittas... > ... > R:. Also, it seems like somewhere around 5 or 6 would be where "contact" would take place? > ... > S: Phassa, contact, like vedana arises with every single citta. So again, in the sense door process above, it arises with cittas 1 -17. Okay that makes sense too. > They also arise with every mind door citta and with every bhavanga citta in between the processes. Even at moments of jhana or enlightenment, there is always vedana and phassa. There's vedana at enlightenment moments? What kind of vedana, positive? > ... > >Which of those moments constitute contact, and how many moments does it last? Thanks. > .. > S: See above. Thanks. > > No rush, ha ha ha. :-) I'll be happy to hear your responses whenever it is convenient. Hope you have a nice Easter with family! I enjoy those kinds of events. > ... > S: A rare treat for us to have family at Easter. Next week will be a little busy with family too, so more excuses for delays, ha ha:) Those are good excuses. Wishing you many kusala moments with your family! :-) Although discernment of whatever arises is even better... ;-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123746 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:36 am Subject: Re: Fw: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 moellerdieter Dear Sarah, you wrote: In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > Viriya (effort) , which belongs to the 13 ethically variable factors (Annasammana cetasikas) > 7 of them are universals , 6 occasionals . Not hard to guess that effort belongs to the latter , its counterpart likely the 3 of the dullness group > (akusala cetasikas). ... S: A couple of comments here: 1. Viriya is an ''occasional", (paki.n.nakaa) because it doesn't arise with every single citta. However, "occasional" can be a misleading translation of paki.n.nakaa ("particulars" is sometimes used) because viriya arises with almost all cittas. It arises with all akusala cittas, all kusala cittas, even with jhana and lokuttara cittas. D: You are right : occasional is misleading if it is the exception that this cetasika does not arise with the citta. Mendis: 'effort (viriya), which energizes the mental factors and opposes idleness.' 'The universals and particulars are, in themselves, ethically indeterminate but become wholesome, unwholesome, or neither, depending on the state of consciousness in which they occur.' It seems to me both kinds of the cetasika groups , sabbacitta sadharana and pakinnaka , wait for a more fitting translation. S: The only cittas it does NOT arise with are: a) the 5 pairs of sense-cognition (i.e. seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching - each may arise as kusala or akusala vipaka, therefore there are 10 cittas) and b) 6 other ahetuka (rootless) cittas. Therefore, 73 out of the 89 kinds of cittas are accompanied by viriya. I think it's important to realise that even when akusala cittas arise (and all of these are rooted in moha or ignorance/dullness) viriya arises at every single moment. D: assuming background knowledge of the Matika necessary (?) What does it mean 'The only cittas it does NOT arise with are: a) the 5 pairs of sense-cognition ' ? idea to a ): These are only experienced in a state of awareness without an active sixth sense ..a passive state of mind . 'Listening ' instead of 'sending' , no intention but reality experience .. a kamma break so to say. ...energy not translated into effort , no energizing of the mental factors .. b) Not clear is the relation of viraya to the dullness group (Mendis: 'effort (viriya), which energizes the mental factors and opposes idleness) The citta accompanied by the cetasika dullness is hardly an initiation of viriya arousing, isn't it? , From the Commentary to the “Cariyapitaka” (translated by the B. Bodhi): “Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the purpose desired since it is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way. But when energy is conjoined with wisdom, there is nothing it cannot accomplish, if equipped with the proper means... D: 'it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way. ' This is the 'element of initiating or beginning of action' (pls compare with the sutta 'The Self Doer' ) which seems to me a constant issue of misunderstandings on the forum . I see the reason in a lack of consideration of (the common formula of) Dependent Orgination which presents the 'background ' of the deluded person. with Metta Dieter #123747 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:42 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Science and Buddhism dhammasaro Good friend Robert, Please advise when your articles and book are published. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123748 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (123593) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > RE: Well in the past I have not given meditation such a neat and specific definition, though I can tell you what I think are some conventional and non-conventional attributes. I understand your interest. As I suggested in the last post, I don't think it is such a neat dividing line between meditation and everyday life, and as I said, I think that those aspects of "formal" practice that are meditative in nature are meant to apply to everyday life as well, so practice exists on a continuum. > > > > On the other hand, I see meditation practice as certain exercises, or in some cases the application of certain principles, which build mental states and skills and lead to spiritual evolution through the development of those states and skills. > > =============== > > J: Here you give a possible definition: 'Certain exercises, or in some cases the application of certain principles, which build mental states and skills and lead to spiritual evolution through the development of those states and skills.' > > Perhaps that could be rephrased as follows: 'Mental exercises that build mental states and which lead to the development of those mental states.' > > That of course would be for meditation in general. In the context of the Teachings, it would be: Mental exercises prescribed by the Buddha to build kusala mental states (including insight) and which lead to the development of those mental states. > > Would that be a fair description of what you mean by meditation? Sounds good so far, pending further investigation. :-) > > =============== > > RE: I look at meditation as being largely non-conceptual, so if one is attending the sensation of the breath as a sensation, or if one is regarding a thought as thought and being aware of its nature or attributes - whatever the object is, meditation is the direct awareness of its existence as itself and its attributes. > > > > If one is thinking about concepts and developing a conceptual understanding I would call that contemplation rather than meditation. > > =============== > > J: In samatha bhavana the object is a concept (breath, a kasina, death, etc.). According to what you say above, exercises designed to develop samatha bhavana would be contemplation rather than meditation(??). When I say "conceptual" I don't mean the technical Abhidhamma definition of a "concept." I mean a process that is not dependent or largely involved with a string of thoughts, figuring out or thinking about the object. It is more of a direct investigation of the object. In samatha, it may not have the kind of specific detailed insight into the rupas of the breath that sati meditation does, but it still involves experiencing of the breath sensation, just that the purpose is different. Though it is defined as having "breath as concept" as an object in Abhidhamma, I would not call this "contemplative conceptualization" which is much more about thinking. Samatha/concentration meditation is the opposite, it moves away from thinking towards a state of stillness and concentration. > > =============== > > RE: Sitting still, in conventional terms, seems an ideal setting for this kind of direct [meditative] development, but walking, doing other activities, or just attending the direct reality of various experiential moments as they arise, can also be meditative in nature. I believe it is harder to have a concentrated awareness of what is taking place in a moment while moving around or doing activities, but meditation can take place in various circumstances depending on one's accumulations and abilities. > > =============== > > J: Since we are trying to clarify what is meant by the term 'mediation' (as you use the term), I suggest we leave specific instances for discussion later. Okay. > > =============== > > RE: When The Buddha talks about techniques that develop direct discernment through direct attention on the object, I would consider those meditation, whether they are practice that attempts that direct awareness, or the direct awareness itself; and where the Buddha talks about techniques that involve thought and intellectual understanding, I would regard those as contemplative in nature. > > =============== > > J: OK, so meditation is also: 'Techniques prescribed by the Buddha that are practice for direct awareness (as well as the direct awareness resulting from the undertaking of such techniques)'. > > Comparing this to the earlier definition ('Mental exercises prescribed by the Buddha to build kusala mental states (including insight) and which lead to the development of those mental states'), perhaps you would settle on something like this: > 'Mental exercises or techniques prescribed by the Buddha that, if properly carried out, give rise to kusala mental states (including insight) thereby leading to the development of those mental states.' > > Would this be a fair and comprehensive definition of meditation as you use the term? On first blush, it seems to stand up very well. Obviously some holes could be found in it if investigated, but pending such adjustments, it sounds like a damned good working definition to work with. > > =============== > > RE: I see the correct attempt to discern realities as part of meditation rather than non-meditation, and that such attempts - like practicing with a hammer and missing the nail until eventually your aim gets better and you hit the nail - are part of meditation; > > > > and: I think that, like hitting the nail, the regular practice of such focus on awareness increases the development of such awareness, rather than being a futile exercise in control. > > =============== > > J: Yes, the analogy of learning to hit the nail on the head is clear enough. First there are many attempts and almost as many misses, but in time there are almost as many hits as there are attempts (and this success can be reasonably attributed to the previous attempts including the many misses). Exactly. > But I know of no similar/corresponding analogy in the texts. What is spoken of in the texts, it seems to me, is the importance of repeated listening and considering, and the actual arising of kusala. When you talk about 'no similar...analogy in the texts' I think you are refering to the extra-suttic texts, because it seems to me that there are many suggestions of effort and practice leading to greater skillfulness in the qualities that meditation develops in the suttas themselves. This is the crux of the issue - does meditative practice constitute a skill set that can be developed through repeated correct practice, or is such practice totally beside the point. Hope that doesn't leave us back where we started, but it may... Anyway, I think we might be able to focus on that one point as the point of contention. I have a "pragmatic" view of meditation, that, like playing the piano or using a hammer, the more you practice correctly the better you get at it. It is the inclusion of the moments of practice that do not hit the mark as part of meditation that makes it a practice that can actually be practiced, and the exclusion of such which would make it impossible to "practice" in the usual sense. I guess in addition there is the inclusion in meditation of conventional conditions that lead to the greater development of the kusala qualities, such as quiet surroundings, sitting still [or other conditions for other forms of meditation,] etc. That again emphasizes the possible import of whether conventional actions and conditions have any relation to dhammas or not. