#127200 From: "sarah" wrote: > He says that if I cannot find something that I want to find in the Tipi.taka, I should not waste my time looking for it, but to consider it with the two qualities (out of many) of the Buddha's Teachings. > > (1) desanaa-vilaasa, which means the beauty of instruction (page 635 of PTS Dictionary). Instead of wasting my time looking for it, I should have the complete faith in the beauty of the instructions by the Buddha. > > (2) veneyya-ajjhaasaya, which means the Buddha instructs the persons who are ready to receive the Teachings (veneyya), in accordance with their wish (ajjhaasaya) based on their caaritta. So, depending on the situation, the Buddha may say one set of fetters at one place, and another set of fetters at another place. It is not for me to reason why? In fact, that is the beauty of Sammaa-sambodhi ~naa.na! #127201 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han & all, I completely agree with the comments below and think it useless to worry about 'why this?' or 'why that?' when there can be understanding of the reality now. "So, depending on the situation, the Buddha may say one set of fetters at one place, and another set of fetters at another place", as you quote. Same with many classifications. When I was looked at the references in the Psm as given by Jagkrit and adding another translation with some Pali terms, I was not attempting to answer your question but just adding a little more on uddhacca in the context it had been given. I had checked the reference because I hadn't understood some of the words used like 'opas'. So I was just sharing my own studies. I'm usually behind, especially when I check references, as I don't have books with me in Hong Kong, so feel free to ignore then anytime. Metta Sarah #127202 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > I actually meant that it is seeing, or the eye, or visual portal that is > ideal. All that is experienced is the seen. Seeing, the eye, visual portal > are inferred, and they have to be inferred because we do not experience > them. And we do not experience them, because conditions well precede > experience, which amongst other things allows for the illusion of a > controlling self. Would you say that there is an experience of change? Follow up question, provided you answer in the affirmative: If there is an experience of change, can you describe it without recourse to inference? - In Dhamma Josh #127203 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > MN 119. Kayagatasati Sutta - Mindfulness of the Body > (translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi) > > The sutta describes > [1] MINDFULNESS OF BREATHING (paragraph 4) > [2] THE FOUR POSTURES (paragraph 5) > [3] FULL AWARENESS (paragraph 6) > [4] FOULNESS OF THE BODY PARTS (paragraph 7) > [5] ELEMENTS (paragraph 8) > [6] THE NINE CHARNEL GROUND CONTEMPLATIONS (paragraphs 9-17) > > Up to this point, it is the same as in MN 10 Satipa.t.thaana Sutta. Then this sutta becomes different from MN 10. I will present from this point. ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - #127205 From: "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Han & all, > > I completely agree with the comments below and think it useless to worry about 'why this?' or 'why that?' when there can be understanding of the reality now. "So, depending on the situation, the Buddha may say one set of fetters at one place, and another set of fetters at another place", as you quote. Same with many classifications. > > When I was looked at the references in the Psm as given by Jagkrit and adding another translation with some Pali terms, I was not attempting to answer your question but just adding a little more on uddhacca in the context it had been given. I had checked the reference because I hadn't understood some of the words used like 'opas'. So I was just sharing my own studies. > > I'm usually behind, especially when I check references, as I don't have books with me in Hong Kong, so feel free to ignore then anytime. > > Metta > > Sarah > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > > He says that if I cannot find something that I want to find in the Tipi.taka, I should not waste my time looking for it, but to consider it with the two qualities (out of many) of the Buddha's Teachings. > > > > (1) desanaa-vilaasa, which means the beauty of instruction (page 635 of PTS Dictionary). Instead of wasting my time looking for it, I should have the complete faith in the beauty of the instructions by the Buddha. > > > > (2) veneyya-ajjhaasaya, which means the Buddha instructs the persons who are ready to receive the Teachings (veneyya), in accordance with their wish (ajjhaasaya) based on their caaritta. So, depending on the situation, the Buddha may say one set of fetters at one place, and another set of fetters at another place. It is not for me to reason why? In fact, that is the beauty of Sammaa-sambodhi ~naa.na! > #127206 From: "sarah" wrote: > > 1. good timing > > 2. kind words > > 3. useful > > 4. real words (sajja) > > 5. speaking with metta > > > > I think your idea of speaking mentioned above contents with these 5 categories. > > L: Was it in Suttas? .... S: Here are a couple of sutta quotes which may be relevant: A) MN 58 (as given recently by Pt): >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html ---quote [1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. [2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. [3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. [4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. [5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. [6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings." *** B) MN 21, Kakacuupama Sutta (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl): " 'Bhikkhus, there are these five courses of speech that others may use when they address you: their speech may be timely or untimely, true or untrue, gentle or harsh, connected with good or with harm, spoken with a mind of loving-kindness or with inner hate........Herein, bhikkhus, you should train thus: 'Our minds will remain unaffected, and we shall utter no evil words; we shall abide compassionate for their welfare, with a mind of loving-kindness, without inner hate. We shall abide pervading that person with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, and starting with him, we shall abide pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without hostility and without ill will.' That is how you should train, bhikkhus." ... >I mean this 5 categories. I think I read Sutta, when a disciple speaks in accordance to Dhamma, this is very right speach. If there is no concern of Dhamma, this is not a right speach. > I will appreciate to hear more on that. .... S: When it is wholesome, it is 'right', it is in accordance with the Buddha's Teachings. MN 2 Sabbaasava Sutta (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl): " 'What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by seeing (dassana)? Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, does not understand what things are fit for attention and what things are unfit for attention. Since this is so, he attends to those things unfit for attention and he does not attend to those things fit for attention.' " Note: "MA makes the important point that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed." Metta Sarah ===== #127207 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > Perhaps it might be clearer to paraphrase everything I have said so far as > - there is no experience of conditions. There is no denial of > conditionality in that - it is just that conditionality is known, or > understood, not seen, heard, felt, etc. I would agree that 'seeing' as a function or category is not experienced through the eye, only the experience of seeing. However, I would not go so far as to say that only "visual object" is experienced, rather than seeing at all. Only because "visual object" seems to also be a kind of conclusionary categorization of that which is experienced. I guess I'm afraid of turning seeing into a set of objects, rather than a continuous sequence of experiences. Not sure if that is clear or not, but basically I guess I agree that there is no experience of "the eye" in seeing, nor certainly any experiences of "portals" or functions. I wonder though whether some of the feelings and reactions that accompany the visual aspect of seeing, such as pain from bright light, or being drawn to an attractive object, should all be defined as separate, mental events, and the visual only be defined by the cold object, even though that object never occurs all by itself without some sort of accompanying qualities. I would cut off my own inclusion of such accompaniments at the point that other functions take over, such as vedana, which is a separate moment of reaction, and at aspects of experience that can't occur without conceptualization. So basically I agree with you...? ... > We agree that seeing isn't seen - can I advance this one step further and > say that seeing is understood, not experienced? In other words, a > one-facultied being cannot know seeing, they only know the seen. > Understanding cannot possible arise from whatever is seen only. Yes, I think I agree with that. There seems to me to be a certain degree of intelligence in seeing itself, that draws the visual 'scan' to or away from objects and instills certain qualities or reactions within the seeing itself, but it is hard to talk about such without bringing the "eye" into the equation, such as pain from bright light, and I am also not sure if I am right, or how to define, the sense of a visual intelligence. ...there is no need to introduce the eye, seeing, or visual > portal into the experience of what is seen. IMO, all of these terms are all > attempts at explaining the seen, and that is something totally different. Okay, agreed. > The alleged conditionality of the seen and the seen are not identical - > what is seen is immanent, but the eye, seeing, visual portal are inferences > (thinking) about processes of which we have no direct experience. If we > did, we wouldn't have to infer. Agreed to a point - only to add that certain inferences are "natural" occurrences for a being that has mind as a faculty; and also to add that "as thought" the experiences of those concepts is direct, just not direct perceptions. You are right that they should be identified as mental experiences, not perceptual. ... > I actually meant that it is seeing, or the eye, or visual portal that is > ideal. All that is experienced is the seen. Seeing, the eye, visual portal > are inferred, and they have to be inferred because we do not experience > them. And we do not experience them, because conditions well precede > experience, which amongst other things allows for the illusion of a > controlling self. I think I see the point you were making with the distant visual object being the "condition" for the light which reaches the eye, ie, the conditions are not experienced, only the experiential result. Okay, that is more clear than it was before. You were not saying that the visual object is unreal or inaccurate because the light source is distant, but merely that those conditions that provide for the visual object are not experienced, and thus the act of perception has no access to conditions. Do I understand you correctly now? ...you don't seem to want to defend your own view, > > so I guess I'm dancing with my own speech portal here, and it's starting to > > echo. Care to participate? > > > > > Sure. :-) Okay, great. I think that, due to various unseen conditions, we're already in process. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #127208 From: han tun wrote: From: Robert E Subject: [dsg] Re: MN 119. Kayagatasati Sutta (1) To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012, 10:24 AM Dear Han, Thank you so much for presenting this very special sutta, one that I am very interested in. I will follow it and read it carefully. I don't know if I'll have anything useful to say, but I will be reading with great interest. Best, Rob E. #127209 From: "philip" > Discussion about thinking and awareness. > > Kh S: One should understand the difference between the moments sati > accompanies thinking and direct awareness. Whenever direct awareness > arises it is aware and pa~n~naa begins to see that before there was > not direct awareness at all. Direct awareness has a characteristic of > a reality as its object. > > Ivan: What about the characteristic which thinks of realities, there > can be understanding of what that thinking is. > > Kh S: There is no self who tries to manage anything at all. Whatever > arises appears so rapidly, it is just at that moment of being aware. > Pa~n~naa begins to grow when awareness grows. > > Realities do not stay. The moment of awareness is gone but it will > condition other moments of understanding other realities, on and on. > > One should not cling to any reality that has passed already. > > Each reality arises and falls away, be it seeing, thinking or any > other reality. > > Ivan: Sometimes we worry too much about the way we think. > > Kh S: How deeply rooted the self is. > > Jon: what about this idea: when there is dosa it is time to > contemplate dosa? > > Kh S: It is not the time to contemplate, there can be direct > awareness of that characteristic as not self. Dosa has its > characteristic, each reality has its own characteristic. > > Satipatthaana is just for a moment, this has to be remembered, > otherwise there is an idea of self who tries to have more satipatthana. > > ****** > > Nina. > > > #127210 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:05 pm Subject: Re: Kaccayana sutta kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- <. . .> > H: I am wondering, is there anyone reading this forum who disputes that "existence" for the Buddha is framed in terms of dependent arising, and not in terms of things/existents? > <. . .> I always understand "exist" in these contexts to always mean "exist in dependence on .....", and that it would be far better translated as "occur". --- KH: I don't know how to make it any clearer, according to the Theravada Dhamma conditioned dhammas are *things* that *exist* for one moment, during which they arise, persist and fall. I know some people insist that dhammas are somehow 'mere occurrences' (whatever that might mean) that lack `own being'. This view led to schisms in the sangha around the time of Nagarjuna, but I think the interesting question is why is it so important to those people to believe it? It must entail a fundamentally different understanding of the Dhamma. Ken H #127212 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > KH: I don't know how to make it any clearer, according to the Theravada Dhamma conditioned dhammas are *things* that *exist* for one moment, during which they arise, persist and fall. > > I know some people insist that dhammas are somehow 'mere occurrences' (whatever that might mean) that lack `own being'. This view led to schisms in the sangha around the time of Nagarjuna, but I think the interesting question is why is it so important to those people to believe it? It must entail a fundamentally different understanding of the Dhamma. > > Ken H > I have a hunch that this concern is more prevalent in the West, now, insofar as it is likely a rare thing for a Westerner to be exposed purely to the Theravada tradition. If you go to any bookstore, or do a web search on Buddhism there will be heavy loads of Mahayana Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Zen, quantum physics, Taoism, etc. That was my experience. And, consequently, I ended up knowing way more than I needed to about these groups & it was only after a long time that I could tell clearly how their positions differed from suttas/Abhidhamma. There are some historical problems with it too. The Sarvastivadins took the notion of "svabhava" to the extreme of saying that past dharmas & future dharmas exist inherently as past & future dharmas & made other such misconclusions such as the relapsing Arhat. They Sanskritized Buddhism, too, which I think had some unintended consequences. And Nagarjuna read into the term "svabhava" a huge panorama of meanings that simply aren't there, which often bleeds into later scholarship. To be honest, if it weren't for the aesthetic beauty of the Abhidhammattha-sangaha I don't know if I'd have had the good fortune to want to study Abhidhamma itself. in Dhamma - Josh #127213 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > I actually meant that it is seeing, or the eye, or visual portal that is > > ideal. All that is experienced is the seen. Seeing, the eye, visual > portal > > are inferred, and they have to be inferred because we do not experience > > them. And we do not experience them, because conditions well precede > > experience, which amongst other things allows for the illusion of a > > controlling self. > > Would you say that there is an experience of change? > > I would say change is what is experienced, yes. > Follow up question, provided you answer in the affirmative: > > If there is an experience of change, can you describe it without recourse > to inference? > > Perhaps not, but that is a limitation of describing, not a limitation of experience. Undescribed experience has no beginnings or endings. Such unreflected experience has no moments, no stasis, such experience simply is change. If it has to be described, I think it cannot be more precisely captured than "All dhammas are anicca". But as we both know, even that accuracy gives foothold to the inclination to reify :-) > - In Dhamma > Josh > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127214 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear friends, > > I got recently an unexpected message from Wojtek, a polish friend who was > attending our meetings with Acharn and did a lot of organisation work. > Always assisting with help to our thai group. He expressed his thanks that > was possible to organise such a meetings in Poland, that he recalls as very > nice. He said if there will be meetings in a future he is always happy to > join. etc.. > > I told him I have serious problems recently I cannot manage. > > He answered this: > > Wojtek: "What problems? > > Is seeing a problem? Is hearing a problem? :) > > Unfortunately, I am affraid that your problems are not real." > > Very helpful answer. Always happy to hear Dhamma from good friends. > > Best wishes > Lukas > > I was reminded by your exchange, somehow, of Bahiya's problem - was he an arahant or on the way there? On the surface, the Buddha and Wojtek answered similarly. But, really, the answers were very different. The Buddha said words to the effect that in the seen there is only the seen, in the heard there is only the heard etc Bahiya understood this, and was soon gored to death by a cow, which was not a problem. The difference between the messages is the difference between the seen and seeing, which are gynormous. Sorry guys, seeing IS a problem, and watch out for them cows :-) > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127215 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hello, > I forgot that whatever one say or write to a dsg member, ends up as a dsg post, discussion starter or both. > ========= J: :-)), :-)). And I think I know at least one other member who would agree with this sentiment. > ========= > Greetings from Poland, > ========= J: Good to see you again. > ========== > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > > > I got recently an unexpected message from Wojtek, a polish friend who was attending our meetings with Acharn and did a lot of organisation work. Always assisting with help to our thai group. He expressed his thanks that was possible to organise such a meetings in Poland, that he recalls as very nice. He said if there will be meetings in a future he is always happy to join. etc.. > > > > > > I told him I have serious problems recently I cannot manage. > > > > > > He answered this: > > > > > > Wojtek: "What problems? > > > > > > Is seeing a problem? Is hearing a problem? :) > > > > > > Unfortunately, I am affraid that your problems are not real." > ======= J: Either this was a tongue-in-cheek remark or you were taking in more of what was being discussed in Poland than I realised :-)) Jon PS I have some notes that I made some time ago on our original discussion thread. Will try to dig them out and send off while you're still around. #127216 From: "Lukas" Best wishes Lukas > I was reminded by your exchange, somehow, of Bahiya's problem - was he an > arahant or on the way there? > > On the surface, the Buddha and Wojtek answered similarly. > > But, really, the answers were very different. > > The Buddha said words to the effect that in the seen there is only the > seen, in the heard there is only the heard etc > > Bahiya understood this, and was soon gored to death by a cow, which was not > a problem. > > The difference between the messages is the difference between the seen and > seeing, which are gynormous. > > Sorry guys, seeing IS a problem, and watch out for them cows :-) > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Herman > > > I do not know what I do not know > > > > #127217 From: "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi Herman, > You mean Bahiya Sutta: > > > Then a devata who had once been a blood relative of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth — compassionate, desiring his welfare, knowing with her own awareness the line of thinking that had arisen in his awareness — went to him and on arrival said to him, "You, Bahiya, are neither an arahant nor have you entered the path of arahantship. You don't even have the practice whereby you would become an arahant or enter the path of arahantship." > > "Then who, in this world with its devas, are arahants or have entered the path to arahantship?" > > "Bahiya, there is a city in the northern country named Savatthi. There the Blessed One — an arahant, rightly self-awakened — is living now. He truly is an arahant and teaches the Dhamma leading to arahantship." > > Then Bahiya, deeply chastened by the devata, left Supparaka right then and, in the space of one night,[1] went all the way to where the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapi??ika's monastery. Now on that occasion, a large number of monks were doing walking meditation in the open air. He went to them and, on arrival, said, "Where, venerable sirs, is the Blessed One — the arahant, rightly self-awakened — now staying? We want to see that Blessed One — the arahant, rightly self-awakened." > > "The Blessed One has gone into town for alms." > > Then Bahiya, hurriedly leaving Jeta's Grove and entering Savatthi, saw the Blessed One going for alms in Savatthi — serene & inspiring serene confidence, calming, his senses at peace, his mind at peace, having attained the utmost tranquility & poise, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a Great One (naga). Seeing him, he approached the Blessed One and, on reaching him, threw himself down, with his head at the Blessed One's feet, and said, "Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare & bliss." > > When this was said, the Blessed One said to him, "This is not the time, Bahiya. We have entered the town for alms." > > A second time, Bahiya said to the Blessed One, "But it is hard to know for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare & bliss." > > A second time, the Blessed One said to him, "This is not the time, Bahiya. We have entered the town for alms." > > A third time, Bahiya said to the Blessed One, "But it is hard to know for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare & bliss." > > "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2] > > Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having exhorted Bahiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the Dhamma, the Blessed One left. > > Now, not long after the Blessed One's departure, Bahiya was attacked & killed by a cow with a young calf. Then the Blessed One, having gone for alms in Savatthi, after the meal, returning from his alms round with a large number of monks, saw that Bahiya had died. On seeing him, he said to the monks, "Take Bahiya's body, monks, and, placing it on a litter and carrying it away, cremate it and build him a memorial. Your companion in the holy life has died." > > Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, the monks — placing Bahiya's body on a litter, carrying it away, cremating it, and building him a memorial — went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to him, "Bahiya's body has been cremated, lord, and his memorial has been built. What is his destination? What is his future state?" > > "Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound." > > Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed: > > > Where water, earth, > fire, & wind > have no footing: > There the stars don't shine, > the sun isn't visible. > There the moon doesn't appear. > There darkness is not found. > And when a sage, > a brahman through sagacity, > has realized [this] for himself, > then from form & formless, > from bliss & pain, > he is freed.