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123749 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:22 am Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat truth_aerator Hello Jon, all, >J: I'd be interested to know which of the sections of the sutta >(apart >from the section on anapanasati), taken on their own, would >be >classified as 'meditation' as you use the term (and why). >====================================================== All or almost entire sutta in 4 section (kaya, vedana, citta, dhamma) is a meditation instruction except for notes such as how long it may take (7 years to 7 days) + introduction. It has teaching in brief and in detail: In brief summary it tells us to be aware and remember that: "body is just the body, feeling is just the feeling, mind is just a mind, phenomena is just phenomena." I assume that ardent meditator needs to remember this every waking moment (good luck!) and Arhatship can follow within 7 days. With metta, Alex #123750 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:43 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: What I've been saying over and over again is: > > > > 1. A sotapanna is incapable of certain conventional behaviors. > > 2. The reason for this is that the corresponding kilesas have been eradicated that would cause those behaviors. > > 3. This shows the correspondence between the kilesas and those conventional behaviors. > > 4. This shows that there is a relationship between arising dhammas that are present or absent and conventional behaviors or activities. > > =============== > > J: Superficially, if stated as you have put it here, there appears to be a relationship. But this ignores the teaching on dhammas. I wouldn't say it ignores the teaching on dhammas. I'd say it challenges some assumptions about how the teaching on dhammas applies or relates to conventional reality. I've been waiting for a looooong time to hear a quote that specifically denounces such an association from any scripture at all. Rather, such a conclusion seems to be derived from the commentaries through a particular prejudice or interpretive scheme that is not itself in the commentaries. That's pretty presumptuous of me to say, since the breadth of my reading is so limited, but I'd still like to see any scriptural passage that says that this is the case - haven't seen one yet. And I've never seen a textual quote that says that conventional meditation is to be eschewed and that it is wrong view or develops self-view, and should not be practiced. The closest anyone has gotten is to quote the teaching on the anatta-ness of all the kandhas, but again, in order to make the leap from that to the casting aside of all conventional practices, and all association with conventional forms, but this is again a secondary act of interpretation rather than something that is stated in the scriptures, as far as anything goes that I've seen so far. In Visuddhimagga and other commentaries I see conventional statements mixed freely with descriptions of dhammas, and the only way to dismiss the conventional statements, such as "go out and seek a teacher when you are ready to study meditation in more detail," [paraphrase,] is to assert that such a statement is "shorthand" for dhammas, but there is no direct evidence anywhere that this is the case. It's an act of presumptive interpretation, based on one's standpoint on dhammas. > The 'certain conventional behaviors' are in fact certain akusala kamma patha (see the sutta text I quoted in an earlier message in this thread). So as far as the teachings are concerned, the relationship is between dhammas. If that is the case then the "conventional behaviors" ARE [pardon the caps] "certain akusala kamma patha" and the association is one of appropriate referencing of the seemingly conventional events as the correct dhammas. In other words, an act of discernment of the actuality underlying the seeming conventional events, rather than one of saying that there is no association. Because of the undeniable fact that when the "certain akusala kamma pathas," ie dhammas, cease, the "certain conventional behaviors" ALSO cease, never to return, or continue to be cessated if they have already ceased previously, never to return, the association that one accords with the other is likewise undeniable. If conventional behaviors went hither and thither with no regard to the existence or cessation of the kamma pathas in question, then we could easily assert that there is no association of any kind between them, and that they represented two quite separate existences, one actual, and the other illusory. I would be the first to admit it. But since they DO in fact "rise and fall together," in the conventional sense, there is no doubt that there is an association, one of that which happens or doesn't happen. If one has common sense, and is not blinded by philosophy, one has to admit under those circumstances that the association is clear as crystal. The only thing that remains, which we never seem to get to, is what the actual association is, and how does it work. Since conventional reality is dismissed as meaningless, despite the fact that kamma patha, even by definition, depends on it [at least upon the thought of the conventional being or object, and the cetana that is fixated on it,] it is very difficult to describe properly what that association is. The statement that concepts are "shadows of dhammas" is suggestive of what that relationship is, but philosophically those on this list are not usually inclined to look into that further and talk about what it means to live in a world of shadows that in fact reflect the dhammas that are arising without understanding them correctly. That in my view is how kamma patha is related to the concepts that are associated with them. Murder takes place or doesn't take place in synchrony with the arising or non-arising of the murderous kamma patha. It's such a simple relationship that one would think it would be easy to acknowledge it, but that entails acknowledging that conventional forms are the actual shadows of dhammas, rather than wholesale illusions, the former of which is what I think is obviously correct. Otherwise conventional murder could arise without the kamma patha and the arahat could murder someone with no murderous intent. But that never happens, and never will, because of the association I reference above. Someone is only ever murdered as the conventional reflection of the arising of the corresponding murderous kamma patha, and that is the association. > > =============== > > RE: This could be extrapolated in a positive way too. > > > > If an arahat is always truthful in speech, one can look at the dhammas that are involved in causing speech to be truthful, [and the lack of dhammas that would lead to untruthful speech.] There is a correspondence between the presence of certain dhammas and certain kinds of conventional behavior. > > =============== > > J: From a dhamma point of view, in the case of the arahant there is just the lack of the kilesas that condition wrong speech (there are no 'dhammas that are involved in causing speech to be truthful'). Yet the positive speech that results is still the result of the positive kamma patha that is generated by the arahat's kusala dhammas, and the dhammas that do arise that correspond to speech and cause the speech are correspondingly kusala. Speech is an important part of the Dhamma, and it is a conventional production that arises from the kamma patha that is involved. Kusala speech that reflects the Dhamma arises from kusala kamma patha and there's no denying it in my view. One can't say that speech is wholly conventional and thus non-reflective of dhammas, since the very existence and communication of the Dhamma is 100% dependent on it. It would be nonsensical to assert that conventional speech is not the mode in which the Dhamma is spread, and that somehow it is merely illusory. I think that in itself shows the flaw in the extreme view that all conventional forms are non-reflective of underlying dhammas, and have no relation to them at all. Time for a more cohesive and comprehensive view of the relation of dhammas to conventional forms. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #123751 From: Lukas Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:56 am Subject: News szmicio hi all, just came London today with Luraya. unfortunately we had an appointment with Alan but my bus was late. I hope we will have chance to meet Alan next time in the future, for the purpose of dhamma discussion Best wishes Lukas and Luraya #123752 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:44 am Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: This was a bit of nonsense that I wrote! Sati arises with some vipaka cittas, such as bhavanga cittas, but never with the sense cognitions such as body-consciousness. Only the seven universal cetasikas arise with these. In the sense door process after body-consciousness and the other vipaka cittas have fallen away, sati can arise with the javana cittas in that process. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #123753 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:13 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: As I've pointed out before, the enlightened being also thinks in terms of people and things, but does so without any misconception as to there being anything paramattha about people and things. So it is not correct to characterise conceptual thinking as somehow defective or incomplete (or hallucinatory, as you do in another post). > > > > RE: It's been described that way to me here on dsg, so there may be some variety in the way in which conceptual reality is regarded. That has been one of the main issues I have tried to resolve for myself, without complete success - whether, as Rob K. recently paraphrased from the Abhidhamatha Sangaha that concepts are like the shadows of dhammas - which is what I mean by conventional events and things being "dhammas seen wrongly or incompletely or distortedly," or whether they are "wholly other" and not related to dhammas at all, eg, hallucinatory and not reflecting any kind of real existence, even a shadowy or distorted version of the real dhammas that are arising and falling away. > > =============== > > J: Regarding "It's been described that way to me here on dsg, ", I hope you're not asking me to comment on what others may have said (or, more correctly, on your recollection/impression of what others may have said) :-)) I find it complex enough to follow the back and forth between us :-)) Well it's not really a question of who may have said it before, but what you think of the idea that is being described. This is the essence of it, from above, whether anyone has said it before or not: Whether "...concepts are like the shadows of dhammas - which is what I mean by conventional events and things being "dhammas seen wrongly or incompletely or distortedly," or whether they are "wholly other" and not related to dhammas at all, eg, hallucinatory and not reflecting any kind of real existence, even a shadowy or distorted version of the real dhammas that are arising and falling away." I think that describes the two competing possibilities: concepts as shadowy apprehensions of the actual dhammas, but seen vaguely, dimly or incorrectly; versus, hallucinatory images created out of whole cloth by deluded cittas that have no relation to arising dhammas at all. Which one do you think most closely fits the actual situation? > Regarding, "as Rob K. recently paraphrased from the Abhidhamatha Sangaha concepts are like the shadows of dhammas - which is what I mean by conventional events and things being "dhammas seen wrongly or incompletely or distortedly": > > The reference in the Abhidhamattha Sangaha to concepts being like the 'shadows of dhammas' does not, to my understanding, necessarily imply wrong, incomplete or distorted perception of dhammas (note that, as mentioned previously, the enlightened being also thinks in terms of concepts). > > What the reference implies, I think, is that the shadows are not the 'real thing'. (And note that the idea of gaining a better understanding of the 'shadow' is not likely to lead to a better understanding of the 'real thing'.) Well, I would be interested in any scriptural commentary on the above, as it seems to me that a "shadow of a dhamma" DOES in fact imply that the dhamma is being registered in a way, but not clearly by deluded, mixed-up cittas that mistake them for the concepts of them that they cling to, or something along those lines. A crazy person can see someone glance at them by accident and think that person is giving them a secret message. They can then go on for a month about the conspiracy that such a glance must indicate, but the original look did in fact take place. It just led to a bunch of false interpretations and proliferations that completely distort the meaning of the original event. Likewise, it could be that a citta that's not really tuned in properly could get a glimmer of a series of arising dhammas and conglomerate the glimpses that it has into a kind of mashed-up image that contains some of the impressions from the dhammas but turns them into a concept that is largely false, based on a distorted view of the dhammas. It seems like to me that delusion involves a distorted relationship to dhammas, rather than no relationship at all. Then there is the famous analogy of the rope and the snake. One sees the rope and imagines that it moves in the darkness, mistaking it for a dangerous snake. Eventually when the light is turned on, it is revealed to be a simple rope. If one sees dhammas in the "darkness" of "shadowy" concepts, a similar distortion could be taking place. This is what I believe the Abhidhamma Sangaha is probably referring to, since it bothers to use the analogy of the "shadows of dhammas" rather than saying "ghosts" or "images" or something that is not related to dhammas at all. The expression used relates the concepts to dhammas and says that relationship is one of "shadows" rather than of seeing clearly and distinctly, so I think the import of the analogy lies in that usage. > > =============== > > RE: In this thread you seem to have accorded to some of the talk about "really experiencing dhammas" when you think you are experiencing concepts. This would be in line with touching a table not really being touching a table, but the experience of hardness, etc., which are the actual dhammas. At other times, such as in this post and the last one, you seem to be stressing the idea that concepts have no relation to dhammas at all. > > =============== > > J: Regarding, "you seem to be stressing the idea that concepts have no relation to dhammas at all": > > If I seem to be doing that it's because you are claiming a relationship that (a) cannot really be stated any more precisely than that ('a relationship'), and (b) as far as I know, has not been asserted in the texts. So naturally I'm not in a hurry to agree with you on this point :-)) > > And I can't for the life of me see the relevance of this line of thinking. There are dhammas arising now that may or may not have any 'relationship' to what we're thinking about. It is the reflecting about the teaching on dhammas that will sooner or later condition awareness of dhammas. But that's what the issue between us is - whether that is the only case or not. It's my contention, which I know you disagree with, that our distorted conceptual views of things contain clues to the dhammas which are passing all the time and are only vaguely apprehended by cittas that are sleepy, deluded and clinging. But there is the possibility of seeing what is really happening if we look more closely into what we already experience. > > =============== > > RE: What I am saying is for someone who is not a sotapanna, the real cetana dhammas have to arise in relation to a conceptual being in order for kamma patha to take place. They are dhammas in response to a concept, carrying out real arisings of namas and rupas in relation to a fictitious being. In fact, that being, which is a concept, has to be eradicated to complete the kamma patha. > > =============== > > J: I think not so. The way I see it is as follows: > > - "cetana dhammas have to arise in relation to a conceptual being in order for kamma patha to take place". The concept of a being is (merely) the *object* of the citta. And that is what a concept is: something that is formed in the mind (only); concepts have no 'existence' at any level other than as mental object at the very moment of being such. Somehow I seem to agree with the above and find it illuminating. I think the problem arises with "concepts have no existence at any level other than as mental object" when we talk about people, cars and universes. If you are saying that there is no person, car or universe outside of the momentary concept in the mind, I am not sure about that, and would require some greater investigation. If you will assert that there is no physical reality beyond our concept of such, [and free-floating rupas that have no relationship to any substantial objects per se,] I will take that as something to investigate further. > - "They are dhammas in response to a concept, carrying out real arisings of namas and rupas in relation to a fictitious being". The cittas in question are cittas rooted in dosa that have a concept as their object. And that concept is mind-created; it's not a case of there *being* a concept in relation to which a citta then arises and takes as its object. > > - " In fact, that being, which is a concept, has to be eradicated to complete the kamma patha". It is only in the mind of the 'killer' that the concept of a (particular) being is eradicated. In reality, there is no eradication of anything. There is action on the part of the 'killer' that results in the arising of cuti citta in another stream of namas. So what is that "action" in relation to, if you admit of an action taking place. If it causes cuti citta in another stream of namas, I think you're going beyond what most here would say. How can my "action" impact another stream of namas to the extent of cutting off the life-consciousness for another? Can you explain further how my action can influence rupas that cause a direct effect on another "person's" namas? I am *very* interested in how this would work. > > =============== > > RE: The point is that in kamma patha, dhammas and concepts are both involved, and are related to each other. This seems to me to be a problem if one believes that dhammas and concepts have no relationship to each other, do not act upon each other, and cannot be conditions for each other. There are no dhammas of kamma patha unless there is a being - a concept - as a supporting condition. > > =============== > > J: The only role of the concept of a being, as far as I can see, is as the object of the citta. It's the dosa and wrong view arising in respect of that object that conditions the act of killing. So the kamma is caused by akusala cittas arising in relation to an imaginary being? And no being is really affected, it's all in the mind? Kamma patha does not actually result in another being, eg, the life-continnum of that other stream of namas and rupas that we know as another person - being cut off and eradicated? It's just an imagination? Since kamma patha involves rupas, not just cittas, there is some form of physical reality being produced there. Can you explain, if this is not too esoteric a subject for anyone here to understand in detail, exactly what really takes place in such a kamma patha, such that an akusala cetana is strong enough to produce the cittas that influence the rupas that affect another "person's" life-consciousness being cut off and their namas entering into a whole new stream of dhammas? It sounds like quite an operation! In terms of conditions, I would not say the concept of a being is a *supporting* condition (but I may be wrong -- perhaps someone with a knowledge of conditions could comment). I hope someone can comment, Jon, before you and especially I get quite confused. I think it's a thorny topic, but a very important one if we ever want to get to the bottom of what realities are really involved in kamma patha, and how the "being" that is affected is so affected. Even in a simpler kamma patha, like drinking alcohol, there is not only akusala cetana involved to the point of action, but there is the action creating rupas, and then those rupas arising to create certain affects back upon the cittas that are experiencing them, in this case the dhammas that pertain to "being drunk." Is there really alcohol? Does the drinking of a mind-altering beverage change the cittas physically through arising rupas? Or is there the illusion of alcohol and certain akusala namas that account for the experience of "being drunk" without any actual physical reality being involved at all? ie, is kamma patha a physical reality, as it seems to be by definition, or is the physical aspect of it, such as drinking alcohol, killing a living organism, eating meat, etc., simply an illusion that is carried to completion mentally by deluded namas that imagine all the physical concepts involved? Since there are rupas I would guess in any kamma patha being produced, I suspect there is a physical aspect, but what about alcohol, bodies, meat, etc.? Do they exist and have an effect on those rupas, or are they just concepts that are brought into play by deluded namas? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #123754 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:54 am Subject: Re: News sarahprocter... Hi Lukas & Luraya, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > hi all, just came London today with Luraya. unfortunately we had an appointment with Alan but my bus was late. I hope we will have chance to meet Alan next time in the future, for the purpose of dhamma discussion ... S: That's bad luck - the second time you've missed Alan (from Zolag website) for dhamma discussion. He told me that you'd had a chat on the phone anyway. Perhaps if you're still in London you can at least have another tel discussion. Now you've made contact you'll be able to meet him next time. He suggested it might be a good idea for you to move to London, but didn't tell me why he thought so. Perhaps you are having some nice dhamma discussions together. Why not share some of the points of discussion? You may have seen that I've been having some discussions with Prasad, Rob E and Howard about some of the theory behind Goenka-style meditation, especially on feelings, sensations, rupas and so on. You might like to read out some of these posts together. Luraya, I'm so glad to hear you've accompanied Lukas. You're a very good friend to him, I know. Hope to hear more from both of you. Metta Sarah ===== #123755 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:23 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts ppraturi Dear Sarah, Thanks for the continued discussion...... >>S: As you say, vedana is a universal cetasika which arises with every citta. So at a moment of seeing consciousness which >>experiences visible object, vedana accompanies the seeing. At a moment of hearing consciousness, vedana accompanies the >>hearing. At a moment of thinking useless (or useful) thoughts, vedana accompanies each moment of thinking. >>S: Vedana are not tangible objects and vedana do not "arise on the body". The base of the vedana is the same as the citta it accompanies. Only one kind of citta arises at the body-sense and that is body-consciousness. No other cittas or vedana have this base. >>>S: The tangible objects experienced by body-consciousness (and its accompanying vedana) are the following rupas (one at >>a time): temperature, solidity and motion. This means that the object of body-consciousness may be heat or cold or >>hardness or softness or motion. These are not vedana. ------------------- >>P: As Howard points out it could be terminology problem... --------------- >>S: After each sense door experience, such as an eye-door or body-door experience, it is always followed by mind-door >>experiences. It's therefore quite impossible that there can be continuous awareness of rupas through the body-door. The >>experience of heat, for example, may be experienced now by the 17 cittas in that sense process, but only one of these is >>experienced by body-consciousness. After those cittas have fallen away, there have to be bhavanga cittas and then mind->>door cittas. ------------------------ P: Are'nt rupas occuring on body... as temparature, solidity and motion are the result of previous kamma (vipaka).. If one is aware (sati) of these Rupas ... and then simultaneously ... one do steadfast practice of equanimity (not reacting with craving/aversion) with understaning of impermanance nature (annicca) of these rupas... one may not generate new kamma (i.e means during javana chittas of that sequence)..... As a result of that another set of old kamma will come and manifest on body by another set of rupas... again when one practice of equanimity with annicca.. with awareness (Sati) of these rupas ...another set of Rupas (as a result of another past kamma) manifest.... Like this way .... if one practicing continuously equanimity with annicca understaning... one will purify the mind gradually... ( Stock of old sankharasa keep coming out) This appears to be the essential practice of Goenkaji's vipassana. In the due course of perfection of this practice.... tilakkana could be exeprienced. Discussion is welcome... -- S: I'm glad she encouraged you to join us and perhaps some of your other friends in Bangalore will as well. Do you know Shalini or Krishnan who have both posted here and live in Bangalore? Maybe others too, I forget. --------------------P: I just started meeting this group in Banaglore for about a year.. But i travel lot of time also.. May be they have moved to different palce. --------------------------------------------- >>S: I like the first chapter in ADL (above) which discusses the distinction between namas and rupas. If you'd like to quote any >>short paras anytime for further discussion, we could do that. -------------------------------------------------------P: Sure you can quote.. After arriving to Banaglore I started reading again ADL.. my clairity is increasing with her very simple explanation ... with sutta qoutes.. in the middle... ------------------------ S>>:...The understanding means no selection, no attachment to having any dhamma arise now - any dhamma can be the >>object of understanding now, depending on the accumulations for such. > > ------------------------------- >>S: Let us know how it goes.------------------------- P: Yes.. I am back in Banaglore.. But again i might end up travling in India some time.. Good to connect in this internet domain...Where are you located and where Nina and others located physically. ___________________ Metta Prasad #123756 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts sarahprocter... Dear Prasad, A good discussion... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Prasad Praturi wrote: > ------------------------ P: Are'nt rupas occuring on body... as temparature, solidity and motion are the result of previous kamma (vipaka).. ... S: These rupas conditioned by kamma occur at the body-sense to be found all over the so-called body. In reality, there is no body - just various rupas arising and falling away. Although these rupas are conditioned by kamma, they are not vipaka. Vipaka refers to mental results of kamma, i.e. namas only, such as seeing and body-consciousness. At a moment of touching hardness or heat, whether it is the hardness or heat of the so-called arm or of the computer, the characteristic of hardness or heat is the same. So when understanding develops, there's no concern or thought about whether it is hardness of the body or hardness of the computer. It's just hardness. Just one reality can be experienced and known at a time without any preference or selection. .... >If one is aware (sati) of these Rupas ... and then simultaneously ... one do steadfast practice of equanimity (not reacting with craving/aversion) with understaning of impermanance nature (annicca) of these rupas... .... S: Of course, it is sati which is aware. It depends entirely on conditions what sati is aware of - whether it's a nama or a rupa, whether it's a rupa experienced through the body-sense or through the eye-door. If there is an attempt to focus or just be aware of particular rupas, it's not understanding with detachment, or equanimity as I see it, but a subtle attachment or desire for particular results. Unless there is a clear understanding of various dhammas, including all kinds of namas and all kinds of rupas as anatta, arisen by conditions, there cannot be any direct understanding of these dhammas as anicca, except as an idea. .... >one may not generate new kamma (i.e means during javana chittas of that sequence)..... As a result of that another set of old kamma will come and manifest on body by another set of rupas... again when one practice of equanimity with annicca.. with awareness (Sati) of these rupas ...another set of Rupas (as a result of another past kamma) manifest.... Like this way .... if one practicing continuously equanimity with annicca understaning... one will purify the mind gradually... ( Stock of old sankharasa keep coming out) This appears to be the essential practice of Goenkaji's vipassana. In the due course of perfection of this practice.... tilakkana could be exeprienced. Discussion is welcome... -- .... S: As mentioned, I don't think that the way to understand the tilakkana of dhammas is by selecting rupas experienced through the body-sense and focussing on these. I don't see this as being so different from various yoga and Chinese healing systems. There is no understanding of dhammas as anatta, as arising by conditions beyond anyone's control. No one can stop the hearing of sounds now, the attachment or aversion which is bound to follow. Rather than trying to suppress various dhammas from arising, more precious is the direct understanding of whatever appears very naturally in daily life. The Buddha taught the understanding of dhammas appearing through six doorways, not one. If there's no understanding seeing and visible object when they appear, like now, for example, there cannot be the beginning of understanding those dhammas as anicca. The most important teaching is that of dhammas as anatta - not within anyone's control at all. In planes where only rupas or only namas are experienced, it's impossible to develop the insights because it's impossible to understand anatta without the clear understanding of both namas and rupas, no matter how they're named. From the beginning of Nina's "Abhidhamma in Daily Life": >THE FOUR PARAMATTHA DHAMMAS There are two kinds of reality: mental phenomena (nama) and physical phenomena (rupa). Nama experiences something; rupa does not experience anything. Seeing is, for example, a type of nama; it experiences visible object. Visible object itself is rupa; it does not experience anything. What we take for self are only nama and rupa which arise and fall away. The 'Visuddhimagga' ('Path of Purity', a commentary) explains (Ch. XVIII, 25): For this has been said: . 'As with the assembly of parts The word "chariot" is countenanced, So, When the khandhas are present, 'A being' is said in common usage' (Kindred Sayings I, 135. The five khandhas (aggregates) are nothing else but nama and rupa. See Ch.2.) 'So in many hundred suttas there is only mentality-materiality which is illustrated, not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts (of a chariot) such as axles, wheels, frame, poles... are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere conventional term 'chariot', yet in the ultimate sense, when each part is examined, there is no chariot, ...so too,... there comes to be the mere conventional term 'a being', 'a person', yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no being as a basis for the assumption ' I am' or ' I ' ; in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision.' All phenomena in and around ourselves are only nama and rupa which arise and fall away; they are impermanent. Nama and rupa are absolute realities, in Pali: paramattha dhammas. We can experience their characteristics when they appear, no matter how we name them. Those who have developed 'insight' can experience them as they really are: impermanent and not self. The more we know different namas and rupas by experiencing their characteristics, the more we will see that 'self' is only a concept; it is not a paramattha dhamma. < ***** I'll be glad to hear your further reflections. Metta Sarah ===== #123757 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:44 pm Subject: Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. sarahprocter... Hi Chris, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > > From memory, I'd say however that the rules were set down by the Buddha not just in response lay complaints but also many in response to incidents that occurred within the Sangha of bhikkhus as well. > > > > > > I think only one rule was made because of the action of an arahant!!!" > > ... > > S: Do you remember which rule this was? <...> > Perhaps Chuck was referring to the arahant Pindola Bharadwaja? > http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_26lbud.htm ... S: Thank you - a good summary and example. Do you recall (roughly) how many rules were set down in respose to lay complaints and how many in response to incidents occurring amongst the bhikkhus? Metta Sarah ===== #123758 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the householders sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html > here eight conditions of welfare for the householder are stated by the Buddha , interesting the distinction between this life and future lives. > Furthermore the passage :"Herein a householder is wise: he is endowed with wisdom that understands the arising and cessation (of the five aggregates of existence); he is possessed of the noble penetrating insight that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is called the accomplishment of wisdom." > The Venerable notes : (of the five aggregates of existence)" which I think is better commented by 'phenomena' ( dhammas) .... S: Is there any problem, as you see it, in referring to the understanding of the arising and cessation of the five khandhas? It seems fine to me. ... > By the way : I suppose this condition (of wisdom) may please some members more than the recommendation of jhana practise as stated in another sutta. ;-) .... S: In this sutta, the Buddha is specifically referring to householders. There are very few suttas indeed which are addressed to householders and have any reference to mundane jhanas. Most people who became enlightened were ordinary people with no prior jhana attainments. Metta Sarah ===== #123759 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:02 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > It makes sense - it's one of the more specific explanations and helps to distinguish nama/rupa/self-concept. The idea of them fusing together to form the illusion of self is very helpful. .... S: As long as we're clear that it's the wrong understanding the wrong conceptualising that does the "fusing together". The namas and rupas that arise and fall away are never "fused together'. ... > Thanks, this is a helpful explanation. Thanks for the taking the time to be this thorough. ... S: Thx for your feedback and for reading through the responses! Metta Sarah ==== #123760 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:07 pm Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > D: the other shore means full detachment, cessation of kamma , cessation of suffering, nibbana .. so the teaching , Dhamma with its core , the 4 Noble Truths , fulfilled its purpose and can be left behind like a raft. > This includes good and bad states which are rooted in kamma (intended action) , abandon because they do not apply anymore. > The understanding is not left behind otherwise an Arahant could hardly teach those still caught in samsara. > Any disagreement ? ... S: It is the attachment and other kilesas (defilements) that are "left behind", eradicated at stages of enlightenment. It is not the 4 Noble Truths or the Dhamma which are left behind. Metta Sarah ===== #123761 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:25 pm Subject: Re: 'Give me a quote' (and I'll ignore it): Greatest Hits. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: As long as we're clear that it's the wrong understanding the wrong conceptualising that does the "fusing together". The namas and rupas that arise and fall away are never "fused together'. Understood. > > Thanks, this is a helpful explanation. Thanks for the taking the time to be this thorough. > ... > S: Thx for your feedback and for reading through the responses! :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #123762 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:33 pm Subject: Fw: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, Thx for your feedback! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > S: The only cittas it does NOT arise with are: > > a) the 5 pairs of sense-cognition (i.e. seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching - each may arise as kusala or akusala vipaka, therefore there are 10 cittas) and > > b) 6 other ahetuka (rootless) cittas. > > Therefore, 73 out of the 89 kinds of cittas are accompanied by viriya. > > I think it's important to realise that even when akusala cittas arise (and all of these are rooted in moha or ignorance/dullness) viriya arises at every single moment. > > > D: assuming background knowledge of the Matika necessary (?) > What does it mean 'The only cittas it does NOT arise with are: a) the 5 pairs of sense-cognition ' ? ... S: Good question. It means that at moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching, viriya (effort) does not arise. This is because these cittas do not need viriya in order to experience their objects (visible object and so on), but the other cittas, such as the subsequent javana cittas (when kusala and akusala states arise) need viirya to support or "strengthen" the cittas and other cetasikas to perform their functions. When we remember that viriya (effort or energy) is just a mental factor performing its task at almost every moment, not anything to do with a Self's will, it becomes easier to understand it. Even at moments when tina and middha (sloth and torpor) arise, there must be viriya supporting them. .... > idea to a ): These are only experienced in a state of awareness without an active sixth sense ..a passive state of mind . 