> > > > Best wishes > Lukas > > > > > > I was reminded by your exchange, somehow, of Bahiya's problem - was he an > > arahant or on the way there? > > > > On the surface, the Buddha and Wojtek answered similarly. > > > > But, really, the answers were very different. > > > > The Buddha said words to the effect that in the seen there is only the > > seen, in the heard there is only the heard etc > > > > Bahiya understood this, and was soon gored to death by a cow, which was not > > a problem. > > > > The difference between the messages is the difference between the seen and > > seeing, which are gynormous. > > > > Sorry guys, seeing IS a problem, and watch out for them cows :-) > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > > > Herman > > > > > > I do not know what I do not know > > > > > > > > > #127218 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > Perhaps not, but that is a limitation of describing, not a limitation of > experience. > > Undescribed experience has no beginnings or endings. Such unreflected > experience has no moments, no stasis, such experience simply is change. If > it has to be described, I think it cannot be more precisely captured than > "All dhammas are anicca". > > But as we both know, even that accuracy gives foothold to the inclination > to reify :-) > I am glad you don't say change is not experienced. But I think you see already that no one could really describe change without recourse to two instants or moments in time, & insofar as we define our present purely as this very instant & say, also, that the past instant cannot be experienced in the present by definition, then we "infer" the change of the present by the subtle, architectural memory of the past & its apparent distinction from right now. We might sometimes wish Zeno's paradox about distance to be true (I'd rather drive all day, for example, than actually have to go in to work), but it isn't --- at least, not in experience. Now the question is, if we experience change, is this experience of change somehow descriptive to the mind, itself? And is the mind making an inference when this occurs? And if so, is it perhaps true that experience involves a certain degree of necessary inferences --- or, at the very least, what seem to be inferences from the standpoint of language? I would say it does. And if that is so, the division of eye, object & eye-consciousness as each being experienced directly on the occasion of seeing makes perfect sense. It is not to say that each is experienced in isolation, but that each is a necessary, distinct-but-not-separable-quality of seeing, similar to the way the quality of change is a necessity for experience to be at all intelligible. Then again, I may be wrong. Your thoughts? in Dhamma - Josh #127220 From: "Yawares Sastri" They are all so great that I would like to repost them all but > here is one I especially like. ----- N: Thanks for quoting. When going over Poland discussions I also keep on wanting to transcribe, but not enough time to do all. They have so many reminders about the present reality. Too much paperwork, bank notes, etc. And arranging all by myself the journey to Thailand with the necessary annulation insurance. ------ Nina. #127222 From: Nina van Gorkom There is lobha for that which has arisen, at such times there is > not awareness, seeing is not understood, it is "I" who sees, ditthi > arises with lobha... > > My question. We know there is lobha with ditthi and lobha without > ditthi..... > What is the difference between lobha with and without ditthi, is it > possible to give examples or just dependent on the citta, > irregardless of the situation..? (I remember similes about a boy > and an apple from Vism....) > ------- > N: We cannot pinpoint the different moments. Difficult to know when there is di.t.thi, but it is bound to be around the corner, we have not eradicated it. We cannot try to find out, then there is the self trying. There are many kinds of di.t.thi, sakkaya di.t.thi, personality belief, conditions other types of di.t.thi. We think that a person is there and that he can last. Difficult to realize that even now at this moment there is no one there. ------ Nina. #127223 From: Nina van Gorkom I would like to know what you think the best possible English > translation of the term "sankhara" is when referring to a khandha. ----- N: What about the khandha of formations? These cetasikas form up or condition this moment. ----- Nina. #127224 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:05 am Subject: Re: Kaccayana sutta kenhowardau Hi Josh, ---- <. . .> > J: I have a hunch that this concern is more prevalent in the West, now, insofar as it is likely a rare thing for a Westerner to be exposed purely to the Theravada tradition. If you go to any bookstore, or do a web search on Buddhism there will be heavy loads of Mahayana Buddhism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Zen, quantum physics, Taoism, etc. > >That was my experience. And, consequently, I ended up knowing way more than I needed to about these groups & it was only after a long time that I could tell clearly how their positions differed from suttas/Abhidhamma. ---- KH: I think most of us at DSG have been down that path. And the greatest single cause of our misadventures has possibly been the view that dhammas do not ultimately exist. Consider, for example, the book Yawares has been quoting.* No disrespect to Yawares, of course, but that type of book is what we end up with if we discount the ultimate reality of dhammas. If nothing really exists then anyone can say anything about the Dhamma and no one (no sect or cult) can be any more wrong, or right, than anyone else. We end up with meaningless doubletalk which bears no resemblance to the Abhidhamma. When the differences are pointed out we are told the Abhidhamma must be wrong. Ken H * "Dharmas here are all empty, all are the primal void. None are born or die. Nor are they stained or pure, nor do they wax or wane. So in emptiness no form, no feeling, thought, or choice nor is there consciousness. No eye, ear, nose,tongue, body, mind; no color, sound, smell, taste, touch,or what the mind takes hold of, nor even act of sensing. No ignorance or end of it nor all that comes of ignorance: no withering, no death, no end of them. Nor is there pain or cause of pain or cease in pain or noble path to lead from pain, not even wisdom to attain, attainment too is emptiness. So know that the bodhisattva holding to nothing whatever but dwelling in prajna wisdom is freed of delusive hindrance, rid of the fear bred by it, and reaches clearest nirvana." #127227 From: "truth_aerator" KH: what we end up with if we discount the ultimate reality of >dhammas. If nothing really exists then anyone can say anything about >the Dhamma and no one (no sect or cult) can be any more wrong, or >right, than anyone else. >>>================================ And what is that ultimate reality that you propose that exists? Why isn't that a little Atta? Other than concepts which as you say do not rise and fall, what can we say? So it seems that Heart Sutra is more in line with Abhidhamma than what some Theravadins say... With best wishes, Alex #127228 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Dear Josh, > Op 18-okt-2012, om 4:59 heeft jrg493 het volgende geschreven: > > > I would like to know what you think the best possible English > > translation of the term "sankhara" is when referring to a khandha. > ----- > N: What about the khandha of formations? These cetasikas form up or > condition this moment. > ----- > Nina. > "Formations" is an interesting way to translate it. Would you say "conditions" is as good a translation? Or even "conditioning"? In Dhamma - Josh #127229 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Hello KenH, all, > > >KH: what we end up with if we discount the ultimate reality of >dhammas. If nothing really exists then anyone can say anything about >the Dhamma and no one (no sect or cult) can be any more wrong, or >right, than anyone else. > >>>================================ > > And what is that ultimate reality that you propose that exists? > http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm In Dhamma, - Josh #127230 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:40 pm Subject: Re: Kaccayana sutta kenhowardau Hi Alex, ---- <. . .> > A: And what is that ultimate reality that you propose that exists? > > Why isn't that a little Atta? > > Other than concepts which as you say do not rise and fall, what can we say? So it seems that Heart Sutra is more in line with Abhidhamma than what some Theravadins say... ---- KH: Thanks for the questions. I don't know anything about the Heart Sutra, but I can say something about why paramattha dhammas aren't little attas. In my opinion the Abhidhamma starts with two basic points. One is that dhammas - and *only* dhammas - exist. The other is that all conditioned dhammas are anicca dukkha and anatta, while all dhammas are anatta. Now, you tell me Alex: if there were no dhammas what exactly would be anicca dukkha and anatta? The answer is nothing would be. And wouldn't that be music to the ears of eternalists and annhilationists? No Middle Way! :-) Ken H #127231 From: "Lukas" > > I would like to know what you think the best possible English > > > translation of the term "sankhara" is when referring to a khandha. > > ----- > > N: What about the khandha of formations? These cetasikas form up or > > condition this moment. > > ----- > > Nina. > > > > > "Formations" is an interesting way to translate it. > > Would you say "conditions" is as good a translation? Or even "conditioning"? > > In Dhamma > - Josh > #127232 From: "jagkrit2012" Khun Han: MN 119. Kayagatasati Sutta - Mindfulness of the Body > (translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi) > > The sutta describes > [1] MINDFULNESS OF BREATHING (paragraph 4) > [2] THE FOUR POSTURES (paragraph 5) > [3] FULL AWARENESS (paragraph 6) > [4] FOULNESS OF THE BODY PARTS (paragraph 7) > [5] ELEMENTS (paragraph 8) > [6] THE NINE CHARNEL GROUND CONTEMPLATIONS (paragraphs 9-17) > [7] THE JHANAS (paragraphs 18-21) > [8] PROGRESS THROUGH MINDFULNESS OF THE BODY (paragraphs 22-31) JJ: Thank you very much for your detail posting of this great sutta. I've learnt more about this sutta and noticing that from [1] to [6] of Kayagatasati is satipatthana which is vipassana and [7] is sammatha. In siihanaada sutta, Ven. Saariputta was talking about Kayagatasati in the aspect of satipatthana or mindfulness not samatha. Because Kayagatasati which is samatha brings jhanas, not awareness. What do you think? > --------------- > > Han: It is most encouraging to know the ten benefits that may be expected if one repeatedly practices kaayagataasati, develops, cultivates, and uses it as a vehicle, uses it as a basis, establishes, consolidates, and is well undertaken. > > In AN 9.11 Siihanaada sutta, Venerable Saariputta was wrongly accused by a young bhikkhu that he was struck by the Elder that almost damaged his ear, and having done that without so much as begging his pardon, the Elder set out on his journey. When asked by the Buddha, Venerable Saariputta said that only if mindfulness of the body in the body was not established by him he would have done so. > > "Venerable sir, if mindfulness of the body in the body was not established, I would have offended a certain co-associate in the holy life and without reconciling would have left on a tour." > > "Yassa nuuna, bhante, kaaye kaayagataasati anupa.t.thitaa assa, so idha a~n~natara.m sabrahmacaari.m aasajja appa.tinissajja caarika.m pakkameyya." > > Venerable Saariputta then cited nine similes to show his humbleness and the reason for his humbleness, and kaayagataasati was the main emphasis in his similes. > JJ: This answer my question about the relation of humbleness and kayagatasati. Thank you very much. And I like this part a lot, which is cited: "Bhikkhus, when anyone has not developed and cultivated mindfulness of the body, Mara finds an opportunity and a support in him. This does remind us that Mara always finds his way in every moment, even now, when we are not mindful and live with ignorance. with respect and anumodhana Jagkrit #127233 From: "jagkrit2012" Sarah: A) MN 58 (as given recently by Pt): > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html > > ---quote > [1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, > unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to > others, he does not say them. > > [2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. > > [3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the > proper time for saying them. > > [4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, > unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. > > [5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. > > [6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper > time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living > beings." > *** JJ: Thank you very much Sarah. This categories about speaking are very crucial for us to check in our daily life whether we say things which we should or shouldn't. I check mind and found that half of the day, it is unnecessary to say a thing at all. !! Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #127234 From: "philip" > My question. We know there is lobha with ditthi and lobha without > > ditthi..... > > What is the difference between lobha with and without ditthi, is it > > possible to give examples or just dependent on the citta, > > irregardless of the situation..? (I remember similes about a boy > > and an apple from Vism....) > > ------- > > > N: We cannot pinpoint the different moments. Difficult to know when > there is di.t.thi, but it is bound to be around the corner, we have > not eradicated it. We cannot try to find out, then there is the self > trying. There are many kinds of di.t.thi, sakkaya di.t.thi, > personality belief, conditions other types of di.t.thi. We think that > a person is there and that he can last. Difficult to realize that > even now at this moment there is no one there. > ------ Ph: A bit off topic, but I think there is "no one there" because from the point of view of our citta processes, the other person can only be thought about as a person, only visible object can be the object of satipatthana. So for me it is easy to understand there is not one "there" (as object of perception) but not easy to understand that there are no beings. I am thinking these days that if the Dhamma says "there are no beings" I can't really understand it. But I don't think the point of Dhamma is to say "there are no beings", just that beings cannot be the object of satipatthana, they can only be thought about as concepts. But I will keep my mind open on this and see if understanding deepens. Anyways, back to the topic of ditthi. Quite often in the transcriptions you qyote "there is an idea of self." For me, "an idea of self" sounds like "self" is being thought about with understanding. If there is "an idea of self" it means we are thinking about self doing this or that, so there is some degree of detachment from the idea. But when there is lobha with ditthi, it feels to me that the functions of dhamma that cling to self is more close to the bone than "an idea", is non-conceptual, it is right at the core of the citta, somehow. I can't quite explain, I don't know if what I wrote makes any sense. Could I ask you to say more about the Thai terms that Ajahn uses to talk about "an idea" of self? Thanks, when you have time. Feel free to completely ignore what I wrote about beings etc above, it is just something I think about sometimes, deliriously. I will be away for about a week, so no hurry whatsoever... Phil #127238 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, Jagkrit, all > > It's interesting to see a descritption of the Buddha's wise way of speaking, but let's be honest, we are conditioned to speak in certain ways, we are all adults who have accumulated ways of speaking. If our habitual way of speaking is not right speech but changed dramatically to look like right speech, I think it would indicate self trying to fit into a Buddhist-feeling stereotype. Let's understand our accumulated tendencies, whether they are refined and wholesome or crude and foolish or a mix of both! > > Then again, we remember "no rules", so despite the adze handle simile, as understand deepens positive changes in our conditioned habitual ways of speaking may suddenly occur, and if they do suttas about right speech can be understood correctly - as descriptions rather than prescriptions. > > Just my opinion. > > Phil > #127240 From: "Yawares Sastri" Here I have a question. Acharn on recordings mentioned once kusala > siila, akusala siila and avyakata siila as I remember. What is > kusala, akusala and avyakata siila? I would like to hear more on > that. Especially what is akusala siila? ------- Siila in its widest sense is behaviour through body and speech and this can be kusala, akusala, and in the case of the arahat avyakata. --- Nina. #127242 From: "truth_aerator" KH:In my opinion the Abhidhamma starts with two basic points. One is >that dhammas - and *only* dhammas - exist. >>>>>>>>==================== And how doesn't this contradict: "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. " ""'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. " [Alex: Isn't saying that Dhamma exist while concepts do not exist, fall under the above?] " He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html Alex: The Buddha isn't talking about dhammas that arise/cease, but STRESS that arise/cease. Thus he teaches pragmatic path, not another theory of which there were dime a dozen in ancient India and Greece. With metta, Alex #127243 From: han tun wrote: Dear Khun Han JJ: Thank you very much for your detail posting of this great sutta. I've learnt more about this sutta and noticing that from [1] to [6] of Kayagatasati is satipatthana which is vipassana and [7] is sammatha. In siihanaada sutta, Ven. Saariputta was talking about Kayagatasati in the aspect of satipatthana or mindfulness not samatha. Because Kayagatasati which is samatha brings jhanas, not awareness. What do you think? > --------------- #127245 From: han tun wrote: > ** > > > Hi Alex. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" > wrote: > > > > Hello RobertE, Herman, all, > > > > Here is my concern. How can Dhamma ever be taught? Just as one cannot > quench hunger by reading the menu, one can't quench extra dukkha by reading > "the Dhamma". > > > > According to some, even Pacceka Buddhas cannot teach Dhamma for more > than general morality "do good!". > > http://www.palikanon.com/namen/pa/pacceka_buddha.htm > > > > So ability to teach complex concepts, write books, give lectures, etc is > not necessary a sign of attainment or even right views. Sainthood is! > > > > And I wonder about some people (lay and ordained) who are very learned > and teach 100x more than Venerable Sariputta knew prior to Arahatship. > > > > Not only this, but what people teach today may or may not be what the > Buddha as historical person (if he even existed) has taught. > > I'm not big on speculation. I think such worry is a waste of time, and is > also harmful and an excuse. The point is not whether this or that teacher > can do this or that, it is whether there is a practice that you can follow > and that will lead you in the direction you want to go. No one can > guarantee you anything, but you can find out for yourself whether your > practice is good and is going where you want to go. If so, do it. If not, > don't. > > I think what is important here is the acknowledgement that people always choose what they want to learn. "The Teacher" can function as a smokescreen to hide that fact. > Best, > Rob E. > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127247 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Josh, > > Welcome to DSG. > > --- > <. . .> > > J: How I see it as follows: if we are going to speak in terms of > ultimate realities > > we need to remove any credence in such terms as existence, non-existence, > is, > is-not, or anything that smacks of an individual being (in any sense). > --- > > KH: You are right with regard to an individual, permanent being or > self(atta) but your rule must not be extended to paramattha dhammas. As > their name clearly states, paramattha dhammas are things that ultimately do > exist. They are the *only* things that ultimately do exist. > > Paramattha dhammas are the ultimate inference. Ultimate existents, things-in-themselves, being etc, simply cannot be known. That is because knowing and being are fundamentally different. There is a tacit acknowledgement of this in your reference to this ultimate inference in the plural - a parramattha dhamma (singular) would be an absurdity. > Ken H > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127248 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am Subject: Re: lobha with and without ditthi kenhowardau Hi Phil, ---- <. . .> > Ph: But I don't think the point of Dhamma is to say "there are no beings", just that beings cannot be the object of satipatthana, they can only be thought about as concepts. ---- KH: There is a trap of seeing two realities, and I suspect all of us can fall into it to some extent. I think it is because of this trap that sometimes, when we hear the Dhamma, we don't feel the cosmos shake. At those times we are still thinking at the back of our minds that there are two realities. We are thinking that dhammas are rising and falling while, at the same time, our permanent selves are going about their business. When there is satipathana, however, there is no trap of seeing two realities. In satipathana, citta sees how dhammas arise, function and cease, and it knows beyond doubt that this is the only reality - dhammas are all that exist and all that ever can exist. Ken H #127249 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > > > > But yes, looking over past posts it seems a lot of these issues have been > discussed. I wonder if anyone has changed their conclusions through talking > out the difficulties of an idea they had, here? __._ > I have changed my position on a number of issues, but probably not because of the discussions. I have experimented with tryptamines, and have come to appreciate first-hand the palpable experience of things I would have previously discounted. These would include the other realms (heavens, hells), non-corporeal beings, eternal rebirth, objectless awareness, dimensions where space and time and conditionality are unrecognisably different. I haven't had to change the understanding of anatta and anicca, though the total loss of any ability to predict the past that is more recent than the one we are always trying to predict is mind-blowing, to say the least - not to be taken lightly!! > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127250 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Paramattha dhammas are the ultimate inference. > Ultimate existents, > things-in-themselves, being etc, simply cannot be known. > That is because > knowing and being are fundamentally different. > I look at the term "being", in this sense, as being synonymous with phenomena & knowing as being a mental support for said phenomena. Would you say I am looking at these terms in a different sense that the one you are intending? > There is a tacit acknowledgement of this in your reference to this ultimate > inference in the plural - a parramattha dhamma (singular) would be an > absurdity. > When you look at a Pali term like "paramattha" in your mind, how do you define "para" & how do you define "attha"? I don't mean in the sense of what the Pali Text Society Dictionary might say, but if you were going to define the term paramattha (or paramattha dhamma) for someone in your own terms, citing examples from your experience (or the limits of experience), how would you do it? in Dhamma - Josh #127251 From: "truth_aerator" When you look at a Pali term like "paramattha" in your mind, how do >you define "para" & how do you define "attha"? >>======== As something leading to highest goal. There doesn't seem to be any place where the Buddha used it in the sense of "ultimate realities". With metta, Alex #127252 From: "truth_aerator" Alex: As something leading to highest goal. As highest goal. With best wishes, Alex #127253 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Hello KenH, Josh, all, > > >KH:In my opinion the Abhidhamma starts with two basic points. One is >that dhammas - and *only* dhammas - exist. > >>>>>>>>==================== > > And how doesn't this contradict: > > "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. " > > ""'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't > exist': That is a second extreme. " > > [Alex: Isn't saying that Dhamma exist while concepts do not exist, fall under the above?] If we say "Everything exists", that implies dhammas & pannati (concepts) both exist or, said even better, there is no pannati, only dhamma. If we say "Nothing exists", this implies neither pannati nor dhammas exist or, said even better, only pannati exists. The first position is synonymous with what people call "common sense", which leads to such questions as, "If there's no self, who goes into nirvana?" The second, however, is the outermost limits that human sophistry has attained to --- being so utterly profound & secure in one's profundity that one can say, "Samsara & nirvana are both merely illusions, but this statement isn't". They call this wisdom & it may look wise, but mafiosos aren't called "wise-guys" for nothing. The alternative is paticcasamupada. > > " He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. " > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html > > Alex: The Buddha isn't talking about dhammas that arise/cease, but STRESS that arise/cease. I think this is why using Pali terms strictly when speaking about Pali statements makes the conversation easier --- the term "dhamma" does not rule out arising & ceasing (just as the term paramattha doesn't) & the four noble truths are termed dhammas in the Satipatthana sutta, among other places. If one considers this, we couldn't say "The Buddha isn't talking about dhammas that arise/cease, but dukkhas that arises/cease." The term "dhamma" is simply a more general term than dukkha. So as in any sutta we must ask: Who is the statement made to? And In what context was the statement made? And Are the terms being used loosely or precisely? in Dhamma - Josh #127254 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Dear Josh, all, > > >When you look at a Pali term like "paramattha" in your mind, how do >you define "para" & how do you define "attha"? > >>======== > > As something leading to highest goal. > The question was directed specifically at Herman but I appreciate your answer. This is where the confusion comes in. "Dhamma" in this sense does not mean the dhamma of the eightfold path, sila, dana, samatha, vipassana, etc. but means "dhamma" in the sense of thing, phenomena, irreducible experience, etc. So, if you take "dhamma" in the sense of teaching or a goal, the whole conversation would be unintelligible. > There doesn't seem to be any place where the Buddha used it in the sense of "ultimate realities". > I hope those who have a deeper knowledge of Pali than the terribly rudimentary knowledge I have will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when Buddha uses the phrase "saccato thetato" or when such phrase & similar phrases are used, he is referring to the same thing that the Abhidhamma would term "paramattha dhamma". Thanissaro translates it as "truth or reality" if you want to do a search on Accesstoinsight for relevant English translations. in Dhamma - Josh #127255 From: "Robert E" wrote: Alex: > > > Not only this, but what people teach today may or may not be what the > > Buddha as historical person (if he even existed) has taught. Robert: > > I'm not big on speculation. I think such worry is a waste of time, and is > > also harmful and an excuse. The point is not whether this or that teacher > > can do this or that, it is whether there is a practice that you can follow > > and that will lead you in the direction you want to go. No one can > > guarantee you anything, but you can find out for yourself whether your > > practice is good and is going where you want to go. If so, do it. If not, > > don't. > > > > > I think what is important here is the acknowledgement that people always > choose what they want to learn. "The Teacher" can function as a smokescreen > to hide that fact. Over the years, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I've developed a certain degree of pragmatism and common sense. I could spend 20 years trying to "learn" how to fix a car, but since it's an area I know nothing about I would probably wind up with the equivalent of a giant pipe bomb. I'd rather go to a car mechanic who can diagnose and fix it in five minutes. When I wanted to learn to play clarinet, I went to a clarinet teacher. True, I then more or less taught myself to play jazz saxaphone, but I had a lot of training in basic technique and music theory to back me up. The idea that a teacher would be a "smokescreen" rather than an aid defies common sense, unless they are a very bad teacher, and in that case, not really a teacher at all. The idea that we "learn what we want to" as if such learning will magically arise out of the air doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. We may investigate on our own for many years, and I have done so in this area and others, but it is when I bounce my ideas off of others that I quickly find out which ideas are ridiculous and which may have some merit. The role of interaction and discussion seems to be dismissed by you here. I do not understand why you seem so hard-set against any communal aspect to learning. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #127256 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Alex: > > > > Not only this, but what people teach today may or may not be what the > > > Buddha as historical person (if he even existed) has taught. > > Robert: > > > I'm not big on speculation. I think such worry is a waste of time, and is > > > also harmful and an excuse. The point is not whether this or that teacher > > > can do this or that, it is whether there is a practice that you can follow > > > and that will lead you in the direction you want to go. No one can > > > guarantee you anything, but you can find out for yourself whether your > > > practice is good and is going where you want to go. If so, do it. If not, > > > don't. > > > > > > > > I think what is important here is the acknowledgement that people always > > choose what they want to learn. "The Teacher" can function as a smokescreen > > to hide that fact. > > Over the years, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I've developed a certain degree of pragmatism and common sense. I could spend 20 years trying to "learn" how to fix a car, but since it's an area I know nothing about I would probably wind up with the equivalent of a giant pipe bomb. I'd rather go to a car mechanic who can diagnose and fix it in five minutes. When I wanted to learn to play clarinet, I went to a clarinet teacher. True, I then more or less taught myself to play jazz saxaphone, but I had a lot of training in basic technique and music theory to back me up. The idea that a teacher would be a "smokescreen" rather than an aid defies common sense, unless they are a very bad teacher, and in that case, not really a teacher at all. The idea that we "learn what we want to" as if such learning will magically arise out of the air doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. We may investigate on our own for many years, and I have done so in this area and others, but it is when I bounce my ideas off of others that I quickly find out which ideas are ridiculous and which may have some merit. The role of interaction and discussion seems to be dismissed by you here. I do not understand why you seem so hard-set against any communal aspect to learning. And by the way, I am still waiting for you to tell me what you consider to be the real path that definitely exists but which most people are trying to avoid. I am finding it frustrating that you haven't responded to this and given me a clear statement of what you think the correct approach to Buddhism really is. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #127257 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Lukas and Nina, > > Lukas: Here I have a question. Acharn on recordings mentioned once kusala siila, akusala siila and avyakata siila as I remember. What is kusala, akusala and avyakata siila? I would like to hear more on that. Especially what is akusala siila? > ------- > Nina: Siila in its widest sense is behaviour through body and speech and this can be kusala, akusala, and in the case of the arahat avyakata. > ------- > Han: I thank Lukas very much for asking this question and I thank Nina very much for the answer, which I did not know before. > > with metta and respect, > Han > #127259 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han(Nina), Here is some recordings from Poland we discussed siila and favourable conditions to siila and all kinds of kusala. September 15, morning: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/audio/2012-09-Poland/2012-09-15-am-00-a.mp3 http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/audio/2012-09-Poland/2012-09-15-am-00-b.mp3 http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/audio/2012-09-Poland/2012-09-15-am-00-c.mp3 Best wishes Lukas p.s for example for me, more kusala or siila comes not when I think of others, it comes when I study and investigate Dhamma more. I am so dull to appreciate kusala. #127260 From: "Yawares Sastri" for example for me, more kusala or siila comes not when I think of > others, it comes when I study and investigate Dhamma more. I am so > dull to appreciate kusala. ------ N: Right understanding conditions above all kusala siila. We understand more that realities are anattaa and that there is not a self who can have more kusala siila. When we cling less to self, naturally there will be more intentness on the wellbeing of others. It comes naturally, no need to think of it. All of us are dull to appreciate kusala, it comes with the development of right understanding. ----- Nina. #127263 From: Nina van Gorkom We think that > > a person is there and that he can last. Difficult to realize that > > even now at this moment there is no one there. > > ------ > > Quite often in the transcriptions you qyote "there is an idea of > self." For me, "an idea of self" sounds like "self" is being > thought about with understanding. If there is "an idea of self" it > means we are thinking about self doing this or that, so there is > some degree of detachment from the idea. But when there is lobha > with ditthi, it feels to me that the functions of dhamma that cling > to self is more close to the bone than "an idea", is non- > conceptual, it is right at the core of the citta, somehow. I can't > quite explain, I don't know if what I wrote makes any sense. Could > I ask you to say more about the Thai terms that Ajahn uses to talk > about "an idea" of self? ------- N: Never mind what word is used. Idea: another word for concept, but implied is the wrong view of self here in this context. In Thai: there is self (mi tuaton). You are doing something we all do and Kh Sujin explained why it is not helpful. I also have to remind myself. It is the following matter: we try to label realities first, such as: lobha with wrong view and without it, or, this is kusala, that is akusala. Then we try to find out what the characteristics are. It should be the other way around, though it may seem strange at first. Let us first learn the characteristic of what appears now. Realities arise and fall away so very fast, how could we try to get hold of them in order to know them. Seeing appears now, and is there any idea of I see? Kh Sujin: The same when one wonders about the characteristic of kusala and of akusala. First what appears has to be known as . Let us not label anything, though it may be difficult. Even labeling is conditioned, no self doing it, it is not forbidden. You can appreciate more, I think, that sometimes it seems that Kh Sujin does not directly answer a question. She goes to the root of the motivation of asking questions. Helping to return to the reality of the present moment, the only reality that can be studied and understood. ------- Nina. #127264 From: "jagkrit2012" L: Here I have a question. Acharn on recordings mentioned once kusala siila, akusala siila and avyakata siila as I remember. What is kusala, akusala and avyakata siila? I would like to hear more on that. Especially what is akusala siila? JJ: I've asked this question to A.Paderm and he came up with the detail answer and reference as I'm trying to translate into English as follows: A.Paderm: Sila has several meaning which is according to Buddha conveyed in which aspect. For Sila in meaning of 3, kusala sila, akusala sila and avayakata sila, we have to understand that Buddha referred Sila in what aspect and in that aspect what does sila mean? Therefore, for good understanding, we have to aware that Buddha is so cleaver in instructing. It is desanaa-vilaasa, which means the beauty of instruction. Thus, even one word as sila, indeed, has other interpretation. We should not focus only one meaning as we think because dhamma is very subtle. In general, we hear sila and think about good behavior such as forbidden from akusala through body and speech. For example, we refrain from killing, stealing. This is general understanding of sila in the aspect of bad behavior, called akusala sila. However, sila has another meaning. For sila of 3 kinds, Buddha interpreted as akusala sila, kusala sila and avayakata sila. Sila in this aspect means common deed of all being which arises. This refers that 3 sila is common deeds of all beings in ordinary daily life which are various because each being is only one at its being. Human beings are different. Ever animals are different. All common deeds of beings are so various according to their accumulation. However, common deeds of beings can not arise if there is no citta and cetasika. Sila, therefore, is considered in the scope of citta and cetasika. Citta has 4 categories, kusala, akusala, vipaka and kariya citta. When speaking of deed through body and speech, there must be javana citta arising and conditioning any deed through body and speech and that javana citta can be kusala citta, akusala citta and kiritya citta (avayakata). When kusala citta arises and conditions body or speech action, it is a deed of a person according to kusala and is called kusala sila. Same as akusala, when akusala citta arises and conditions bad deed through body and speech, it is called akusala sila. Those are the deeds of a person who is not arahat, which always fall into kusala or akusala. Avayakata sila is a deed through body and speech of kiriya citta of arahant who has no kilesa. Body and speech actions of an arahat are conditioned by kiriya citta from not killing up to doing anything in daily life. At that moment, the common deed of the arahat is conditioned by kiriya citta. then it is called avayakata sila. Example of 3 silas: kusala sila: when any human being who is not arahat (from ordinary person to anagami person) does good deed. For example, refrain from killing or giving dana to others, at the moment it is kusala sila which is a common deed of that person according to kusala. Akusala sila: when any human being who is not arahat (from ordinary person to anagami person) does bad deed. For example, killing, it is akusala sila. However, even any action through body and speech which is conditioned by akusala citta such as brushing teeth or doing any thing in ordinary life, it is also call akusala sila because the common deed of that person is akusala. Avayakata sila: when an arahat refrain from akusal deed such as not killing, his citta is not kusala or akusala but his citta is kiriya citta or avayakata. Even in his daily life, the arahat manages to do anything with kiriya citta, not kusala or akusala. His common deed, therefore, is conditioned by kiriya citta and is called avayakata sila. The 3 silas is explained in Suttanta Pitaka, Kuddhaka Nikaya, Padhisumphita mak, book 7, session 1, pg.589 JJ: I hope that you get some idea from this. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127265 From: Nina van Gorkom Avayakata sila: when an arahat refrain from akusal deed such as not > killing, his citta is not kusala or akusala but his citta is kiriya > citta or avayakata. ----- N: Here, I would like to add something. The mahaa-kiriyacittas of the arahat are not accompanied by virati cetasikas (the abstinences). He has no more conditions. -------- Nina. #127266 From: "jrg493" J:but I believe that when Buddha uses the phrase "saccato thetato" >or when such phrase & >similar phrases are used, he is referring to >the same thing that the Abhidhamma would >term "paramattha dhamma". >======================================= In various suttas, especially in Sutta Nipata Atthakavaggo which is considered for good reasons to be one of the oldest parts in the suttas, there are many interesting teachings regarding views (ditthi) and even knowledge (nana). One is supposed to transcend even them. All clinging and attachment needs to be let go off. One is not liberated if one depends upon even (nana). In MN74 the Buddha says that if one clings to any view, then “Envisioning for himself clash, dispute, quarreling, annoyance, frustration, he both abandons that view and does not cling to another view. Thus there is the abandoning of these views; thus there is the relinquishing of these views.†Interesting is that one isn’t supposed to drop one view and pick up another no matter how right. One needs to let go of all views. “Having abandoned what was acquired, not taking up anything, He would not be in dependence even upon knowledge (nana)…He does not fall back on any view (ditthi) at all.†- Snp 4.5 “The holy man does not conceive and have recourse to any designation; He is neither a follower of views (ditthi) nor an adherent of knowledge (nana).†- Snp 4.13 “Apart from their perception there are no many various constant truths (saccani) in the world†- Snp 4.12 In MN26, the Dhamma is said to be atakkavacaro, beyond thought. In MN18, thinking is said: “What one thinks (vitakketi) about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the [alex: 6 sense faculties].†In Snp 4.14 “He should put an entire stop to the root of objectification-classifications: 'I am the thinker.'[1] He should train, always mindful, to subdue any craving inside him. Whatever truth he may know, within or without, he shouldn't get entrenched in connection with it, for that isn't called Unbinding by the good.