'Listening ' instead of 'sending' , > no intention but reality experience .. a kamma break so to say. ...energy not translated into effort , no energizing of the mental factors .. .... S: I'm not sure I follow you. When there is awareness of seeing or hearing, for example, at such moments the awareness arises with the javana cittas. At such moments of awareness, viriya is there, supporting those cittas with awareness in a wholesome way. It just occurs naturally, not by any intention to be aware or have energy arise. Pls ask me more if this is not clear. ... > > b) Not clear is the relation of viraya to the dullness group (Mendis: 'effort (viriya), which energizes the mental factors and opposes idleness) > The citta accompanied by the cetasika dullness is hardly an initiation of viriya arousing, isn't it? ... S: Again, good qus. I think that what Mendis is referring to is (wholesome) viriya as an indriya (faculty). The controlling faculty of viriya (such as when satipatthana has been developed), controls or inhibits idleness/laziness, the defilement opposed to wholesome viriya. We have to know the context as to whether viriya in general or samma vayama/viriya is being referred to. ... > D: 'it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way. ' > This is the 'element of initiating or beginning of action' (pls compare with the sutta 'The Self Doer' ) which seems to me a constant issue of misunderstandings on the forum . I see the reason in a lack of consideration of (the common formula of) Dependent Orgination which presents the 'background ' of the deluded person. .... S: Another way of putting it would be: "Wrong effort is worse than no effort at all" - however it's put, there's no Self that initiates effort - just mental factors arising with particular cittas, performing their functions and falling away. Let me know if this makes sense! Metta Sarah ===== #123763 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:28 pm Subject: Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad upasaka_howard Hi Sarah, Prasad, and all - It occurs to me that what is going on is along the lines of the following example: A sharp "back pressure," a particular body-door rupa, is taken as object of consciousness and is felt by vedana as unpleasant. Subsequently, blindingly fast and typically subliminal thinking combines the fresh memory of that rupa with the fresh recollection of the feeling (or "vedanizing") of it into an imagined, presently occurring 'feeling' called "a back pain". There is, in fact, no such back pain outside of thinking. (There were only the body-door rupa, the knowing of it as object, the affective evaluation of it as unpleasant, and the rapid conceptualizing that followed.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123764 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the householders moellerdieter Dear Sarah , you wrote: In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html > here eight conditions of welfare for the householder are stated by the Buddha , interesting the distinction between this life and future lives. > Furthermore the passage :"Herein a householder is wise: he is endowed with wisdom that understands the arising and cessation (of the five aggregates of existence); he is possessed of the noble penetrating insight that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is called the accomplishment of wisdom." > The Venerable notes : (of the five aggregates of existence)" which I think is better commented by 'phenomena' ( dhammas) .... S: Is there any problem, as you see it, in referring to the understanding of the arising and cessation of the five khandhas? It seems fine to me. D: I think it is the arising and cessation of phenomena /dhammas..not their 'abstract classification ' .. (pls compare Ven.Nyanatiloka : Khanda -excerpt ) 'The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real existence, since only single representatives of these groups, mostly variable, can arise with any state of consciousness. For example, with one and the same unit of consciousness only one single kind of feeling, say joy or sorrow, can be associated and never more than one. Similarly, two different perceptions cannot arise at the same moment. Also, of the various kinds of sense-cognition or consciousness, only one can be present at a time, for example, seeing, hearing or inner consciousness, etc. Of the 50 mental formations, however, a smaller or larger number are always associated with every state of consciousness, as we shall see later on. Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body- and -mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental formations are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.' > By the way : I suppose this condition (of wisdom) may please some members more than the recommendation of jhana practise as stated in another sutta. ;-) .... S: In this sutta, the Buddha is specifically referring to householders. There are very few suttas indeed which are addressed to householders and have any reference to mundane jhanas. Most people who became enlightened were ordinary people with no prior jhana attainments. D: not ordinary from the point of kamma heritage : because of Path bonus from former lives /practise. Thinking about " bojjhaṅga: 'the 7 Factors of Enlightenment', are: Mindfulness (sati-sambojjhaṅga; s. sati), investigation of the law (dhamma-vicaya-sambojjhaṅga), energy (viriya-sambojjhaṅga; s. viriya, padhāna), rapture (pīti-sambojjhaṅga, q.v.) tranquillity (passaddhi-sambojjhaṅga, q.v.), concentration (samādhi-sambojjhaṅga, q.v.), equanimity (upekkhā, q.v.). "Because they lead to enlightenment, therefore they are called factors of enlightenment" (S. XLVI, 5)." (Nyanatiloka) we are busy with the first two , further development needs the energy (our topic) to experience the other factors in particular related to jhana. with Metta Dieter P.S. I miss Nina 's postings , hoping she is well #123765 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:20 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Question on difference between Train of chittas and ordinary thoughts ppraturi Dear Sarah, I do not disagree with the terminology and line of explanation...and it is by the book.... Also I understand these were based on personal experiences, as well.... However..... ---------------------------- >>S::....... If there is an attempt to focus or just be aware of particular rupas, it's not understanding with detachment, or equanimity as I see it, but a subtle attachment or desire for particular results. ----------------------------P: This Vipassana technique does not teach (or suggest) the student to expect any pertiular results. Subtle or otherwise.. Some students may start cherishing certain pleasan experiences (expecting them) and rejecting ceratin unpleasent exepriences (not expecing them) ... obviously not practicing the technique properly.......There are lot of warnings on this sitaution.-------------------------------------------- >>S: Unless there is a clear understanding of various dhammas, including all kinds of namas and all kinds of rupas as anatta, >>arisen by conditions, there cannot be any direct understanding of these dhammas as anicca, except as an idea. >>S: As mentioned, I don't think that the way to understand the tilakkana of dhammas is by selecting rupas experienced >>through the body-sense and focussing on these. I don't see this as being so different from various yoga and Chinese healing >>systems. There is no understanding of dhammas as anatta, as arising by conditions beyond anyone's control. No one can >>stop the hearing of sounds now, the attachment or aversion which is bound to follow. >>S:Rather than trying to suppress various dhammas from arising, more precious is the direct understanding of whatever appears very naturally in daily life. --------------------------------------------------P: Again this vipassana technique does not teach or suggets to supress any specific dhammas or suggest to expect any specific dhammas... Technique suggests see things (Reality) as it is ... this is repeated many times throught the instruction periods... However the technique expect a student sit and close ones eyes and mediatate... during the 10 day course.. ---------------------------------->> S:The Buddha taught the understanding of dhammas appearing through six doorways, not one. If there's no understanding >> seeing and visible object when they appear, like now, for example, there cannot be the beginning of understanding those >>dhammas as anicca. >>The most important teaching is that of dhammas as anatta - not within anyone's control at all. >>In planes where only rupas or only namas are experienced, it's impossible to develop the insights because it's impossible to >>understand anatta without the clear understanding of both namas and rupas, no matter how they're named. ------------------------------------------------------------------- P: Finally,, I do not know how a kinder garden student coming to learn dhamma practice .. can understand this high level understanding of terms... abhidhamma concepts.. and practice 24/7 like as suggested.. ( understanding namas...Rupas.. distinctions... conditionalities .... rasing and falling dhammas on senese doors... etc.. etc..) P: In order to teach simple eight fold path in three divisions taught by buddha.. Ledi Saydaw ( we do not know about his teacher) taught students ... Practicing morality (sila) ... Then concentrating mind using anapana meditation (samadhi).. Then enter into experiencial faculty and gaining understaning of reality (pa~~nya) ... using scanning body senations from head to toe... and observaing the changing nature of these sensations... Later This technique is converted in 10 day format and taught thousands of students worldwide... so that large number of students will get benifit( Bhahujana hitaya .. Bahujana sukhaya) When ceratin advanced students ... when they are interested ... Can study and perfect the practice with those details you have outlined.. That is my understanding.. Metta Prasad ===== #123766 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter & Sarah & Nina - In a message dated 4/16/2012 12:10:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: P.S. I miss Nina 's postings , hoping she is well =========================== Yes, the last post from Nina I see was a single one 3 days ago! Nina, is everything okay? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123767 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:36 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad ppraturi Howard, Does "backpressure" is there .. (of course with rise and fall)... ?? I understand mental back pain is projection... But it is blessing disguise.. it can be used as a tool to train one's own mind to see "back pressure's reeality of rise and fall. Metta,Prasad To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:28:39 -0400 Subject: [dsg] Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad Hi Sarah, Prasad, and all - It occurs to me that what is going on is along the lines of the following example: A sharp "back pressure," a particular body-door rupa, is taken as object of consciousness and is felt by vedana as unpleasant. Subsequently, blindingly fast and typically subliminal thinking combines the fresh memory of that rupa with the fresh recollection of the feeling (or "vedanizing") of it into an imagined, presently occurring 'feeling' called "a back pain". There is, in fact, no such back pain outside of thinking. (There were only the body-door rupa, the knowing of it as object, the affective evaluation of it as unpleasant, and the rapid conceptualizing that followed.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123768 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad upasaka_howard Hi, Prasad - In a message dated 4/16/2012 12:37:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ppraturi@... writes: Howard, Does "backpressure" is there .. (of course with rise and fall)... ?? I understand mental back pain is projection... But it is blessing disguise.. it can be used as a tool to train one's own mind to see "back pressure's reeality of rise and fall. Metta,Prasad =============================== I think I'm missing your point. Could you please clarify? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123769 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:21 am Subject: Reaction of Buddha toward Dukkha truth_aerator Dear all, When Gotama became Buddha He didn't want to teach others for: "And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me. ..."As I reflected thus, my mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma. MN26 ==================================================== How can anything be tiresome and troublesome for Buddha/Arhat? =========================================== "At present I am living hemmed in by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... by sectarian teachers and their disciples, and I live in discomfort and not at ease. Suppose I were to live alone, secluded from the crowd?"...Then, while the Lord was in solitude and seclusion, this thought arose in his mind: ...But now I live not hemmed in by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... in comfort and at ease." Ud4.5 ================================================== External surroundings did affect how Buddha felt. He experienced discomfort living with lay followers and monastics, but experienced comfort when alone. In DN16 Buddha has renounced his will to live. The Buddha could have prolonged His life, he could let it run its natural course, or He could shortened it. He chose the latter. His mission was done and to exist more would mean to suffer more. This suggests that Dukkha is so all-pervasive that it even affects the Buddha. External surroundings and circumstances do matter, which is why the Buddha praised physical seclusion. These suttas perhaps also suggest the Arhat/Buddha is not sort of state that is invulnerable to suffering and brings it "back to earth" and on achievable level. What are your comments? With best wishes., Alex http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html#fn-3 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.4.05.irel.