†Of course the later commentaries can attempt to say that in these and many other quotes what it really says is that one should abandon clinging to wrong views and wrong knowledge, and that water is wet and fire is hot. But this is obvious to everyone Buddhist or non Buddhist alike that one should not have wrong views and wrong knowledge. Such reinterpretation by adding “wrong†or “miccha†seems only to make what is said be trivial rather than profound. The suttas also do not say wrong vs right (miccha vs samma) views or knowledge. In Sutta Nipata there is no teaching of wrong vs right views, or wrong vs right knowledge. One is supposed to let go of all, all craving. Considering that craving is origin of dukkha, I believe that craving even for right views would still create more refined, but still dukkha. So I believe that we must be very careful with views and theories, we need to let go of craving and clinging. The more attachments we have, the more attachments we have to let go off. Sometimes our own cherished opinions about “how things are†are extremely valuable and hard to let go off… So we need to be careful not to create any sort of ditthi out of "ultimate" truth. Any comments? With best wishes, Alex #127269 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > > One needs to let go of all views. Do you take the terms: ditthi dassana nana As meaning distinct things? If so, what are they? > > So we need to be careful not to create any sort of ditthi out of "ultimate" truth. > Did you read the article on paramattha dhamma I posted the link to? And if so, when you see the term "paramattha dhamma" do you take it to be a synonym for the term asankhata-dhatu? And what would be opposite, positive term to ditthi? Like, if ditthi means "view", would you say the idea of "insight" is different than a view? And, also, can you give an example of something "true" vs. "false" in daily life that is outside the term "ditthi"? Like, for instance, if an alcoholic wakes up one day & determines to quit drinking, is this a ditthi? > > Any comments? > Just questions so far. :) in Dhamma - Josh #127270 From: "jrg493" wrote: > In Sutta Nipata there is no teaching of wrong vs right views, or wrong vs right knowledge. Here's a comment: Discussions generally take place within certain premises that are agreed upon by both parties. Naturally, we both speak English & we're reasonably certain of the definition of the English terms we use, so we're ok there. However, to propose that the Sutta Nipata has more authentic teachings is the position --- I think you'll agree --- of a small minority of Buddhists, right or wrong. So it is not something that we could assume at the outset that the person to whom you are speaking is automatically going to acknowledge it & try to frame the discussion in terms of it as a fact. Personally, if the Sutta Nipata were all I had of Buddhism, I doubt I'd practice it. The more convincing part of the Pali Canon to me is the Sutta-discourses rather than the poetry (which is great but not as practical). But I understand your propositions & the logic behind them, they are: a) the Sutta Nipata is the oldest part of the Canon & therefore the most reliable (with an eye to the Atthakavagga in particular) b) the truth of Buddhism is something to be learnt from the most reliable & oldest texts c) where we find that other texts use different terminology or make apparently different statements, we should reject them in favor of the older texts This is, I think, a reasoning that differs from my own in most all respects, nor does it seem to be a reasoning which finds its support --- as far as I can tell --- in the oldest texts themselves. If we were to strip the terms out & go just an the assumptions, it would be a) the older the text, the more objectively true & valuable the discourse b) the practice of insight is defined by the parameters of the oldest text c) the younger text, rather than re-phrasing the conclusions of the older text, is often in contradiction to to the older text This reminds me more of Martin Luther's sola scriptura approach in using the Nicene-council approved Canon to refute the Nicene-council approved hierarchy. I would say that even if Buddha did not historically exist at all & the entire Pali Canon was written in the late 1980s, I would still find it an amazing treasure. So it is not on the basis of its historical accuracy that I find it so appealing, but on its ability to give an account of the human condition & its final answer that is extremely practical, reasonable & that seems to be of great benefit to myself already & many others in even greater degree. - in Dhamma Josh #127271 From: "truth_aerator" wrote: > > For example: > 1) the language is older (as I've heard) . I have gone word-for-word through portions of the Atthakavagga & seen instances of this. However, to establish that more archaic language necessarily means a more archaic texts is based on the assumption that later writers, when writing poetry, would not resort to archaisms. Relevant article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/atthakavagga.html > 3) It seems to talk about earlier ideal of solitary wondering monk in the forest. This happened much earlier than later times when the teaching became more popular and monasteries appeared to house much more monks. > If we accept that Buddha did enlighten some rich laypeople who were able to build & maintain monasteries in his lifetime, this could simply mean that Buddha spoke the suttas earlier in his career. > 4) Also development of theoretic views. In one strata of texts (Snp) the Buddha tells us to avoid speculations. Then in some other texts, there appears a newer teaching of right and wrong views. No longer all ditthi are to be let go off. Some are considered "good". I think this is a misunderstanding of how the word "ditthi" can be used. It must be taken in its context, just like the term "atta" must be taken in context. But sammaditthi is to have nana of the four noble truths. So "ditthi" here doesn't mean view in the sense of "I think it's right but could change my mind." If you ask any sect in India they'll tell you they don't have "views", they have "insight." That's just standard operating procedure. A thought experiment: let's say the Atthakavagga was in perfect accord with the most rigorously specific Abhidhamma analysis anyone could ever attempt & let's say they didn't contradict in the smallest degree. How would this change our understanding of the Atthakavagga & how would it change our understanding of Abhidhamma? > It is unfortunate how some minimize certain teachings found in them because it doesn't fit with their super advanced analytic views. > Is there some particular author or person you have in mind here? - in Dhamma Josh #127275 From: han tun Avayakata sila: when an arahat refrain from akusal deed such as not killing, his citta is not kusala or akusala but his citta is kiriya citta or avayakata. -------- N: Here, I would like to add something. The mahaa-kiriyacittas of the arahat are not accompanied by virati cetasikas (the abstinences). He has no more conditions. -------- Han: Very good point, Nina. I also find the following sentence in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma on page 98. "They (the three abstinences) also do not occur in the great functional cittas of an Arahant, since an Arahant has altogether overcome the disposition towards transgression and thus has no need for abstinence." with metta and respect, Han --- On Sun, 10/21/12, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Jagkrit, Thank you for the translation, very good. #127276 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Unborn and Undying Awareness [Existence & non-existence] kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- <. . .> > H: Ultimate existents, things-in-themselves, being etc, simply cannot be known. --- KH: Are you quoting the Dhamma here, or is that your own theory? As you might remember from previous conversations I am interested in Dhamma discussions only on this forum. According to the Dhamma, namas *do* experience objects. So there! :-) Ken H #127277 From: "jrg493" wrote: > Ultimately, I guess, practice and result is what counts. I took the time to go through the Dhammasangani list of words synonymous with "sammaditthi" & translate them here: I.28 On what occasion (samaye) is right view (sammaditthi)? It is on the occasion of insight (panna) understanding (pajanana) inquiry (vicaya) investigation (pavicayo) inquiry into the dhamma (dhammavicayo) discernment/testing (sallakkhana) discrimination (upalakkhana) differentiation (paccupalakkhana) erudition (pandicca) proficiency (kosallam) skill (nepunna) analysis (vebhabya) thinking (cinta) examination (upaparikkha) breadth/extent (bhuri) wisdom (medha) leading (parinayika) insight (vipassana) comprehension (sampajanna) without delusion (amoha) & insight (panna) as a power (indriya) a strength (bala) a sword (sattha) a palace (pasada) a light (aloka) a lustre (obhasa) a lamp (pajjota) a gem (ratana) As you can see, there is a great deal more to this than speculations or opinions. in Dhamma - Josh #127278 From: "truth_aerator" I have gone word-for-word through portions of the Atthakavagga & >seen instances of this. However, to establish that more archaic >language necessarily means a more archaic texts is based on the >assumption that later writers, when writing poetry, would not resort >to archaisms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>================= Of course this is possibility. But it seems strange that resorting to more archaic language only on certain parts of the canon. Is all poetry found in Sutta Pitaka written in Archaic form? Another piece of evidence for Sutta Nipata is that it does talk about something that would have occur earlier in Buddha's carrier. Of course this doesn't prevent change from few monks who lived in the forest to more settled monastic lifestyle with many monks within 45 years of Buddha's teaching. There seems to be less technical teachings in Sutta Nipata which could suggest a time before Scholasticism set in by monks who were thinking rather than practicing. But of course you can and have suggested that later doctrinal development might be non-contradictory detailed explanation of what was taught in Snp. >J:Is there some particular author or person you have in mind here? There are some people here who talk that "only dhammas exist" and tend to discount the validity of concepts, etc. Satipatthana sutta itself uses MANY "conceptual" contemplations such as: 4 Elements, 10 stages of corpse decay, anapanasati, 32 body parts, bodily postures, etc. There seems to be no split between "ultimate paramattha dhammas" and concepts which supposedly do not lead to liberation. With best wishes, Alex #127279 From: "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Ultimately, I guess, practice and result is what counts. > > > I took the time to go through the Dhammasangani list of words synonymous with "sammaditthi" & translate them here: > > I.28 > On what occasion (samaye) is right view (sammaditthi)? > > It is on the occasion of > > insight (panna) > understanding (pajanana) > inquiry (vicaya) > investigation (pavicayo) > inquiry into the dhamma (dhammavicayo) > discernment/testing (sallakkhana) > discrimination (upalakkhana) > differentiation (paccupalakkhana) > erudition (pandicca) > proficiency (kosallam) > skill (nepunna) > analysis (vebhabya) > thinking (cinta) > examination (upaparikkha) > breadth/extent (bhuri) > wisdom (medha) > leading (parinayika) > insight (vipassana) > comprehension (sampajanna) > without delusion (amoha) > > > & insight (panna) as > > a power (indriya) > a strength (bala) > a sword (sattha) > a palace (pasada) > a light (aloka) > a lustre (obhasa) > a lamp (pajjota) > a gem (ratana) > > As you can see, there is a great deal more to this than speculations or opinions. > > in Dhamma > - Josh > #127280 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Is all poetry found in Sutta Pitaka written in Archaic form? > This I do not know. Hajime Nakamura, from the little that I've read, seems to work on the assumption that it does. I'll let you know if I find out. > There seems to be less technical teachings in Sutta Nipata which could suggest a time before Scholasticism set in by monks who were thinking rather than practicing. But of course you can and have suggested that later doctrinal development might be non-contradictory detailed explanation of what was taught in Snp. > I think all the Suttas are set to be memorized, so different devices are used. The use of numbered terminology & specific, memorized formula is one way & another way is poetry. in Dhamma - Josh #127281 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Dear Josh, > > Thank you for this list. > > What is the difference between > samma-ditthi and vipassana? > 1st vs 7th factor of N8P I look at the N8P as different aspects of one thing. The term vipassana is used interchangeably by many for satipatthana, so if you see the term "vipassana" along with "samatha", it is likely that what is being referred to is vipassana as a specific form of meditation (or a specific fruit of meditation). But if one has vipassana, one has insight, so it is also a term that can be synonymous with sammaditthi, as the Dhammasangani points out. Context, context, context. > > Samma-ditthi and nana? > 1st vs 9th factor of N8P? > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.103.than.html > One's sometimes just a sprout & sometimes a tree, whereas the other is always a tree. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel377.html "Right view, as explained in the commentary to the Sammaditthi Sutta, has a variety of aspects, but it might best be considered as twofold: conceptual right view, which is the intellectual grasp of the principles enunciated in the Buddha's teaching, and experiential right view, which is the wisdom that arises by direct penetration of the teaching. Conceptual right view, also called the right view in conformity with the truths (saccanulomika-sammaditthi), is a correct conceptual understanding of the Dhamma arrived at by study of the Buddha's teachings and deep examination of their meaning. Such understanding, though conceptual rather than experiential, is not dry and sterile. When rooted in faith in the Triple Gem and driven by a keen aspiration to realize the truth embedded in the formulated principles of the Dhamma, it serves as a critical phase in the development of wisdom (pannaa), for it provides the germ out of which experiential right view gradually evolves. "Experiential right view is the penetration of the truth of the teaching in one's own immediate experience. Thus it is also called right view that penetrates the truths (saccapativedha-sammaditthi)." in Dhamma - Josh #127282 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > This I do not know. Hajime Nakamura, from the little that I've read, seems to work on the assumption that it does. I'll let you know if I find out. http://www.buddhanet-de.net/ancient-buddhist-texts/Textual-Studies/Prosody-Artic\ les/Warder-Introduction.htm in Dhamma - Josh #127283 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:53 am Subject: Re: Kaccayana sutta kenhowardau Hi Josh and Alex, --- <. . ..> > > A: ""'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. " >> <. . .> > J: If we say "Everything exists", that implies dhammas & pannati (concepts) both exist --- KH: I agree with the logic of your interpretation, but is it the official interpretation [found in the ancient commentaries] or is it one you are suggesting as a possibility? My suggestion [without having seen the commentary] is that "everything exists" means the past, the present and the future all exist together. According to the eternal-life theory, the person I was in the past is the same person I am now, and the person I will be future is also the same person I am now. So, in that way, the eternalists say everything – past, present and future - exists now. According to the annihilation theory, when I die – the person I was in the past, and the person I could have been in the future, also die. So, according to the annihilationists, after death "everything doesn't exist." I'm not sure if this is something I have heard, but forget hearing, or if it is something I have made up. :-) Ken H #127284 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > J: If we say "Everything exists", that implies dhammas & pannati (concepts) both exist > --- > > KH: I agree with the logic of your interpretation, but is it the official interpretation [found in the ancient commentaries] or is it one you are suggesting as a possibility? Not in commentary. I was thinking of those who find self as a truth & reality. > > My suggestion [without having seen the commentary] is that "everything exists" means the past, the present and the future all exist together. > > According to the eternal-life theory, the person I was in the past is the same person I am now, and the person I will be future is also the same person I am now. So, in that way, the eternalists say everything – past, present and future - exists now. > > According to the annihilation theory, when I die – the person I was in the past, and the person I could have been in the future, also die. So, according to the annihilationists, after death "everything doesn't exist." > > I'm not sure if this is something I have heard, but forget hearing, or if it is something I have made up. :-) > That sounds perfectly right, too. What I was doing --- without realizing it, in retrospect --- was trying to see what today qualifies as eternalism & realism vs. nihilism & nominalism. Generally, a person believes the selves exists & elements exists & thoughts exist. The past exists, future exists, etc. Our day-to-day ignorant orientation presupposes everything we encounter is very real & is a static truth. The opposite end of the spectrum says nothing exist except in name as the case with Madhyamika which refutes any conceptual notion, thereby white-washing everything & establishing that the only reality is that everything --- even irreducible elements of experience --- is only a concept & nothing really exists except conceptually. I think actually that the hardest thing for us to swallow is that there is a fundamental difference between the bare fact of our experience & our interpretation of it, because both "feel" equally real. The feeling of equality allows for a white-washing refutation of everything to go down easier than distinctions, just as it is so easy to take everything at face value, also. The Sarvastivadins, though, were a very influential sect which Sanskritized the suttas & claimed, as their name implies, that past dharmas, present dharmas & future dharmas all exist inherently. But they still held to a distinction between truth & concept. So there is a spectrum of positions involved. in Dhamma - Josh #127285 From: "jagkrit2012" Ph: It's interesting to see a descritption of the Buddha's wise way of speaking, but let's be honest, we are conditioned to speak in certain ways, we are all adults who have accumulated ways of speaking. If our habitual way of speaking is not right speech but changed dramatically to look like right speech, I think it would indicate self trying to fit into a Buddhist-feeling stereotype. Let's understand our accumulated tendencies, whether they are refined and wholesome or crude and foolish or a mix of both! JJ: It is so good and thank you for your reminder. It always is a tendency of self oriented when we learn something good and try to do it. Your underline note of "let's understand it" is a good warning. > Ph: Then again, we remember "no rules", so despite the adze handle simile, as understand deepens positive changes in our conditioned habitual ways of speaking may suddenly occur, and if they do suttas about right speech can be understood correctly - as descriptions rather than prescriptions. JJ: I totally agree with your saying "no rules". I always hear T.A.Sujin says that. Becuase if there are rules, it is already atta. And as you mentioned, when right and steadfast understanding arises, it can be a condition of changing. But when, it again is a matter of accumulation which is hoarded gradually in the past, adding up with developing more understand now until it is time. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #127286 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" > wrote: > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Alex: > > > > > Not only this, but what people teach today may or may not be what > the > > > > Buddha as historical person (if he even existed) has taught. > > > > Robert: > > > > I'm not big on speculation. I think such worry is a waste of time, > and is > > > > also harmful and an excuse. The point is not whether this or that > teacher > > > > can do this or that, it is whether there is a practice that you can > follow > > > > and that will lead you in the direction you want to go. No one can > > > > guarantee you anything, but you can find out for yourself whether > your > > > > practice is good and is going where you want to go. If so, do it. If > not, > > > > don't. > > > > > > > > > > > I think what is important here is the acknowledgement that people > always > > > choose what they want to learn. "The Teacher" can function as a > smokescreen > > > to hide that fact. > > > > Over the years, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I've developed > a certain degree of pragmatism and common sense. I could spend 20 years > trying to "learn" how to fix a car, but since it's an area I know nothing > about I would probably wind up with the equivalent of a giant pipe bomb. > I'd rather go to a car mechanic who can diagnose and fix it in five > minutes. When I wanted to learn to play clarinet, I went to a clarinet > teacher. True, I then more or less taught myself to play jazz saxaphone, > but I had a lot of training in basic technique and music theory to back me > up. The idea that a teacher would be a "smokescreen" rather than an aid > defies common sense, unless they are a very bad teacher, and in that case, > not really a teacher at all. The idea that we "learn what we want to" as if > such learning will magically arise out of the air doesn't make a whole lot > of sense to me. We may investigate on our own for many years, and I have > done so in this area and others, but it is when I bounce my ideas off of > others that I quickly find out which ideas are ridiculous and which may > have some merit. The role of interaction and discussion seems to be > dismissed by you here. I do not understand why you seem so hard-set against > any communal aspect to learning. > > And by the way, I am still waiting for you to tell me what you consider to > be the real path that definitely exists but which most people are trying to > avoid. I am finding it frustrating that you haven't responded to this and > given me a clear statement of what you think the correct approach to > Buddhism really is. > > Sorry for the delay. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127287 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > I rather had the feeling that you framing my position as extreme was > > somehow going to suffice in your mind as a refutation of it. That, of > > course, is spurious logic, and happily, you are no longer pursuing that > > line of argument. > > I never intended to base my argument on extremity or otherwise, but on my > understanding of the path, spurious though it might turn out to be. In > saying your view was extreme, I was trying to scope out what the > philosophically reasonable area is. I think the Buddha was a compromiser, > in the sense that he looked at the understanding a person had, and then > devised a plan for that level of understanding. Although he said he had > despaired of teaching before deciding to do so, and that the teaching was > for "those with only a little dust in their eyes," he then went right on to > teach for those who had sharp understanding and became arahants rather > quickly, those who were of middle-level wits [middle-class?] and those who > were downright slow. For some, sitting and meditating for countless > lifetimes or doing good works to make a dent in defilements, was the best > path one could hope for, but for anyone interested enough to sign up, there > was a path. > > You seem to imply that total cessation is the only position in Buddhism, > No, it is not implied, take it as being categorical :-) "When asked if the holy life is lived under the Blessed One for the sake of purity in terms of virtue, you say, 'No, my friend.' When asked if the holy life is lived under the Blessed One for the sake of purity in terms of mind... view... the overcoming of perplexity... knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path... knowledge & vision of the way... knowledge & vision, you say, 'No, my friend.' For the sake of what, then, my friend, is the holy life lived under the Blessed One?" "The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging." MN24 > whereas gradual understanding and mindfulness through skillful practice > eventually leading to wisdom seems to me to be much more of the path. If > the prerequisite for total cessation is to already being committed to > cessation, there really would be no possibility of liberation, since we all > start out in the position of intense clinging. > > I also disagree that total cessation is the goal of Buddhism. I think the > goal, to split hairs, is liberation from clinging, and for arahants that > usually takes place first, before total cessation. Nibbana is not total > cessation, but the experience of total non-dependency on all or any dhammas > - the All. An arahant or Buddha can live for many years afterwards having > plenty of experience, already in total freedom from clinging, except for > the necessary physicality of existing in physical form. When it is time to > "cessate," the Buddha does so without hesitation, but it's not the > proximate goal of Buddhism, just the final result, admittedly resulting in > total peace not available while still in form. > > > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127288 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Perhaps not, but that is a limitation of describing, not a limitation of > > experience. > > > > Undescribed experience has no beginnings or endings. Such unreflected > > experience has no moments, no stasis, such experience simply is change. > If > > it has to be described, I think it cannot be more precisely captured than > > "All dhammas are anicca". > > > > But as we both know, even that accuracy gives foothold to the inclination > > to reify :-) > > > > I am glad you don't say change is not experienced. > > But I think you see already that no one could really describe change > without recourse to two instants or moments in time, & insofar as we define > our present purely as this very instant & say, also, that the past instant > cannot be experienced in the present by definition, then we "infer" the > change of the present by the subtle, architectural memory of the past & its > apparent distinction from right now. > > We might sometimes wish Zeno's paradox about distance to be true (I'd > rather drive all day, for example, than actually have to go in to work), > but it isn't --- at least, not in experience. > > Now the question is, if we experience change, is this experience of change > somehow descriptive to the mind, itself? And is the mind making an > inference when this occurs? > > Yes, for sure. > And if so, is it perhaps true that experience involves a certain degree > of necessary inferences --- or, at the very least, what seem to be > inferences from the standpoint of language? > > Again, yes, for sure. > I would say it does. > > And if that is so, the division of eye, object & eye-consciousness as each > being experienced directly on the occasion of seeing makes perfect sense. > It is not to say that each is experienced in isolation, but that each is a > necessary, distinct-but-not-separable-quality of seeing, similar to the way > the quality of change is a necessity for experience to be at all > intelligible. > > Then again, I may be wrong. > > Your thoughts? > > I agree with your thoughts, and also when you posted earlier : Sariputta is recorded to have said "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html > in Dhamma > - Josh > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127289 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Paramattha dhammas are the ultimate inference. > > Ultimate existents, > > things-in-themselves, being etc, simply cannot be known. > > That is because > > knowing and being are fundamentally different. > > > > I look at the term "being", in this sense, as being synonymous with > phenomena & knowing as being a mental support for said phenomena. Would you > say I am looking at these terms in a different sense that the one you are > intending? > > I think you are saying that phenomena are irreducibly complex. I agree. > > There is a tacit acknowledgement of this in your reference to this > ultimate > > inference in the plural - a parramattha dhamma (singular) would be an > > absurdity. > > > > When you look at a Pali term like "paramattha" in your mind, how do you > define "para" & how do you define "attha"? > I understand discussions on "paramattha" here at DSG to be based entirely on commentarial material. > > I don't mean in the sense of what the Pali Text Society Dictionary might > say, but if you were going to define the term paramattha (or paramattha > dhamma) for someone in your own terms, citing examples from your experience > (or the limits of experience), how would you do it? > > I wouldn't, Josh, I simply wouldn't. It is a concept, as far as I am concerned, antithetical to the Buddha's teaching ie dependent origination. I'd like to quote you quoting the Buddha: Sariputta is recorded to have said "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html Given that "reality", "being", "phenomena" are irreducibly complex, what's the go with reducing the very same to elements?????? :-) > in Dhamma > - Josh > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127290 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > On 17 October 2012 07:24, Robert E wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > I rather had the feeling that you framing my position as extreme was > > > somehow going to suffice in your mind as a refutation of it. That, of > > > course, is spurious logic, and happily, you are no longer pursuing that > > > line of argument. > > > > I never intended to base my argument on extremity or otherwise, but on my > > understanding of the path, spurious though it might turn out to be. In > > saying your view was extreme, I was trying to scope out what the > > philosophically reasonable area is. I think the Buddha was a compromiser, > > in the sense that he looked at the understanding a person had, and then > > devised a plan for that level of understanding. Although he said he had > > despaired of teaching before deciding to do so, and that the teaching was > > for "those with only a little dust in their eyes," he then went right on to > > teach for those who had sharp understanding and became arahants rather > > quickly, those who were of middle-level wits [middle-class?] and those who > > were downright slow. For some, sitting and meditating for countless > > lifetimes or doing good works to make a dent in defilements, was the best > > path one could hope for, but for anyone interested enough to sign up, there > > was a path. > > > > You seem to imply that total cessation is the only position in Buddhism, > > > > > No, it is not implied, take it as being categorical :-) > > "When asked if the holy life is lived under the Blessed One for the sake of > purity in terms of virtue, you say, 'No, my friend.' When asked if the holy > life is lived under the Blessed One for the sake of purity in terms of > mind... view... the overcoming of perplexity... knowledge & vision of what > is & is not the path... knowledge & vision of the way... knowledge & > vision, you say, 'No, my friend.' For the sake of what, then, my friend, is > the holy life lived under the Blessed One?" > > "The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the sake of > total Unbinding through lack of clinging." MN24 Hmf. :-) We agree on full release through getting rid of all clinging. We only disagree on whether that is synonymous with complete cessation. How do you account for a Buddha or Arahant who is totally unbound yet still alive and in form? Or do you consider them only partially released? Are they not able to dwell in emptiness while still alive, as Buddha has described? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #127291 From: "Robert E" wrote: Rob E. > > > Over the years, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I've developed > > a certain degree of pragmatism and common sense. I could spend 20 years > > trying to "learn" how to fix a car, but since it's an area I know nothing > > about I would probably wind up with the equivalent of a giant pipe bomb. > > I'd rather go to a car mechanic who can diagnose and fix it in five > > minutes. When I wanted to learn to play clarinet, I went to a clarinet > > teacher. True, I then more or less taught myself to play jazz saxaphone, > > but I had a lot of training in basic technique and music theory to back me > > up. The idea that a teacher would be a "smokescreen" rather than an aid > > defies common sense, unless they are a very bad teacher, and in that case, > > not really a teacher at all. The idea that we "learn what we want to" as if > > such learning will magically arise out of the air doesn't make a whole lot > > of sense to me. We may investigate on our own for many years, and I have > > done so in this area and others, but it is when I bounce my ideas off of > > others that I quickly find out which ideas are ridiculous and which may > > have some merit. The role of interaction and discussion seems to be > > dismissed by you here. I do not understand why you seem so hard-set against > > any communal aspect to learning. > > > > And by the way, I am still waiting for you to tell me what you consider to > > be the real path that definitely exists but which most people are trying to > > avoid. I am finding it frustrating that you haven't responded to this and > > given me a clear statement of what you think the correct approach to > > Buddhism really is. > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html That is very impressive and a most valuable sutta. However, all that is described by the Buddha here takes place prior to parinibbana. It is a state of consciousness for the living who have let go of clinging and are capable of dwelling in pure emptiness while still alive. In other words, complete cessation of the life process is not necessary or synonymous with dwelling in pure emptiness or complete release of consciousness. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #127292 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > Given that "reality", "being", "phenomena" are irreducibly complex, > > > what's the go with reducing the very same to elements?????? > I think using Pali terms makes this a little easier: If we take the term paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as a more precise way of saying the sutta's sacca (truth) & theta (certainty), this differentiates the way a khandha, dhatu or ayatana is known from how atta is known. So the khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas etc. are of an order of experience that is called: sacca, theta whereas atta, loka (the world), sabba (the all), satta (a being) are just the opposite. They occur as thoughts, yes, but are different in experience than the more elementary parts of experience. Also, to say things cannot be found apart from another is not necessarily the same as saying that they are synonymous once found. For example, the Yogacara sect, the Madhyamika & different groups of Vedanta would say that all experience possesses a common trait of either being mere consciousness (chittamatra), conventionality (samvrta) or conceptuality (vikalpa), or a divine reality (brahman) respectively. In such case, their distinctions are only imputed. These are all a kind of monism, refuted in sutta. The Theravada explanation of four ultimate realities, I think, solves the problem of distinctions within a unified field of experience without giving the distinct elements too great a reality (as the Sarvastivada sect might) or too great an unreality (as the different flavors of Monism do). If I understand it properly, it describes paramattha dhammas as being elements of experience which cannot be further reduced. So, in experience, distinct types of consciousness (citta) are not termed concepts on par with, say, the Easter bunny & the Marlboro man, nor is the fact of consciousness taken as a hidden unity, to which all divisions are mere illusions. The reality of distinct types of consciousness & mind states are affirmed as being distinct, yet occurring within a unified process of dependent arising (& the patthana system). Everything is dynamic --- differentiable but not separable. I could be wrong, but if I understand Sariputta right --- & it is a marvelous sutta --- one can see the differences in the individual khandhas but cannot see them as isolated parts independent of eachother. The term Sariputta uses is samsattha which means mixture, such as a mixture of molasses, curd & honey as in M 46, or the association of Moliyaphagguna with the bhikkhunis in M 21. http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/index.html In Dhamma Josh #127293 From: Nina van Gorkom >I mean this 5 categories. I think I read Sutta, when a disciple speaks in accordance to Dhamma, this is very right speach. If there is no concern of Dhamma, this is not a right speach. > .... > S: When it is wholesome, it is 'right', it is in accordance with the Buddha's Teachings. L: I still think wholesome is wholesome. When I will tell: 'Oh, u have such o beutiful blue eyes' and i am telling this with kusala citta than is it right speech? I think from many many wholesome thoughts, the Buddha made subtle distinctions to learn us to talk more particulary of what really helps to condition more right understanding. Like the thoughts concerning the goal. As it is made here: > ---quote > [1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, > unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to > others, he does not say them. > > [2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. > > [3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the > proper time for saying them. > > [4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, > unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. > > [5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. > > [6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper > time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living > beings." > *** Best wishes Lukas #127295 From: "azita" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > > >I mean this 5 categories. I think I read Sutta, when a disciple speaks in accordance to Dhamma, this is very right speach. If there is no concern of Dhamma, this is not a right speach. > > .... > > S: When it is wholesome, it is 'right', it is in accordance with the Buddha's Teachings. > > L: I still think wholesome is wholesome. When I will tell: 'Oh, u have such o beutiful blue eyes' and i am telling this with kusala citta than is it right speech? > > I think from many many wholesome thoughts, the Buddha made subtle distinctions to learn us to talk more particulary of what really helps to condition more right understanding. Like the thoughts concerning the goal. > > As it is made here: > > > ---quote > > [1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, > > unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to > > others, he does not say them. > > > > [2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > > unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. > > > > [3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > > beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the > > proper time for saying them. > > > > [4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, > > unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. > > > > [5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > > unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. > > > > [6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > > beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper > > time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living > > beings." > > *** > > Best wishes > Lukas > #127296 From: "Yawares Sastri" ________________________________ > From: Lukas >> >I mean this 5 categories. I think I read Sutta, when a disciple speaks in accordance to Dhamma, this is very right speach. If there is no concern of Dhamma, this is not a right speach. >> .... >> S: When it is wholesome, it is 'right', it is in accordance with the Buddha's Teachings. > >L: I still think wholesome is wholesome. When I will tell: 'Oh, u have such o beutiful blue eyes' and i am telling this with kusala citta than is it right speech? .... S: Likely to be mostly attachment when speaking like that, but only panna can tell, of course. To be kusala, it must be dana, sila or bhavana. If it is a moment of dana or sila or samatha bhavana, it is kusala, it is 'right', but not 'right' of the eightfold path. Kusala speech when giving or helping or when there is metta, for example, is 'right speech', not 'wrong', but not 'right speech' of the eightfold path. For it to be right speech of the eightfold path, it must be accompanied by right understanding of reality. I liked the example Ajahn Sujin gave of akusala building up like a castle - very hard to get out of it. When there are good deeds including wholesome speech of any kind, she stressed that these are precious moments. This afternoon, Pt visited us, and between some dhamma discussion he worked for quite a long time with Jonothan on the Dhamma recording equipment. The conversation was very technical - all about wires and things that made little sense to me. Of course, there were many different cittas involved, bound to be lots of attachment too, but the point is that the moments of dana, of kindness and assistance are so precious. Precious, because at those brief moments, akusala cittas cannot arise. When there's no dana, sila or bhavana, it's just more akusala building up like the castle. Do you remember, Ajahn also stressed how doing good anytime is a "happy moment" - "one feels much better than at akusala moments", she said. Just refraining, virati sila, is not enough, there must be carita sila - doing good deeds, helping with metta and kindness too. ... >I think from many many wholesome thoughts, the Buddha made subtle distinctions to learn us to talk more particulary of what really helps to condition more right understanding. Like the thoughts concerning the goal. .... S: Yes, different kinds of kusala, different levels of kusala. Of course we all value the importance of discussing and considering Dhamma, otherwise we wouldn't be here. However, as the commentary note I also quoted made clear, it is "That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed." Right understanding of realities is the most precious. There can be right understanding of realities no matter the occasion, no matter the topic, whether discussing dhamma, helping friends, doing one's work or housework - any time at all. Another example, whilst helping our friends or parents, we may be talking about all sorts of topics such as insurance, health, gardens, family relations or money. We are not monks. Ajahn Sujin, Sukin and I have been talking about lists of people, hotels, bookings, travel arrangements for January in Thailand for friends. Such help to friends or family can be with generosity, with metta, no matter how little the kusala. There can be understanding at any of these times. All the details we read in the Teachings are for the understanding of realities now as anatta, no matter how life is at this moment, no matter what the situation or occasion or topic of conversation. If we think we should only talk about paramatha dhammas, we neglect most the mangala (blessings) discussed, we are limiting the Buddha's Teachings and forgetting that the development of understanding has to be at this very moment of seeing, hearing, thinking or whatever is conditioned to arise now. Metta Sarah ====== #127298 From: sarah abbott ________________________________ > From: jagkrit2012 >> Sarah: A) MN 58 (as given recently by Pt): >> >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html >> >> ---quote >> [1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, >> unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to >> others, he does not say them. >> >> [2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, >> unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them. >> >> [3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, >> beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the >> proper time for saying them. >> >> [4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, >> unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. >> >> [5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, >> unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them. >> >> [6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, >> beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper >> time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living >> beings." >> *** > >JJ: Thank you very much Sarah. This categories about speaking are very crucial for us to check in our daily life whether we say things which we should or shouldn't. I check mind and found that half of the day, it is unnecessary to say a thing at all. !! ... S: I agree, good reminders. Again, it's the citta that counts. We may often keep quiet with akusala cittas too!! I also heard on the Poland recording, Ajahn saying: "Don't day any reality at all. Don't try to have less dosa or sadness....Most people don't want to have attachment and aversion, so they try to get away from it to have understanding, but actually it has to be right now." No matter what the reality appearing now, there can be awareness and understanding, otherwise it's Self again who wants to only speak wisely, not to have aversion or attachment.....just more clinging, instead of understanding dhammas as anatta. Metta Sarah ===== #127299 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > I think I will post the debate daily ...all the debates are so wonderful > [:heart:] > I find the Milindapanha to be a wonderful text also. The full version is here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm in Dhamma -josh #127301 From: "sarah" wrote: > A good reminder, and at times this or something like it is heard. But my "compassion" is so conditional, if it suits self, there is "compassion," (it is not karuna cuz it serves self) if self has an opposing interest, forget it! ... S: Right. If there is any thought of oneself at such a time, no compassion, no metta. ... >And self is very strong at 3 am when I can't sleep and a mosquito is working on me! I just find it fascinating, for some (who shall remain nameless) there are conditions for compassion towards insects always. .... S: Impossible! Bound to be dosa and attachment to sense objects for all but the anagami and arahat! ... >To be honest I find the fact that I kill some mosquitos is of less import to me than the fascination I find with how it all plays out beyond control...fortunately fearing the result of deeds snd other kusala factors do arise quite often, with understanding ot not, and there is often or usually abstaining from killing. ... S: "fearing the result of deeds" is likely to be dosa conditioned by attachment to self most the time. When the citta is kusala, no concern about the results for 'me' at all. Like the fear of unhappy rebirth which people often refer to - just more clinging, more attachment, no understanding at such times. ... > Your reminder is added to Nina's into the conditions that will or will not result in an > end to killing mosquitos. (Or mosquitoes for that matter.) And never again will I accuse you of having failed to actively support non-committing of bad deeds like I did once some years back. Phil 2008 would attack Phil 2012 for fiddling while Rome is burning etc... ... S: I'm quite sure if I had had any idea that there was about to be the committing of bad deeds and if you were around (not in one of your non-computer periods), I'd certainly have said quite a bit. I'm not shy to stick my neck out if I think someone's about to get into trouble, even when I know it won't be popular. Sadly, we often have no idea. This morning Jon and I got a message from a local health centre where we take a weekly pilates exercise class with a young teacher who smiles and is friendly and very talented. Last week she didn't show up and no one knew the reason. It turns out she has died, suspected suicide. When we last saw her, there was no hint of any problem at all. We never, never know the other's cittas. Mettta Sarah ===== AdChoices #127302 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: Only javana cittas and cetasikas accumulate. The "marks", the signs are thought about. Just as the carpenter marks the different trees so that they can be found or remembered later, so sanna marks tastes, visible objects, sounds or concepts so that there will be the recalling of them later, depending on so many factors. This is how we can type or read or learn a language. > > p: Could you please say a bit more about marks. I.e. in the Vs. excerpts Alberto posted, it said that recollecting happens without thinking. So, I'm still unsure of what marks are - they are not concepts, they are not sanna exactly, but they are thought about (via concepts) and recollected (via sanna). ... S: Sanna remembers and marks at every moment and with every citta. So even at moments of seeing and hearing, sanna is remembering and marking the object experienced. It's never lost. The sanna accumulates remembering what has been marked before. The marks are the particular characteristics of the object, the signs which are interpreted by thinking as being this or that. Each visible object is different because it has a different characteristic. If there were no sanna marking the various realities experienced, there'd be no pleasant and unpleasant feelings on account of them, no thoughts or stories about people, places and things. When sanna marks concepts, they are remembered. Without sanna, a baby would not learn to recognise various signs as being its mother or milk to drink. Sanna is referred to as the 'sign-maker' because it is sanna which 'marks' or identifies the sign or mark and recognises it at each moment so it can be recalled later. As we discussed, if we try to be aware of sanna or to logically know its nature, there is likely to be more thinking with doubt, but there can be awareness and understanding of the present thinking at such times, the seeing now, the visible object now. Not sure if this helps. I always appreciate our discussions. Metta Sarah ==== #127303 From: "sarah" wrote: > > > S: Yes, I think the point is that it's better to have heard the truth and to have some understanding about realities vs concepts. This doesn't mean there won't be lots of attachment, grief and ignorance for a long time to come. Thinking it should be otherwise would be wrong understanding of what we've heard. > >R: And the student often expects the teacher to be perfect, which is also wrong. ... S: Very wrong and unhelpful and bound to lead to disappointment. Metta Sarah ===== #127304 From: "sarah" wrote: > I thought I would just give a short update to let you all know about me. I am doing fine and still struggling everyday to find the right balance of spirituality and insight- that is being fine because that is the nature of our chosen existence. :-))) ... S: Even at time of "struggling to find the right balance....", there can be awareness of the thinking, the anxiety, seeing, hearing.....all just dhammas, not 'James' or anyone else:-) Was there any choosing of such an existence or were there just conditions to see, hear and think at such times? ... > > Honestly, I do find myself preoccupied lately with material matters. I seem to care so much about the November elections and with the state of the world these days. On the one hand I know that it is all illusion and a hologram, but on the other hand I worry about all the people who will be destroyed who don't know. ... S: So again it comes back to the 'now'. There's bound to be preoccupation with material matters with events around us. There are bound to be worries about all kinds of ideas that the proliferating mind grasps after. All very natural, but what we learn from the Buddha's teachings is that there can be a growth of wisdom, a development of understanding at anytime at all. Often it seems that it is other people and the world at large that causes all the problems in life when really the problems come down to the greeds, aversions and ignorance arising now. Usually we're lost in thought about this and that story or situation with no awareness at all of thinking as just another impermanent dhamma. On and on we live in this dream world, taking the fantasies for being real and forgetting about what is actually real at this moment - the seeing of visible object, the hearing of sound, thinking about all sorts of ideas. ... > > Really, I usually feel like I am in a galactic struggle between good and bad/ light and dark. I miss my simple days here at DSG where I was just debating the truth of the Buddha's teaching. It get tiring debating the truth of EVERYTHING. ... S: Remember, no 'you' in truth to be in any struggle or in anything else. Just fleeting, passing dhammas at this or any other time. .. > > My well wishes and fondness for everyone here. I hope that we can all find the truth together.... ... S: Discuss the Dhamma with us more often. You might also like to try listening to some of the audio series from Poland if you have time on www.dhammastudygroup. org. Thanks for calling by. Always good to hear from you. Metta Sarah ==== #127305 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: Apart from 7 "gross" rupas experienced through the sense doors (i.e visible object, sound, odor, taste, solidity, temperature and motion), any other rupas can only be experienced through the mind door. > >R: That is interesting - doesn't quite make sense to me, as my concept of rupas has always been somewhat physicalized. But I guess that rupas can be concrete and yet somewhat removed from what we normally think of as physical. ... S: Yes and there are gross rupas, such as the sense objects referred to above and subtle rupas, not readily apparent. There are also 'concrete' rupas and 'non-concrete' rupas. The intimations and space are 'non-concrete' rupas. > > > Some of these are "sabhava" which have their own characteristics which can be discerned, while others are "asabhava" which means they don't arise directly from the primary rupas but are attributes or dependent on other rupas, such as space which separates kalapas of rupas and depends on those kalapas. ... >R: So space for instance is relative to the properties of the arising kalapas, while others are more independently arisen. ... S: All rupas depend on the 4 primary rupas and the asabhava rupas such as space, depend on the arising of various kalapas for their arising in between these kalapas. This just shows the intricacy of dhammas, how there are so many different 'elements' or realities arising and falling away, dependent on various conditions. No people, no things at all. ... ..... > > S: The kamma is the cetana accompanying the citta. When there is harsh speech, for example, the citta conditions the speech intimation group or rupas (numerous times, of course) and the meaning is conveyed. > >R: Okay, so the intensity, one could say, of the cetana, will be expressed through the intensity of the "harsh speech," for instance. The harsh speech represents the intention of the citta, but does not itself cause additional kamma. ... S: Right. Of course that "harsh speech" may sound very gentle or be given in just a whisper. Terrorists can have very sweet-sounding voices. It's the intensity of the anger or other akusala at that time. ... >Yet it is hard to accept that the killing of another being, for instance, has only the significance in terms of kamma of expressing the kamma already created by the cetana, and that there is no additional "penalty" for the carrying out of the act of violence. ... S: The 'penalty' is in the result that follows and in the accumulated tendency for such kinds of cetana. Very dangerous indeed. ... >R: Is that in fact true, that the kamma is all carried by the cetana, and that the actual killing does not add to the degree of the kamma? .... S: Yes, the kamma is the accumulation of cetana to that degree. When it is strong enough to perform such a deed, the kamma is 'heaped up' in such a way, ready to lead to more deeds with ever greater results in lives to come. .... >R: Can the speech intimation rupa be discerned/experienced? And if so, by whom [speaker or recipient] and how? ... S: We can think about and speculate about intentions and intimations, but the speech intimation rupa itself is a very subtle rupa, an asabhava rupa, not readily experienced or known. Metta Sarah ===== #127306 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > S: Like now. If there is metta to friends here or if a gift is given, there are just kusala cittas with the other's welfare at heart. At such times, no wrong views at all. > > But "other's welfare" still intends the metta or gift towards a being. Hard to understand how there is no wrong view and yet the intention towards a being persists. .... S: One is just being helpful and friendly at such times. There is no thought about whether or not a being exists in actuality. A small child may be friendly or angry to others. No wrong views arising, even though the latent tendency is there of course, because there is no thinking about whether people exist at such times at all. ... > > > Later there may be wrong ideas about beings existing or there may be right understanding of realities. Right understanding doesn't mean no more thoughts about your wife, your daughter or friends! > > I am glad to hear it, as I would find it hard to give them up. On the other hand, if one were to understand clearly that there were no beings, the view towards family and friends would be different than it is now. ... S: Right understanding of realities, of dhammas as anatta, no person, no thing, leads to greater friendliness, caring and assistance to family, friends and strangers one meets, regardless of their behaviour. This is because with an appreciation of conditioned dhammas, one is less inclined to get angry with others or to blame them when one has unpleasant experiences. One knows that experiences through the senses are caused by past kamma and that the problems in life arise on account of lobha, dosa and mona - not people and situations. One appreciates more how much ignorance there is and one has more sympathy and understanding for others with the same problems- just the same ignorance, attachment and aversion. And here by 'others' is to be understood as just more conditioned dhammas referred to in this way. Metta Sarah ===== #127308 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: Yes, whenever seeing arises, it sees visible object. The characteristic > > of that seeing can be directly known by awareness in the following mind > > door process. It is the nimitta or 'sign' of that reality. > > > > >H: What, if any, is the difference between nimitta and thinking? ... S: Thinking refers to namas, those realities which experience an idea or concept. Nimitta can never experience anything. It refers to the sign of reality or a concept which is experienced. .... > > S: An illusion. Even supramundane cittas must have an object (nibbana), > > even arupa jhana cittas must have an object. > > > > > I only tried to describe what was experienced, which was really impossible > to describe. On the other hand I get the feeling you are only quoting what > you have read / heard. ... S: The point was merely that there can never be an experience without an object experienced, whether that be a conditioned reality, a concept or nibbana in the case of supra mundane cittas. Even now, it can be proved that it's impossible to see without an object seen, impossible to hear without an object heard, impossible to think without an idea thought about. ... > > I would check with your sources, because there's no nibbana in this > lot....... > > "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, > tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, > monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I > will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds > for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be > put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." .... S: This is referring to the ayatanas. The translation is problematic. "Intellect" refers to mano or manayatana, i.e. all cittas. "ideas" refers to dhammayatana which includes all cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana, i.e. all dhammas not included in the other ayatanas. If you look in U.P. under "All" or "Sabba Sutta", you'll find plenty of detail on this. ... > I imagine this means the Buddha is saying that your sources are put to > grief :-) ... S: Ha, ha! Check my sources and you'll see which ones come to grief :-) ... > Thank you :-). It would be lovely to catch up with you all again. > Realistically, I think it could happen after the New Year sometime. Mum and > Dad live with us, and they are receiving a steady stream of visitors around > this time. > > In the meantime, if you are travelling out this way, feel very welcome to > drop in. ... S: Thanks Herman - maybe we'll go for a drive with Pt one time if we don't see you hear in the New Year... Metta Sarah ===== #127309 From: "sarah" wrote: > > L: I ve heard this two I think before. But can u give more details on that two kinds of siila? Wasnt it mentioned at visudhimagga? I am recalling carita siila, or am I wrong? > JJ: I checked in Thai Tipitaka and translated some part of the explantion in the sutta. > > Suttanta.tipitaka Kuktaga.nikaya Chariya.tipitaka book 9 session 4 > Pakinnaka.gatha > > "There are 2 kind of sila. One is varitta sila and the other is jaritta or charitta sila. Varita sila of Bhodhi satta is as follows. He has kind heart to all being eventhough in his dream. He touches no one's assets like no one touches a snake. He apriciates to help others. If he is a monk, he stays far away from carnality. If he is normal person, he has no indecent mind toward others' wife ever. When he speaks, he speaks fair amount of words which are truth, worth and kind. He know when is a good time to speak. He isn't greed, vindictive and seeing no wrong view. He has Krammasakata.nana (panna about kramma) and has steadfast faith in right practice. He has strong metta in all places." > > I'm not sure that there is any translation in English. .... S: B.Bodhi translation as given in the "Treatise on the Paramis' from the Cariya Pitaka comy, included in his translation of the Brahmajala Sutta and commentaries http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel409.html "Virtue is twofold as avoidance (vaaritta) and performance (caaritta). Herein, this is the method by which virtue as avoidance should be practiced. A bodhisattva should have such a heart of sympathy for all beings that he does not feel any resentment toward anyone, even in a dream. Because he is dedicated to helping others, he would no more misappropriate the belongings of others than he would take hold of a poisonous water snake. If he is a monk, he should live remote from unchastity, abstaining from the seven bonds of sexuality (A.iv,54-56), not to speak of adultery. If he is a householder, he should never arouse even an evil thought of lust for the wives of others. When he speaks, his statements should be truthful, beneficial, and endearing, and his talk measured, timely, and concerned with the Dhamma. His mind should always be devoid of covetousness, ill-will, and perverted views. He should possess the knowledge of the ownership of kamma and have settled faith and affection for recluses and brahmans who are faring and practicing rightly." ... > For Jaritta sila, there is very long explantion which all concerns doing good to others. S: : The first part: "The practice of virtue as performance should be understood as follows: Herein, at the appropriate time, a bodhisattva practices salutation, rising up, respectful greetings, and courteous conduct toward good friends worthy of reverence. At the appropriate time he renders them service, and he waits upon them when they are sick. When he receives well-spoken advice he expresses his appreciation. He praises the noble qualities of the virtuous and patiently endures the abuse of antagonists. He remembers help rendered to him by others, rejoices in their merits, dedicates his own merits to the supreme enlightenment, and always abides diligently in the practice of wholesome states. When he commits a transgression he acknowledges it as such and confesses it to his co-religionists. Afterward he perfectly fulfills the right practice. He is adroit and nimble in fulfilling his duties toward beings when these are conducive to their good. He serves as their companion. When beings are afflicted with the suffering of disease, etc., he prepares the appropriate remedy. He dispels the sorrow of those afflicted by the loss of wealth, etc. Of a helpful disposition, he restrains with Dhamma those who need to be restrained, rehabilitates them from unwholesome ways, and establishes them in wholesome courses of conduct. He inspires with Dhamma those in need of inspiration. And when he hears about the loftiest, most difficult, inconceivably powerful deeds of the great bodhisattvas of the past, issuing in the ultimate welfare and happiness of beings, by means of which they reached perfect maturity in the requisites of enlightenment, he does not become agitated and alarmed, but reflects: "Those Great Beings were only human beings. But by developing themselves through the orderly fulfillment of the training they attained the loftiest spiritual power and the highest perfection in the requisites of enlightenment. I, too, should practice the same training in virtue, etc. In that way I, too, will gradually fulfill the training and in the end attain the same state." Then, with unflagging energy preceded by this faith, he perfectly fulfills the training in virtue, etc." *** "Virtue should be reflected upon as the basis for rapture and joy; as granting immunity from fear of self-reproach, the reproach of others, temporal punishment, and an evil destination after death; as praised by the wise; as the root-cause for freedom from remorse; as the basis for security; and as surpassing the achievements of high birth, wealth, sovereignty, long life, beauty, status, kinsmen, and friends." ... Metta Sarah ===== #127310 From: "sarah" wrote: > I saw your lovely picture with 2 Dhammawheel members in Thailand(may be last 2 month)...they put the picture for all DW members to see. .. S: Thx for telling me! ... > > Thanks for reading my dpd story..I'm still a story-teller. ... S: Yes, I like reading the Dpd stories you post most. Even if I have read them before, I like to re-read them in this way. Thx for shaing. Metta Sarah ===== #127312 From: "sarah" wrote: > As promised, I am now posting AN 3.87. Pa.thama-sikkhaa Sutta > (translation by Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi under the title of The Three Trainings and the Four Stages) > AN 3.87. Pa.thama-sikkhaa Sutta > translated by Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi > [3] "Then, monks, a monk here is one fully accomplished in virtue and concentration but only moderately accomplished in wisdom. He infringes some of the lesser and minor training rules and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because, monks, this is not said to be impossible for him. But as to those training rules that are fundamental to the holy life, in conformity with the holy life, in these his virtue is stable and steady, and he trains himself in the training rules he has undertaken. With the utter destruction of five lower fetters he becomes one due to be reborn spontaneously (in a celestial realm) and there attain final Nibbaana, without ever returning from that world. ... S: I'm appreciating all your sutta contributions. It must be a lot of work. For the Yuganadha Sutta, 4: 170, we noticed some small differences in the translation and notes in B.Bodhi's new AN translation. At stages of insight and enlightenment, I understand that samatha and vipassana are always 'yoked' at such moments. At stages of insight, the concentration is equivalent in strength to access concentration and at stages of enlightenment, equivalent in strength to absorption concentration. Metta Sarah ==== #127313 From: "Lukas" N: Right understanding conditions above all kusala siila. We > understand more that realities are anattaa and that there is not a > self who can have more kusala siila. When we cling less to self, > naturally there will be more intentness on the wellbeing of others. > It comes naturally, no need to think of it. All of us are dull to > appreciate kusala, it comes with the development of right understanding. L: Yes, this is true, if more uunderstanding, more kusala, but little by little. I remember Acharn words, that I noted at a pice of paper and carrying with me in my pocket for some time: "If there is light, there is no darkness. And it can grow little by little." As Wojtek reminded us all: 'Is seeing a problem , is hearing a problem?' we are apt to forget this all the time and thinking a stories of Dhamma. But right understanding, non-forgetfulness to all kinds of realities that happens, this is a biggest help. Best wishes Lukas #127314 From: han tun wrote: > As promised, I am now posting AN 3.87. Pa.thama-sikkhaa Sutta > (translation by Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi under the title of The Three Trainings and the Four Stages) > AN 3.87. Pa.thama-sikkhaa Sutta > translated by Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi > [3] "Then, monks, a monk here is one fully accomplished in virtue and concentration but only moderately accomplished in wisdom. He infringes some of the lesser and minor training rules and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because, monks, this is not said to be impossible for him. But as to those training rules that are fundamental to the holy life, in conformity with the holy life, in these his virtue is stable and steady, and he trains himself in the training rules he has undertaken. With the utter destruction of five lower fetters he becomes one due to be reborn spontaneously (in a celestial realm) and there attain final Nibbaana, without ever returning from that world. Han: Thank you very much for your above confirmation. --------------- S: I'm appreciating all your sutta contributions. It must be a lot of work. For the Yuganadha Sutta, 4: 170, we noticed some small differences in the translation and notes in B.Bodhi's new AN translation. At stages of insight and enlightenment, I understand that samatha and vipassana are always 'yoked' at such moments. At stages of insight, the concentration is equivalent in strength to access concentration and at stages of enlightenment, equivalent in strength to absorption concentration. Han: Thank you very much for the above information. I appreciate your kind efforts to help me understnad more. with metta and respect, Han #127315 From: "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Lukas > > > L: Here I have a question. Acharn on recordings mentioned once kusala siila, akusala siila and avyakata siila as I remember. What is kusala, akusala and avyakata siila? I would like to hear more on that. Especially what is akusala siila? > > JJ: I've asked this question to A.Paderm and he came up with the detail answer and reference as I'm trying to translate into English as follows: > > > A.Paderm: Sila has several meaning which is according to Buddha conveyed in which aspect. For Sila in meaning of 3, kusala sila, akusala sila and avayakata sila, we have to understand that Buddha referred Sila in what aspect and in that aspect what does sila mean? Therefore, for good understanding, we have to aware that Buddha is so cleaver in instructing. It is desanaa-vilaasa, which means the beauty of instruction. Thus, even one word as sila, indeed, has other interpretation. We should not focus only one meaning as we think because dhamma is very subtle. > > In general, we hear sila and think about good behavior such as forbidden from akusala through body and speech. For example, we refrain from killing, stealing. This is general understanding of sila in the aspect of bad behavior, called akusala sila. > > However, sila has another meaning. For sila of 3 kinds, Buddha interpreted as akusala sila, kusala sila and avayakata sila. Sila in this aspect means common deed of all being which arises. This refers that 3 sila is common deeds of all beings in ordinary daily life which are various because each being is only one at its being. Human beings are different. Ever animals are different. All common deeds of beings are so various according to their accumulation. However, common deeds of beings can not arise if there is no citta and cetasika. Sila, therefore, is considered in the scope of citta and cetasika. Citta has 4 categories, kusala, akusala, vipaka and kariya citta. When speaking of deed through body and speech, there must be javana citta arising and conditioning any deed through body and speech and that javana citta can be kusala citta, akusala citta and kiritya citta (avayakata). > > When kusala citta arises and conditions body or speech action, it is a deed of a person according to kusala and is called kusala sila. Same as akusala, when akusala citta arises and conditions bad deed through body and speech, it is called akusala sila. Those are the deeds of a person who is not arahat, which always fall into kusala or akusala. Avayakata sila is a deed through body and speech of kiriya citta of arahant who has no kilesa. Body and speech actions of an arahat are conditioned by kiriya citta from not killing up to doing anything in daily life. At that moment, the common deed of the arahat is conditioned by kiriya citta. then it is called avayakata sila. > > Example of 3 silas: > > kusala sila: when any human being who is not arahat (from ordinary person to anagami person) does good deed. For example, refrain from killing or giving dana to others, at the moment it is kusala sila which is a common deed of that person according to kusala. > > Akusala sila: when any human being who is not arahat (from ordinary person to anagami person) does bad deed. For example, killing, it is akusala sila. However, even any action through body and speech which is conditioned by akusala citta such as brushing teeth or doing any thing in ordinary life, it is also call akusala sila because the common deed of that person is akusala. > > Avayakata sila: when an arahat refrain from akusal deed such as not killing, his citta is not kusala or akusala but his citta is kiriya citta or avayakata. Even in his daily life, the arahat manages to do anything with kiriya citta, not kusala or akusala. His common deed, therefore, is conditioned by kiriya citta and is called avayakata sila. > > The 3 silas is explained in Suttanta Pitaka, Kuddhaka Nikaya, Padhisumphita mak, book 7, session 1, pg.589 > > JJ: I hope that you get some idea from this. > > Anumodhana > > Jagkrit > #127316 From: han tun wrote: Dear Friends, More on 'right' speech: AN 5s 198 (8) "Speech" (Bodhi transl): #127317 From: "Yawares Sastri" Dear Yawares, > > I find the Milindapanha to be a wonderful text also. The full version is here: #127318 From: "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Josh, > > Thank you very much for the link!...I love love Milindapanha..Bhikkhu Nagasena was so wise...I'll try to find Nagasena story to post real soon..I so love him. > > yawares > ------------------ > > Dear Yawares, > > > > I find the Milindapanha to be a wonderful text also. The full version is here: > #127319 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > #127320 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Yawares, > Sadhu! He was so wise. So happy u appraciate milndhapanha. I got this recently from Sarah and Jon as a dhamma gift. Very very helpful. > > Best wishes > Lukas #127324 From: "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Members, > > I truly love/admire Bhikkhu Nagasena. > > ************** > > The Debate Of King Milinda > [Edited by Bhikkhu Pesala] > > #4. So, Devamantiya, Anantakàya and Mankura went to > Nàgasena's hermitage to accompany the monks to the > palace. As they were walking along together Anantakàya > said to Nàgasena, "When, your reverence, I say, `Nàgasena' > what is that Nàgasena?" > > "What do you think that Nàgasena is?" > > "The soul, the inner breath, which comes and goes." > > "But if that breath, having gone out, should not return > would that man still be alive?" > > "Certainly not." > > "And when those trumpeters and the like have blown > their trumpets does their breath return to them?" > > "No venerable sir, it doesn't." > > "Then why don't they die?" > > "I am not capable of arguing with you sir, pray tell me > how it is." > > "There is no soul in the breath. These inhalations and > exhalations are merely constituent powers of the bodily > frame." Then the elder talked to him on the Abhidhamma > and Anantakàya was satisfied with his explanation. > > Note: Thera (elder) is nowadays normally used only for bhikkhus of ten or more years standing > but Nàgasena was only seven rains. > > --------------- > > #5. Then, after the monks had arrived at the palace and > finished their meal, the king sat down on a low seat and > asked, "What shall we discuss?" > > "Let our discussion be about the Dhamma." > > Then the king said, "What is the purpose, your > reverence, of your going forth and what is the final goal at > which you aim?" > > "Our going forth is for the purpose that this suffering > may be extinguished and that no further suffering may > arise; the complete extinction of grasping without > remainder is our final goal." > > "Is it, venerable sir, for such noble reasons that > everyone joins the Order?" > > "No. Some enter to escape the tyranny of kings, > some to be safe from robbers, some to escape from debt > and some perhaps to gain a livelihood. However, those > who enter rightly do so for the complete extinction of > grasping." > > ************ > yawares > #127325 From: "truth_aerator" > I think using Pali terms makes this a little easier: > > If we take the term paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as a more precise way of saying the sutta's sacca (truth) & theta (certainty), this differentiates the way a khandha, dhatu or ayatana is known from how atta is known. > > So the khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas etc. are of an order of experience that is called: > > sacca, theta Again, in Lokayatika Sutta the Buddha seemed to reject teachings of Everything exists, Everything does not exist, Everything a Oneness, Everything a Manyness. The pali word is "sabba". - SN12.48 How the Buddha defined "sabba" we can find in "sabba sutta": "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas." - SN35.23 And I hope you remember some of my Sutta Nipata quotes... Perhaps the great Indian Scholars were too much into atomistic metaphysics and later on interpreted everything in that light. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html With best wishes, Alex #127326 From: Nina van Gorkom is there. You know in what posture you are now, namely, sitting, and the idea of self is there. There is clinging to the body as I, and not just clinging to the body; there is clinging to seeing, to hearing, to smelling, to anything in life, each moment. That is why right understanding needs to be developed. Do not mind about other things, such as, do I have sati, is my pa~n~naa great or strong enough. That is attachment to the self. When you think about it whether or not you understand, it is the self again. ****** Nina. #127327 From: "Yawares Sastri" Dear Yawares, > Sadhu. Venerable Nagasena is so true. If he is so true, what our Lord would be. I like Venerable Nagasena so much. Do u remember when he gave a dhamma talk to maha-upasika? > > Best wishes > Lukas > #127328 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi RobE, > > > > Perhaps it might be clearer to paraphrase everything I have said so far > as > > - there is no experience of conditions. There is no denial of > > conditionality in that - it is just that conditionality is known, or > > understood, not seen, heard, felt, etc. > > I would agree that 'seeing' as a function or category is not experienced > through the eye, only the experience of seeing. However, I would not go so > far as to say that only "visual object" is experienced, rather than seeing > at all. Only because "visual object" seems to also be a kind of > conclusionary categorization of that which is experienced. I guess I'm > afraid of turning seeing into a set of objects, rather than a continuous > sequence of experiences. Not sure if that is clear or not, but basically I > guess I agree that there is no experience of "the eye" in seeing, nor > certainly any experiences of "portals" or functions. > > I take your point - "visual object" also lends itself to reification. > I wonder though whether some of the feelings and reactions that accompany > the visual aspect of seeing, such as pain from bright light, or being drawn > to an attractive object, should all be defined as separate, mental events, > and the visual only be defined by the cold object, even though that object > never occurs all by itself without some sort of accompanying qualities. I > would cut off my own inclusion of such accompaniments at the point that > other functions take over, such as vedana, which is a separate moment of > reaction, and at aspects of experience that can't occur without > conceptualization. > > So basically I agree with you...? > Sounds like it :-) > > ... > > > > We agree that seeing isn't seen - can I advance this one step further and > > say that seeing is understood, not experienced? In other words, a > > one-facultied being cannot know seeing, they only know the seen. > > Understanding cannot possible arise from whatever is seen only. > > Yes, I think I agree with that. There seems to me to be a certain degree > of intelligence in seeing itself, that draws the visual 'scan' to or away > from objects and instills certain qualities or reactions within the seeing > itself, but it is hard to talk about such without bringing the "eye" into > the equation, such as pain from bright light, and I am also not sure if I > am right, or how to define, the sense of a visual intelligence. > > ...there is no need to introduce the eye, seeing, or visual > > > portal into the experience of what is seen. IMO, all of these terms are > all > > attempts at explaining the seen, and that is something totally different. > > Okay, agreed. > > > > The alleged conditionality of the seen and the seen are not identical - > > what is seen is immanent, but the eye, seeing, visual portal are > inferences > > (thinking) about processes of which we have no direct experience. If we > > did, we wouldn't have to infer. > > Agreed to a point - only to add that certain inferences are "natural" > occurrences for a being that has mind as a faculty; and also to add that > "as thought" the experiences of those concepts is direct, just not direct > perceptions. You are right that they should be identified as mental > experiences, not perceptual. > > ... > > > > I actually meant that it is seeing, or the eye, or visual portal that is > > ideal. All that is experienced is the seen. Seeing, the eye, visual > portal > > are inferred, and they have to be inferred because we do not experience > > them. And we do not experience them, because conditions well precede > > experience, which amongst other things allows for the illusion of a > > controlling self. > > I think I see the point you were making with the distant visual object > being the "condition" for the light which reaches the eye, ie, the > conditions are not experienced, only the experiential result. Okay, that is > more clear than it was before. You were not saying that the visual object > is unreal or inaccurate because the light source is distant, but merely > that those conditions that provide for the visual object are not > experienced, and thus the act of perception has no access to conditions. Do > I understand you correctly now? > Yes, we understand each other > > ...you don't seem to want to defend your own view, > > > > so I guess I'm dancing with my own speech portal here, and it's > starting to > > > echo. Care to participate? > > > > > > > > Sure. > > :-) Okay, great. I think that, due to various unseen conditions, we're > already in process. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127329 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- > <. . .> > > H: I am wondering, is there anyone reading this forum who disputes that > "existence" for the Buddha is framed in terms of dependent arising, and not > in terms of things/existents? > > > <. . .> I always understand "exist" in these contexts to always mean > "exist in dependence on .....", and that it would be far better translated > as "occur". > --- > > KH: I don't know how to make it any clearer, according to the Theravada > Dhamma conditioned dhammas are *things* that *exist* for one moment, during > which they arise, persist and fall. > Yes, I agree that in the Theravada commentarial tradition, "things" are held to be in the way you say. > > I know some people insist that dhammas are somehow 'mere occurrences' > (whatever that might mean) that lack `own being'. This view led to schisms > in the sangha around the time of Nagarjuna, but I think the interesting > question is why is it so important to those people to believe it? It must > entail a fundamentally different understanding of the Dhamma. > Yes, I think you are right about the fundamentally different understanding of the Dhamma, but probably wrong about placing these differences at the foot of Nagarjuna. Before there were any commentarial traditions, there were the suttas, what was heard to be said. You will not ever "hear" the Buddha holding forth about existence outside of the context of dependent arising. What we are entitled to say about phenomena is that in the presence of this there is that, and in the absence of this, that is absent. > Ken H > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127330 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Dear Josh, all, > > With best wishes, > > Alex > A thought experiment: Find the sutta where Buddha classifies (vibhanga) what "sacca" or "truth" is. Find the sutta where Buddha says atta is not found as a sacca. Then, ask yourself how does what Buddha define as "sacca" differ from "atta", that cannot be found. How is it that these things --- which are sacca --- can be found, but atta cannot be found? What makes them different & why? - In Dhamma Josh #127331 From: "jrg493" wrote: > Perhaps the great Indian Scholars were too much into atomistic metaphysics and later on interpreted everything in that light. > > I have a question for you: (hence the question mark at the end of the sentence) Is there an author or group of authors or texts --- besides the suttas themselvs --- which you take as authoritative in interpreting sutta or Buddha's "original" intent? As in, I know some people dig Bhikkhu Nanavira, others prefer Ananda Coomaraswamy, etc. In Dhamma - Josh AdChoices #127332 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Josh, > > ---- > <. . .> > > J: I have a hunch that this concern is more prevalent in the West, now, > insofar as it is likely a rare thing for a Westerner to be exposed purely > to the Theravada tradition. If you go to any bookstore, or do a web search > on Buddhism there will be heavy loads of Mahayana Buddhism, Vajrayana > Buddhism, Zen, quantum physics, Taoism, etc. > > > > >That was my experience. And, consequently, I ended up knowing way more > than I needed to about these groups & it was only after a long time that I > could tell clearly how their positions differed from > suttas/Abhidhamma. > ---- > > KH: I think most of us at DSG have been down that path. And the greatest > single cause of our misadventures has possibly been the view that dhammas > do not ultimately exist. > > Consider, for example, the book Yawares has been quoting.* No disrespect > to Yawares, of course, but that type of book is what we end up with if we > discount the ultimate reality of dhammas. If nothing really exists then > anyone can say anything about the Dhamma and no one (no sect or cult) can > be any more wrong, or right, than anyone else. > > We end up with meaningless doubletalk which bears no resemblance to the > Abhidhamma. When the differences are pointed out we are told the Abhidhamma > must be wrong. > > I don't think this is an accurate reflection - it would be more accurate to say that a focus on Dhammasangani type stuff only is totally distorting of the Abhidhamma - without the Patthana the Abhidhamma is as sterile as your next analytical textbook. Context is everything :-) > Ken H > > * "Dharmas here are all empty, all are the primal void. None are born or > die. Nor are they stained or pure, nor do they wax or wane. So in emptiness > no form, no feeling, thought, or choice nor is there consciousness. No eye, > ear, nose,tongue, body, mind; no color, sound, smell, taste, touch,or what > the mind takes hold of, nor even act of sensing. No ignorance or end of it > nor all that comes of ignorance: no withering, no death, no end of them. > Nor is there pain or cause > of pain or cease in pain or noble path to lead from pain, not even wisdom > to attain, attainment too is emptiness. So know that the bodhisattva > holding to nothing whatever but dwelling in prajna > wisdom is freed of delusive hindrance, rid of the fear bred by it, and > reaches clearest nirvana." > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127333 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Kaccayana sutta kenhowardau Hi Herman, --------- <. . .