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fnt-21 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fnt-26 #123770 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:59 am Subject: Re: Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi Sarah, Prasad, and all - > > It occurs to me that what is going on is along the lines of the > following example: > A sharp "back pressure," a particular body-door rupa, is taken as > object of consciousness and is felt by vedana as unpleasant. Subsequently, > blindingly fast and typically subliminal thinking combines the fresh memory of > that rupa with the fresh recollection of the feeling (or "vedanizing") of > it into an imagined, presently occurring 'feeling' called "a back pain". > There is, in fact, no such back pain outside of thinking. (There were only the > body-door rupa, the knowing of it as object, the affective evaluation of > it as unpleasant, and the rapid conceptualizing that followed.) Although the understanding of "sensation of pain" is based on conceptualizing, the initial rupa which lasts only a moment is normally not a single-moment phenomena, but is followed by many other moments of painful sensation. If this stream of painful sensation was not conceptualized as "pain" or "vedanized" as "bad," my contention is that it would still hurt. The many moments of the painful sensation would go on without the proliferation of thought, though the intensity of the sensation may be shared between rupa and thought-formation. I think that Buddha clearly distinguishes between the first and second arrow. The first arrow is going to hurt and be painful anyway, but the second arrow makes it worse and masks its true identity as mere sensation. I think that the original moment of vedana is also just a natural reaction of pleasant or unpleasant that doesn't have to go on beyond the moment. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #123771 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:03 am Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... epsteinrob Hi Howard and Dieter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Dieter & Sarah & Nina - > > In a message dated 4/16/2012 12:10:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > moellerdieter@... writes: > > P.S. I miss Nina 's postings , hoping she is well > =========================== > Yes, the last post from Nina I see was a single one 3 days ago! Nina, > is everything okay? I think Sarah mentioned that Nina was going to be traveling. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #123772 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:09 am Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... sarahprocter... Dear Howard & Dieter, > > Yes, the last post from Nina I see was a single one 3 days ago! Nina, > > is everything okay? > > I think Sarah mentioned that Nina was going to be traveling. ... S: She's well. Some walking with Lodewijk. She'll be back on Sat. Metta Sarah ===== #123773 From: "charlest" Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. dhammasaro Good friends all, Nice words.... But as one that "walked the talk" both as a monk and layperson, I do not agree... As a monk I had many temptations. To a lay person, they were of no consequence!!! But, as a monk the minor mental and physical transactions were!!! I confessed to a senior monk!!! As a lay person, I have many serious temptations of which would cause the end of my life!!! To whom do I confess, heh??? Who determines what a gude monk is, heh??? Who determines what a gude layperson is, heh??? YOU??? Tis nice to live in an "Ivory Tower", yes??? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Chuck, > > If one is not able to live the life of a bhikkhu observing all the rules in word and 'spirit', much better to live the life of a good lay-person, following as many precepts as one wishes. > [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123774 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:03 am Subject: the raft simile (was Re: [dsg] Re: The story of Bodhirajakumara and His Kokanada Palace) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ------ <. . .> >> KH: If you understood the Abhidhamma Pitaka you would know it and the Sutta Pitaka contained exactly the same teaching. > D: If you would understand that there is teaching in a conventional and absolute way -------- KH: I understand the same teaching is taught in two ways, one using Abhidhamma terminology and the other using conventional terminology. The point is there is only one Dhamma. ------------------- <. . .> >> KH: There are no cow pies in quantum physics, and there are no formal practices in the Dhamma. >> > D:but there are quantum physicists who may step into cow pies ... and yes : we disagree -------------------- KH: There has never been any doubt in my mind that we disagree. I see the Dhamma as a description of the way things ultimately are in the present moment. You see the Dhamma as a set of instructions to be followed. Those two understandings can never be reconciled. ----------------------------- <. . .> > D: I don't know what your rhetorical questions have to do with the backing of your claim ----------------------------- KH: They were not rhetorical. And I was not trying to back my claim: that has already been done. I was asking you to justify or explain the points made in Thanissaro's article. ------------------------------------------------- >> KH: But, if you would like to answer them now, we could still have a discussion. >> > D: never mind .. I thought you have facts to offer instead of opinion ------------------------------------------------- KH: We don't need to discuss Thanissaro if you don't want to. After all, he is just one of countless Buddhists who insist the Dhamma is a conventional teaching. The real topic for discussion is: is the Dhamma a conventional teaching? Or is the Dhamma deep, profound, known only to the wise, and totally unlike any other teaching? Ken H #123775 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/16/2012 2:59:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi Sarah, Prasad, and all - > > It occurs to me that what is going on is along the lines of the > following example: > A sharp "back pressure," a particular body-door rupa, is taken as > object of consciousness and is felt by vedana as unpleasant. Subsequently, > blindingly fast and typically subliminal thinking combines the fresh memory of > that rupa with the fresh recollection of the feeling (or "vedanizing") of > it into an imagined, presently occurring 'feeling' called "a back pain". > There is, in fact, no such back pain outside of thinking. (There were only the > body-door rupa, the knowing of it as object, the affective evaluation of > it as unpleasant, and the rapid conceptualizing that followed.) Although the understanding of "sensation of pain" is based on conceptualizing, the initial rupa which lasts only a moment is normally not a single-moment phenomena, but is followed by many other moments of painful sensation. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, I thought of that after writing what I wrote. All these sensations get combined into the concept. --------------------------------------------- If this stream of painful sensation was not conceptualized as "pain" or "vedanized" as "bad," my contention is that it would still hurt. --------------------------------------------- HCW: It would still be found unpleasant, which is exactly what it means to hurt. I don't question that at all. ---------------------------------------------- The many moments of the painful sensation would go on without the proliferation of thought, though the intensity of the sensation may be shared between rupa and thought-formation. I think that Buddha clearly distinguishes between the first and second arrow. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Of course. But that isn't the subject of my writing. I was trying to explain why vedana is confused with rupa by some folks like Goenka. That's all. ------------------------------------------------ The first arrow is going to hurt and be painful anyway, but the second arrow makes it worse and masks its true identity as mere sensation. I think that the original moment of vedana is also just a natural reaction of pleasant or unpleasant that doesn't have to go on beyond the moment. Best, Rob E. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123776 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... upasaka_howard Ah, yes, thanks Robert! :-) All the best, Howard In a message dated 4/16/2012 3:03:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: think Sarah mentioned that Nina was going to be traveling. #123777 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... upasaka_howard :-) Thanks, Sarah! With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/16/2012 3:09:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: She's well. Some walking with Lodewijk. She'll be back on Sat. #123778 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:40 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad ppraturi Howard, If mind (Nama) does not feel "back pressure" (Rupa).. it is not known or felt...When mind (Nama) feels, one can use this feeling phenomena to train his mind to come out of old conditioning.( constantly reacting with judgemnt bad or good) ............ This mental feeling is a "blessing in disguise" and it can be used as tool to train mind to understand its nature of impermanancee (anicca) and hence no point in reacting (equanimity)... Metta,Prasad To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:16:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [dsg] Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad Hi, Prasad - In a message dated 4/16/2012 12:37:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ppraturi@... writes: Howard, Does "backpressure" is there .. (of course with rise and fall)... ?? I understand mental back pain is projection... But it is blessing disguise.. it can be used as a tool to train one's own mind to see "back pressure's reeality of rise and fall. Metta,Prasad =============================== I think I'm missing your point. Could you please clarify? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123779 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Ah, yes, thanks Robert! :-) :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = > All the best, > Howard > > > In a message dated 4/16/2012 3:03:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > think Sarah mentioned that Nina was going to be traveling. #123780 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:47 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Happy Thai New Year dhammasaro Did any one view? http://www.justin.tv/room134/b/315097888 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: dhammasaro@... Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:32:43 -0400 Subject: [dsg] Happy Thai New Year Good friends all, May you all have a happy Thai New Year... http://justin.tv/room134/b/314950815 Above appears to be somewhere in Thailand. The men/women in uniform are Tourist Police. They were formed to help/protect the tourist should a tourist he/she felt a merchant /bar cheated/robbed them. http://www.justin.tv/room134/b/314950815 May be the same as above. Splashing/throwing water is a popular sport on the three day Thai New Year celebration. Also, smearing with a white substance... http://www.justin.tv/room134 The above should be Wat Thai Washington DC where I first ordained. The Royal Thai Air Force staff and many others from the Royal Thai Embassy attended my ordination as I was introduced to Buddhism when I taught a segment of the Royal Thai Air Force at Don Mueang Air Base near Bangkok. Happy Thai New Year... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #123781 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:15 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Happy Thai New Year dhammasaro http://www.justin.tv/room134/b/315097888 > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > From: dhammasaro@... > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:47:00 -0400 > Subject: RE: [dsg] Happy Thai New Year > > > Did any one view? > > http://www.justin.tv/room134/b/315097888 > [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123782 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:58 pm Subject: message to Lukas from Phil sarahprocter... Hi Lukas I have been thinking about you a lot, my brother in addiction. Yes, all of us are addicted to sense door objects, but there is no denying that some people are more prone to harmful addictions than others. I have heard discussions about whether that is due to caritas, or not, are we born with different preponderances of the kilesa? Whatever, it is is probably just pakkatupannissayapaccaya, who knows, but the key thing is that you and I and others struggle more with harmful addictions. I think it is good to remember how prevalent lobha is. The first javana cittas are rooted in lobha, right from birth. And it goes on until we die, and on and on and on. Lobha is the water we live in. When people at DSG give you advice, or remind you about Dhamma teachings that are helpful, there is still lobha, on the part of the giver, and the part of the receiver. Only a few rare openings in the dome of lobha, as A. Sujin said so memorably, or one moment of satipatthana in a lifetime, wealthy man, as Ven Dhammadaro famously said. I used to reject that, now it feels true. There is so much lobha, so little detachment. When we have intense cravings, like you for drugs, or me for my things, it feels like another level of lobha compared to the lobha that is so prevalent, like the air we live in. I guess it is stronger cittas. But people are attached to Dhamma too. If you are offered the chance to do Goenka meditation, and you can remember based on your knowledge of the teachings (I think you can) how corrupted and incorrect Goenka is, why not just do the meditation with you friend as a kind of yoga? Modern meditators are all so intent and serious (except the ones who spend all their time debating on the internet, just what kind of meditators are they, I guess they meditate in a parallel universe) but if there is ever a moment of truth, and the truth clicks, they will come to relaize that they are meditating because of lobha, their attachment to pleasant mental and physical feeling that comes from meditation. And it does come. (As well, of course, as their lobha for being a meditator, for making noble progress on the noble path, as they see it, blind as they are to all the lobha.) So I think it is good to benefit from the very pleasant mental and physical sensations that come from yoga (i.e "meditation.) I think for example of the kind of "meditation" taught by Th. Bhikkhu in the tradition of Ajahn Lee. As I wrote to you before, Ajhan Lee developed it as a way to fix his body after a heart attack during the rain retreat. It is indeed very similar to kinds of breath yoga I have seen, the "meditator" develops an awareness of the breath energy flowing through the body, even through the hands and the eyes. (Ah, the famous breathing through the eyes sutta...oops! No such sutta.) I used to be a daily drinker of alcohol for about 20 years, and used all kinds of drugs (including heroin a few times) a lot but drank less and less gradually. What finally finished it completely was discovering that the pleasant body and mental feelings developed through yoga/meditation were so much better than alcohol. Now I do daily breath yoga, in an Indian tradtion, it really lights up my brain, like a drug, but better. Of course it is irresponsible, maybe, to encourage you to "meditate", but I think if you can remember (and I believe you can) how corrupt modern meditation practices are you can find some that are helpful for mental and physical wellbeing, and it can help you overcome drugs. I think if you keep listening to A Sujin (you will need to listen to the tapes, quotations from her have completely disappeared from the e-mail list, it seems) you will stay free from getting caught up in the meditation seriously. I think one advantage of having done a lot of drugs is that we are good at "visualization", and most kinds of modern meditation are basically visualization practices. The healing breath energy flowing through the body, etc. We might be able to get in touch with that better than people who haven't experiemented with drugs. I know it comes very easily for me, even breathing through my hands, etc. Shit like that feels good brother! So yes, I am recommending meditation/yoga as a great substitute for drugs. There is lobha everywhere, even behind the words of Dhamma friends here (and of course very, very rare moments of alobha/kusala) so there is no need to fear lobha. You need to get well, and stay well. Most drug addicts go on and on for decades. You don't want to be dealing with drug addiction for the next 20 or 30 years. Do whatever is necessary to get well. starting with professional treatment and possibly inlcuding "meditation"/yoga for mental and physical pleasure that is better than drugs, and won't kill you. Just keep listening to A. Sujin so you don't get deceived by any of the organzations, which are like cults. (Especially Goenka.) Good luck, be well. I won't be at DSG, I find it sad to read so little of A.Sujin there. So I won't be able to respond to your reply, if any. And unfortunately my new work schedule is terribly, terribly busy, won't have time to Skype. Phil #123783 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad upasaka_howard Hi, Prasad - In a message dated 4/16/2012 9:44:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ppraturi@... writes: Howard, If mind (Nama) does not feel "back pressure" (Rupa).. it is not known or felt...When mind (Nama) feels, one can use this feeling phenomena to train his mind to come out of old conditioning.( constantly reacting with judgemnt bad or good) ------------------------------------------------ HCW: If there is no consciousness of the rupa(s), there is no feeling of it (or them) and no other mental operations occur, no doubt. And even if there is consciousness of it, both vedana and san~n~na are also required for *complete* apprehension of the actual rupa(s). But follow-up thinking of the sensations as "back pain" per se, a constructive conccptualizing, isn't a requisite but is something additional. It is thinking that points to (and enables) observing what actually occurs that is the most useful sort of thinking, not our usual fiction-creating thinking. --------------------------------------------- ............ This mental feeling is a "blessing in disguise" and it can be used as tool to train mind to understand its nature of impermanancee (anicca) and hence no point in reacting (equanimity)... Metta,Prasad =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123784 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:20 am Subject: Re: Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > A sharp "back pressure," a particular body-door rupa, is taken as > > object of consciousness and is felt by vedana as unpleasant. > Subsequently, > > blindingly fast and typically subliminal thinking combines the fresh > memory of > > that rupa with the fresh recollection of the feeling (or "vedanizing") > of > > it into an imagined, presently occurring 'feeling' called "a back pain". > > There is, in fact, no such back pain outside of thinking. (There were > only the > > body-door rupa, the knowing of it as object, the affective evaluation of > > it as unpleasant, and the rapid conceptualizing that followed.) > > Although the understanding of "sensation of pain" is based on > conceptualizing, the initial rupa which lasts only a moment is normally not a > single-moment phenomena, but is followed by many other moments of painful sensation. > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Yes, I thought of that after writing what I wrote. All these > sensations get combined into the concept. ... > I think that Buddha clearly distinguishes between the first and second > arrow. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Of course. But that isn't the subject of my writing. I was trying to > explain why vedana is confused with rupa by some folks like Goenka. That's > all. Well, I'm very interested in this, since I struggled for years with this issue and it took a loooong time to get any clarity about it. Part of the problem is that there is a lot of confusion about it, I believe, in the Buddhist community as a whole. It is very helpful to talk about it around here, since such a clear distinction is available between nama and rupa. Understanding that sensation is a rupa, and the vedana that "tastes" it is a nama, is very helpful for drawing the line as to where contact/sense-door event ends, and the experience/tasting/reaction of vedana begins. But there is another issue that adds confusion to this subject, I think. And that is our tendency to think that certain rupas/sensations are inherently pleasant or unpleasant. Of course this is not always true, but it's very hard to find the rare individual who enjoys being stabbed with a knife, or hates the taste of chocolate-covered chocolates. :-) So it is natural to think that the pleasant/unpleasant quality somehow belongs to the rupa instead of understanding that it takes a secondary act of consciousness to create the pleasant/unpleasant reaction or evaluation. I wonder whether in Buddha's formulation of vedana there is any assumption of inherent qualities of pleasant/unpleasant to various rupas. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #123785 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:39 am Subject: The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi upasaka_howard Hi, all - On another list I found out about this exciting development! You may check the following web site: _http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display.lasso?-KeyValue=33160&-Token.Action=&im\ age=1_ (http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display.lasso?-KeyValue=33160&-Token.Action=&im\ age=1) . I've already ordered my copy. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123786 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/17/2012 2:20:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Well, I'm very interested in this, since I struggled for years with this issue and it took a loooong time to get any clarity about it. Part of the problem is that there is a lot of confusion about it, I believe, in the Buddhist community as a whole. It is very helpful to talk about it around here, since such a clear distinction is available between nama and rupa. Understanding that sensation is a rupa, and the vedana that "tastes" it is a nama, is very helpful for drawing the line as to where contact/sense-door event ends, and the experience/tasting/reaction of vedana begins. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: If I'm not mistaken, Abhidhamma teaches that the operation called "vedana" is active simultaneously with the knowing of the object via the sense door, i.e., simultaneously with the contact, the vedana being a cetasika (concomitant). --------------------------------------------- But there is another issue that adds confusion to this subject, I think. And that is our tendency to think that certain rupas/sensations are inherently pleasant or unpleasant. Of course this is not always true, but it's very hard to find the rare individual who enjoys being stabbed with a knife, or hates the taste of chocolate-covered chocolates. :-) So it is natural to think that the pleasant/unpleasant quality somehow belongs to the rupa instead of understanding that it takes a secondary act of consciousness to create the pleasant/unpleasant reaction or evaluation. -------------------------------------------- HCW: I may well be wrong in this, but my understanding is that an object of consciousness, rupa or nama, has being felt as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral as a quality. So, a specific sensation is "to be felt as pleasant," and the operation of vedana is a true "tasting" operation. The thing is that the dhamma I feel is not "the same dhamma" as another feels. If I find a certain warmth pleasant and someone else finds "that warmth" unpleasant, they are just not the same warmth. (Of course, additionally, I suppose there may be perversions (or malfunctions) of vedana, just as there are of sa~n~na.) --------------------------------------------- I wonder whether in Buddha's formulation of vedana there is any assumption of inherent qualities of pleasant/unpleasant to various rupas. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: I vaguely recall a phrase in a sutta along the lines of "to be felt as pleasant". ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123787 From: SARAH CONNELL Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Thai New Year dhammasanna Thank you Chuck for the Utube video at the Wat in DC. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Especially the classical Thai dance. I was at Wat Buddhavas in Houston for the Saturday evening celebration and then went to Wat Pa Sri Thavorn also in Houston on Sunday. Sawasdee pii mai my friend in dhamma. May you be well and happy and always smiling, Sarah ________________________________ From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro To: DGG Sent: Tue, April 17, 2012 2:15:09 AM Subject: RE: [dsg] Happy Thai New Year http://www.justin.tv/room134/b/315097888 <...> #123788 From: Prasad Praturi Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:59 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad ppraturi Howard,, Also vedana needs to be understood ....what is said in " Phassa paccaya vedana" .... " Vedana paccaya Tanha" in paticcasmuppada.. What was meant be vedana here ??? Metta,Prasad To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:14:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/17/2012 2:20:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Well, I'm very interested in this, since I struggled for years with this issue and it took a loooong time to get any clarity about it. Part of the problem is that there is a lot of confusion about it, I believe, in the Buddhist community as a whole. It is very helpful to talk about it around here, since such a clear distinction is available between nama and rupa. Understanding that sensation is a rupa, and the vedana that "tastes" it is a nama, is very helpful for drawing the line as to where contact/sense-door event ends, and the experience/tasting/reaction of vedana begins. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: If I'm not mistaken, Abhidhamma teaches that the operation called "vedana" is active simultaneously with the knowing of the object via the sense door, i.e., simultaneously with the contact, the vedana being a cetasika (concomitant). --------------------------------------------- But there is another issue that adds confusion to this subject, I think. And that is our tendency to think that certain rupas/sensations are inherently pleasant or unpleasant. Of course this is not always true, but it's very hard to find the rare individual who enjoys being stabbed with a knife, or hates the taste of chocolate-covered chocolates. :-) So it is natural to think that the pleasant/unpleasant quality somehow belongs to the rupa instead of understanding that it takes a secondary act of consciousness to create the pleasant/unpleasant reaction or evaluation. -------------------------------------------- HCW: I may well be wrong in this, but my understanding is that an object of consciousness, rupa or nama, has being felt as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral as a quality. So, a specific sensation is "to be felt as pleasant," and the operation of vedana is a true "tasting" operation. The thing is that the dhamma I feel is not "the same dhamma" as another feels. If I find a certain warmth pleasant and someone else finds "that warmth" unpleasant, they are just not the same warmth. (Of course, additionally, I suppose there may be perversions (or malfunctions) of vedana, just as there are of sa~n~na.) --------------------------------------------- I wonder whether in Buddha's formulation of vedana there is any assumption of inherent qualities of pleasant/unpleasant to various rupas. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: I vaguely recall a phrase in a sutta along the lines of "to be felt as pleasant". ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123789 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Some Confuse Vedana with Rupas/Sarah & Prasad upasaka_howard Hi, Prasad - In a message dated 4/17/2012 5:02:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ppraturi@... writes: Howard,, Also vedana needs to be understood ....what is said in " Phassa paccaya vedana" .... " Vedana paccaya Tanha" in paticcasmuppada.. What was meant be vedana here ??? Metta,Prasad ============================== It seems to me that it means the usual, namely experiencing an object affectively (i.e., as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral). Contact is a (requisite) condition for affective experiencing of the contacted object, and that affective experiencing (if not neutral, I am quick to add) conditions craving (for presence or absence) of "more of the same". With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #123790 From: "colette_aube" Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:44 am Subject: Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. colette_aube Hi Sarah, > Do you recall (roughly) how many rules were set down in respose to lay complaints and how many in response to incidents occurring amongst the bhikkhus? > colette: Do you work for KPMG or another firm similar because it seems that your request is similar to asking a contractor EXACTLY how many nails were used to build a home, how many nails were used on the basement, first floor, second floor, etc, how many nails were used on this room, on that room, how many nails were used on each wall (see Obscuration), how much space was used in the separation BETWEEN each nail on the entire project and each individual room (box, see Chinese Box experiment)? Are you going to, THEN, after Charles replies to you, seek to find out the quantity of men that made complaints vs the quantity of women that made complaints? What about the Children? Are you then going to create nice neat columes of separation in AGE GROUPS? At what age is the head of cattle ready to be sent to market? You in Hong Kong are well known for the Hang Seng so you better believe that somebody is going to bet on the price of a child going up when it is sold on the market or the price of the child going down when it is sold on the market (see FUTURES TRADING). Won't you, then, be interested in the age of the person making the complaint? I've had a stomach flue the past two days, so, if you experience the qualities of rubbing your skin with sandpaper, due to my reply, sorry about that. ;) toodles, colette #123791 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:00 am Subject: RE: [dsg] The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi dhammasaro Thanks... ordered three copies... peace.... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... <.... On another list I found out about this exciting development! You may check the following web site: _http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display.lasso?-KeyValue=33160&-Token.Action=&im\ age=1_ (http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display.lasso?-KeyValue=33160&-Token.Action=&im\ age=1) . I've already ordered my copy. :-) <....> #123792 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:25 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Reaction of Buddha toward Dukkha dhammasaro Good friend Alex, et al As I was taught... Arahants and Buddhas are just sentient beings as you and I... Unlike you and I, they do not generate any new fruit of kamma. However, they do feel physical pain as you and I... An arahant or Buddha is not a god nor a God!!! as this ole sentient being understands... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck [Rest deleted by Chuck] #123793 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:08 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Happy Thai New Year dhammasaro Good friend Sarah C, et al Sincere warm thanks for commenting and viewing. I have visited both Houston wats over the years. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #123794 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:36 pm Subject: Re: eating animal corpses sarahprocter... Dear Vince, Rob E & Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Vince wrote: > >> HCW: > >> I don't eat meat, and not because of my kamma vipaka. I don't eat > >> meat, because > >> I don't want to support the killing of animals, and that because I don't > >> want to cause distress. > >> ---------------------------------------------- > > >R: That is laudable, and I understand those sentiments, although I am someone who both > > loves animals and also eats meat - a contradiction which I can't easily resolve. > > However, our personal response to animals, for better or for worse, seems to be a little > > bit different than the Buddha's teaching on meat-eating. > >V: I think - just my view - when we feel compassion in front the killing of some animal, it > is something arising in the present moment. When we feel the same in front a piece of meat > without any life, then here we are using the imagination. In that same moment we need to > imagine an animal when he was alive, or maybe we remember the sufferings of many animals > who are alive, etc.. But there is not any living being in front us. .... S: I agree with Vince. There cannot be compassion and metta towards meat. At the moment of eating meat, there is no distress for the animal as it's no longer alive. The Buddha stressed the importance of understanding the present citta, the present states of mind. As Vince says, in the case of the meat, we are using our imaginations, remembering the sufferings of animals and so on. More precious is a moment of direct understanding of the reality at such a time - thinking, aversion and so on. As Vince quoted, the Buddha was very specific about the circumstances under which bhikkhus could not eat meat. Metta Sarah ==== #123795 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:42 pm Subject: Re: Lukas. trip to england sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, > > L: I dont care much of others. > .... > S: As K.Sujin would say, those that don't care have to learn to care. Whilst we always think of ourselves and don't care much for others, we'll always be miserable, we'll always be obsessed with "Me" and "My problems". > > It's not just you but everyone finds themselves most important - no wonder there's so much distress when life doesn't work out as we'd like it to! ... S: I just wished to repeat this summary Nina gave from a Thai recording: N:> I just mentioned impact on our daily life and now I like to repeat what I heard this morning on a Thai recording, about extending mettaa. Yes, satipa.t.thaana and mettaa are closely connected. Someone asked Kh Sujin about extending mettaa. She said: we have to develop it a lot, since mettaa is the foot of the world [N: keeps the world going]. We should consider others as close friends, and include even animals. We want to help them. If there is no mettaa yet, we should train, she said. There is so much akusala and we should develop each kind of kusala. Not be fixed on gain or profit for ourselves. We should not pay lip service to metta while reciting the sutta. I like the exhortation to develop each and every kind of kusala. It makes me think of Thailand, such a good example. ..... S: Metta as the foot of the world..... Metta Sarah ===== #123796 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:52 pm Subject: Re: Research on bad effects of formal meditation retreat sarahprocter... Hi Eddie (& Ken H), #123618 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > E: As a side track, unless I am mistaken, all these tangible, material or physical > objects come into being on account of our mental forces according to Buddha's > teachings. So again in other words, mental forces come first and foremost before > these physical objects come into existence. I am still rethinking, delibrating > and skeptical though. I could be wrong on this so hopefully someone who is more > knowledgeable or wiser can come forward to endorse or correct it. > --------------- > > KH: I think the knowledgeable people here will want to hear a little more detail before they endorse or correct what you have said. Some rupas are conditioned by consciousness. I am not so sure they include tangible, visible, audible, gustatory or olfactory rupas. We shall see. :-) .... S: Rupas may be conditoned by citta (consciousness), kamma, temperature or nutriment. The rupas of the body may be conditioned by past citta, kamma, temperature or nutriment. Rupas outside the body are only conditioned by temperature. So we cannot say all rupas are conditioned by "mental forces". Let me know if there's more to discuss here. A good topic. Metta Sarah ----- #123797 From: "charlest" Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:44 pm Subject: Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. dhammasaro Good friends Colette, Sarah, and Sarah C, et al 1. Someone asked who sponsored my ordination at the Royal First Class Wat, Wat Bovonieves Viharn in Bangkok. It was Kasetsart University (Thai: มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์, commonly known and referred to as Kaset or Kaset University). In the USA, it would be considered "an Ivory League University." Just minutes before my ordination, the university president presented me a set of robes. The students and faculty are remembered in my meditation. 2. Please forgive me. What am I to answer? I forgot the question... [bummers] See: "> Are you going to, THEN, after Charles replies to you," 3. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #123798 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Complete English Translation of the A. N. by Bhikkhu Bodhi sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Good news! Thx for sharing. We'll be putting in an order... Metta Sarah >________________________________ > From: "upasaka@..." >On another list I found out about this exciting development! You may >check the following web site: >_http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display.lasso?-KeyValue=33160&-Token.Action=&i\ mage=1_ >(http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display.lasso?-KeyValue=33160&-Token.Action=&i\ mage=1) . >I've already ordered my copy. :-) <...> #123799 From: "colette_aube" Date: Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:34 pm Subject: Re: [SariputtaDhamma] RE: Vinaya was intended for the monks. colette_aube Hi Charles, congradulations for being ordained. > "> Are you going to, THEN, after Charles replies to you," > > 3. peace... > This is my post questioning Sarah. I was questioning her without remembering that you had already given the information and she, Sarah, was speaking to Christine, Chris. It would be Chris or Christine who is replying to Sarah, not you. MY MISTAKE, Pardon me. toodles, colette