> > H: Yes, I think you are right about the fundamentally different understanding of the Dhamma, but probably wrong about placing these differences at the foot of Nagarjuna. Before there were any commentarial traditions, there were the suttas, what was heard to be said. ---------- KH: The ancient commentaries began in the early days of the Buddha's teaching and coincided with the suttas. --------------- > H: You will not ever "hear" the Buddha holding forth about existence outside of the context of dependent arising. --------------- KH: Who has ever suggested that conditioned paramattha dhammas existed outside the context of dependent arising? ------------- > H: What we are entitled to say about phenomena is that in the presence of this there is that, and in the absence of this, that is absent. ------------- KH: That is just a one-line summary of an extensive, elaborate doctrine. Repeating it, without knowing what it means, won't help anyone in the least. Ken H #127334 From: "philip" When there is satipathana, however, there is no trap of seeing two realities. In satipathana, citta sees how dhammas arise, function and cease, and it knows beyond doubt that this is the only reality - dhammas are all that exist and all that ever can exist. I don't personally feel that the point of satipatthana is to say that this or that exists or doesn't exist. When there is seeing, there is only seeing, when there is hearing, there is only seeing. The point of the Dhamma as far as I can see or care (for the time being at least) is to develop understanding of the arisen reality in order to develop detachment. I refuse to get caught up in the kind of Big Difficult Topics Discussed by Men On the Internet that are consuming DSG these days (and always) "citta sees how dhammas arise, function and cease, and it knows beyond doubt that this is the only reality" - this sounds like an Internetism to me. Not interested in delirious thinking that the above would set off if I started thinking about it, so I won't. Citta knows the presently arisen reality - what you wrote above is not a present arisen reality. But thanks anyways. No further comments on my comment on whether beings exist or not, it's not important for the development of sati because whether beings exist or not, they can only be cognized as concept, not paramattha dhamma. Of course I value beings (except mosquitoes) and work my ass off for their well-being every day. Phil #127335 From: "philip" Op 19-okt-2012, om 11:55 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > We think that > > > a person is there and that he can last. Difficult to realize that > > > even now at this moment there is no one there. > > > ------ > > > > Quite often in the transcriptions you qyote "there is an idea of > > self." For me, "an idea of self" sounds like "self" is being > > thought about with understanding. If there is "an idea of self" it > > means we are thinking about self doing this or that, so there is > > some degree of detachment from the idea. But when there is lobha > > with ditthi, it feels to me that the functions of dhamma that cling > > to self is more close to the bone than "an idea", is non- > > conceptual, it is right at the core of the citta, somehow. I can't > > quite explain, I don't know if what I wrote makes any sense. Could > > I ask you to say more about the Thai terms that Ajahn uses to talk > > about "an idea" of self? > ------- > N: Never mind what word is used. Idea: another word for concept, but > implied is the wrong view of self here in this context. In Thai: > there is self (mi tuaton). > You are doing something we all do and Kh Sujin explained why it is > not helpful. I also have to remind myself. It is the following > matter: we try to label realities first, such as: lobha with wrong > view and without it, or, this is kusala, that is akusala. Then we > try to find out what the characteristics are. It should be the other > way around, though it may seem strange at first. Let us first learn > the characteristic of what appears now. I agree. I can't quite put my finger on my understanding that ditthi is not "an idea of self" because it is the functioning of cittas rooted in self rather than a concept/idea that is thought about, but that's ok, as you say, I can become more familiar with the characteristics of such cittas roote self gradually, gradually. And that is fine. It is not helpful to try to discuss difficult topics that are beyond one's understanding, in my opinion. Best to listen and listen and gradually the understanding matures without being forced by self wanting to figure things out, which of course is not helpful. For now I will just say that my understanding is that rather than "then there is an idea of self" I like "then there are cittas rooted in self" Thanks Nina. Over and out on this difficult topic. For the next while I will be reading your book on rupa. Leading up to meeting A.Sujin again in January I want to reflect more and more on seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, and so on. Of course that is self wanting to steer understanding in a certain direction. Phil p.s I have enjoyed listening to Perfections again, but I will be taking a break from that as well, it is too broad, self wants to get more technical about dhamma processes! But I will be back to it again, someday, as I'm sure... #127336 From: "sarah" T:... I didn't know that yoniso manasikara arises with all kusala cittas. ... S: I would put it this way: Whenever kusala cittas arise, there is wise attention, yoniso manasikara. ... >T: I guess yoniso manasikara in the context of one of the four conditions for the arising of panna is the one accompanied by understanding? .... S: As one of the four conditions for becoming a sotapanna, it is the wise attention and consideration with panna of what has been heard of the Teachings. Without pariyatti, there is no development of right understanding of realities. ... >T: Good to always be called back to what appears now! ... S: Yes, this is all that matters.... always alone with the moment of experience, the citta now! We have lovely dreams about Sri Lanka, Vietnam discussions, our family and friends, but there is just a moment of seeing now, thinking now, gone never to return. Metta Sarah ==== #127337 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > Given that "reality", "being", "phenomena" are irreducibly complex, > > > > > > what's the go with reducing the very same to elements?????? > > > > I think using Pali terms makes this a little easier: > > If we take the term paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality) as a more precise > way of saying the sutta's sacca (truth) & theta (certainty), this > differentiates the way a khandha, dhatu or ayatana is known from how atta > is known. > > So the khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas etc. are of an order of experience that > is called: > > sacca, theta > > whereas atta, loka (the world), sabba (the all), satta (a being) are just > the opposite. They occur as thoughts, yes, but are different in experience > than the more elementary parts of experience. > > Also, to say things cannot be found apart from another is not necessarily > the same as saying that they are synonymous once found. For example, the > Yogacara sect, the Madhyamika & different groups of Vedanta would say that > all experience possesses a common trait of either being mere consciousness > (chittamatra), conventionality (samvrta) or conceptuality (vikalpa), or a > divine reality (brahman) respectively. In such case, their distinctions are > only imputed. These are all a kind of monism, refuted in sutta. > > The Theravada explanation of four ultimate realities, I think, solves the > problem of distinctions within a unified field of experience without giving > the distinct elements too great a reality (as the Sarvastivada sect might) > or too great an unreality (as the different flavors of Monism do). If I > understand it properly, it describes paramattha dhammas as being elements > of experience which cannot be further reduced. > > So, in experience, distinct types of consciousness (citta) are not termed > concepts on par with, say, the Easter bunny & the Marlboro man, nor is the > fact of consciousness taken as a hidden unity, to which all divisions are > mere illusions. The reality of distinct types of consciousness & mind > states are affirmed as being distinct, yet occurring within a unified > process of dependent arising (& the patthana system). Everything is dynamic > --- differentiable but not separable. > > I could be wrong, but if I understand Sariputta right --- & it is a > marvelous sutta --- one can see the differences in the individual khandhas > but cannot see them as isolated parts independent of eachother. > > The term Sariputta uses is samsattha which means mixture, such as a > mixture of molasses, curd & honey as in M 46, or the association of > Moliyaphagguna with the bhikkhunis in M 21. > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/index.html > > In Dhamma > Josh > > I have hardly any issues with what you write, in other words, I nearly agree with everything that you wrote :-) I think that irreducibility is a thought, it is not directly knowable. Therefore, to me the very project of delineating paramattha dhammas is rooted in ignorance. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127339 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- > <. . .> > > H: Ultimate existents, things-in-themselves, being etc, simply cannot be > known. > --- > > KH: Are you quoting the Dhamma here, or is that your own theory? > As you might remember from previous conversations I am interested in > Dhamma discussions only on this forum. > > According to the Dhamma, namas *do* experience objects. > > So there! :-) > > Ouch. You got me :-) > Ken H,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127340 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > > Hi Nina > ... > Quite often in the transcriptions you qyote "there is an idea of self." For me, "an idea of self" sounds like "self" is being thought about with understanding. If there is "an idea of self" it means we are thinking about self doing this or that, so there is some degree of detachment from the idea. But when there is lobha with ditthi, it feels to me that the functions of dhamma that cling to self is more close to the bone than "an idea", is non-conceptual, it is right at the core of the citta, somehow. I can't quite explain, I don't know if what I wrote makes any sense. Could I ask you to say more about the Thai terms that Ajahn uses to talk about "an idea" of self? > =============== J: Don't know if this is to your point, but although it may appear that there is clinging to 'a self' as something that is real, the actuality is that the object of such clinging can only ever be *an idea (or concept or thought) of* a self, given that there is no reality that is such. I suppose that's all obvious anyway. Perhaps you could say more about why "an idea of self" sounds like "self" is being thought about with understanding. Jon #127341 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Josh, > ... > I have hardly any issues with what you write, in other words, I nearly > agree with everything that you wrote :-) > =============== J: :-)) I wonder if Josh realises how rare an occasion even such qualified agreement is :-)) > =============== > I think that irreducibility is a thought, it is not directly knowable. > Therefore, to me the very project of delineating paramattha dhammas is > rooted in ignorance. > =============== J: The teaching on dhammas is there to help there to be more understanding of the dhammas of the present momeent. Of course, this understanding does not come about by looking for irreducibles or for things contained in a list of paramattha dhammas that has been read about. But it would be a considerable help, I think, to know that seeing and visible object, for example, are each said to be dhammas whereas monitor and text (and people and things) are not. Jon #127342 From: "Yawares Sastri" J:Is there an author or group of authors or texts --- besides the >suttas >themselvs --- which you take as authoritative in >interpreting sutta or >Buddha's "original" intent? >>>>====================== >As in, I know some people dig Bhikkhu Nanavira, others prefer Ananda >Coomaraswamy, etc. >>===================================================== I am at the point where I take what I understand is useful and try my best to avoid the rest. I try not to cling to this or that philosophical position as it is uncertain (though with some moods I occasionally commit this mistake). As you know, we can't prove beyond any doubt that Buddha existed, that he was Fully Awakened, that he didn't use too much skillful means, that certain tradition properly carried his message, etc, etc. I have read a bit of Bhikkhu Nanavira. I like Ajahn Chah. I also have been reading a bit of Zen recently, and before that about some philosophical debates in Tibet. Sometimes it depends on my mood. With best wishes, Alex #127345 From: Nina van Gorkom What would be the best way to translate the Pali word "pavatti" as > in pavatti-kala or pavatti-kammajarupa? ----- N: pavattati: to proceed, move on. pavatti: the going on (of time), manifestation or process of ruupa produced by kamma. It is easier if you have the whole sentence. Nina. #127346 From: Nina van Gorkom We have lovely dreams about Sri Lanka, Vietnam discussions, our > family and friends, but there is just a moment of seeing now, > thinking now, gone never to return. ----- N: gone never to return, when thinking of a person it is difficult to swallow, but true. We wake up from a beautiful dream. And then Lukas reminded me, quoting again friend Wojtek. Lukas: Yes, this is true, if more understanding, more kusala, but little by little. I remember Acharn words, that I noted at a pice of paper and carrying with me in my pocket for some time: "If there is light, there is no darkness. And it can grow little by little." As Wojtek reminded us all: 'Is seeing a problem , is hearing a problem?' we are apt to forget this all the time and thinking a stories of Dhamma. But right understanding, non-forgetfulness to all kinds of realities that happens, this is a biggest help. ----- N: Back to the reality now, and we know that seeing cannot stay, even though this is only intellectually known, not directly. I am thinking of stories a lot and it makes me sad. Like Lukas, I should note a reminder like this on a piece of paper and carry it with me. -------- Nina. #127347 From: han tun wrote: > > Dear Lukas, > > All I found from yahoo search is the only story about Nagasena that I just posted this morning. If you find more about Thera Nagasena, please post it I would love to read. > > yawares > > Dear Yawares, > > Sadhu. Venerable Nagasena is so true. If he is so true, what our Lord would be. I like Venerable Nagasena so much. Do u remember when he gave a dhamma talk to maha-upasika? > > > > Best wishes > > Lukas > > > #127352 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > Pt. 2. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > Give up on what? > > I have to assume less controversial positions, if only because I get so far behind in defending them :-) Again, sorry, about the delay. > If someone gives me a difficult math problem and I can't solve it, I know > I am ignorant in that area, so ignorance can be recognized even if we don't > have the wisdom to understand the solution to the problem. > > I guess this is one way of portraying ignorance. Would it be fair to say that in this case, ignorance is the lack of some skills, and that the insight that one lacks the skills does not translate into knowing anything about those skills? -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127353 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi RobE, > > > > On 17 October 2012 07:24, Robert E wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > > I rather had the feeling that you framing my position as extreme was > > > > somehow going to suffice in your mind as a refutation of it. That, of > > > > course, is spurious logic, and happily, you are no longer pursuing > that > > > > line of argument. > > > > > > I never intended to base my argument on extremity or otherwise, but on > my > > > understanding of the path, spurious though it might turn out to be. In > > > saying your view was extreme, I was trying to scope out what the > > > philosophically reasonable area is. I think the Buddha was a > compromiser, > > > in the sense that he looked at the understanding a person had, and then > > > devised a plan for that level of understanding. Although he said he had > > > despaired of teaching before deciding to do so, and that the teaching > was > > > for "those with only a little dust in their eyes," he then went right > on to > > > teach for those who had sharp understanding and became arahants rather > > > quickly, those who were of middle-level wits [middle-class?] and those > who > > > were downright slow. For some, sitting and meditating for countless > > > lifetimes or doing good works to make a dent in defilements, was the > best > > > path one could hope for, but for anyone interested enough to sign up, > there > > > was a path. > > > > > > You seem to imply that total cessation is the only position in > Buddhism, > > > > > > > > > No, it is not implied, take it as being categorical :-) > > > > "When asked if the holy life is lived under the Blessed One for the sake > of > > purity in terms of virtue, you say, 'No, my friend.' When asked if the > holy > > life is lived under the Blessed One for the sake of purity in terms of > > mind... view... the overcoming of perplexity... knowledge & vision of > what > > is & is not the path... knowledge & vision of the way... knowledge & > > vision, you say, 'No, my friend.' For the sake of what, then, my friend, > is > > the holy life lived under the Blessed One?" > > > > "The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the sake of > > total Unbinding through lack of clinging." MN24 > > Hmf. :-) > > We agree on full release through getting rid of all clinging. We only > disagree on whether that is synonymous with complete cessation. > > How do you account for a Buddha or Arahant who is totally unbound yet > still alive and in form? Or do you consider them only partially released? > Are they not able to dwell in emptiness while still alive, as Buddha has > described? > > Very difficult. A stumbling point on which the entire Dhamma can crumble, IMO. > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127354 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Dear all > > Dispeller of Delusion > > 1334. (5) It arises also in one who reviews the greatness of the Heritage thus: 'Great indeed is the Master's heritage, namely, the seven Noble Treasures Those cannot be had by one who is idle. For |281| just as an erring son is disowned by his parents who say: 'This is not our son,' and he does not obtain their heritage in the end, so indeed one who is idle does not obtain the heritage of the Noble Treasures. Only one who is strenuous obtains them.' ... #127355 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Members, > > I truly love/admire Bhikkhu Nagasena. > > ************** > > > > #5. Then, after the monks had arrived at the palace and > finished their meal, the king sat down on a low seat and > asked, "What shall we discuss?" > > "Let our discussion be about the Dhamma." > > Then the king said, "What is the purpose, your > reverence, of your going forth and what is the final goal at > which you aim?" > > "Our going forth is for the purpose that this suffering > may be extinguished and that no further suffering may > arise; the complete extinction of grasping without > remainder is our final goal." > > "Is it, venerable sir, for such noble reasons that > everyone joins the Order?" > > "No. Some enter to escape the tyranny of kings, > some to be safe from robbers, some to escape from debt > and some perhaps to gain a livelihood. However, those > who enter rightly do so for the complete extinction of > grasping." > > ************ > yawares > Are any of us here up for the complete extinction of grasping? It's a rhetorical question only, because I know that the answer is a resounding NO :-) Given that, I wonder why it is that we are doing this dhamma thing? -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127356 From: KC wrote: > Dear friends, > > The Buddha explained that all these realities are not self: > > “If anyone should say, ‘Eye is self’, that is not fitting. For the > arising of the eye is to be seen and its decaying. Since its arising > and decaying are to be seen one would thus be brought to the stage of > saying: ’Self arises in me and passes away’. Therefore, if anyone > should say, ‘Eye is self’, that is not fitting; in this way eye is > not-self. If anyone should say, ‘Visible objects are self’... ‘Eye- > consciousness is self’... ‘Eye-contact is self’... ‘Feeling is > self’... that is not fitting;... If anyone should say, ‘Craving is > self’ that is not fitting. For the arising of craving is to be seen > and its decaying. Since its arising and decaying are to be seen one > would thus be brought to the stage of saying: ‘Self arises in me and > passes away’. Therefore, if anyone should say, ‘Craving is self’, > that is not fitting; in this way eye is not-self, visible objects are > not-self, eye-consciousness is not-self, eye-contact is not-self, > feeling is not-self, craving is not-self....†> > The Buddha clearly explained what the material to be studied is so > that the understanding can be developed which eradicates defilements. > The material to be studied are all the objects which can be > experienced now through the six doors. > > How can we begin to study realities? What can be known at the > beginning? Nothing else but the reality which appears at this moment. > Are there realities appearing and can they be known one at a time? It > seems that many realities appear all at the same time, but then we > are thinking of a “wholeâ€, of a concept or idea. > > In the Wellawatte Temple of Colombo where we had Dhamma discussions a > train passed every so often and since the noise was loud we had to > stop talking for a while. We all may have thought of a concept of > “train†at such moments, and we must have thought of it in different > ways. Some of us perhaps thought of it with gladness because it meant > a little pause in a long discussion and an opportunity to reflect. > Others may have had aversion because of the noise. The moments when > one is absorbed in concepts there is no sati. When sati arises it can > be aware of different realities appearing through different doorways, > one at a time. This is the way to learn that there are only nÃ¥mas and > rúpas appearing, no people who are sitting in a room, no train. It > has all been explained in the above-quoted sutta: there are sound, > hearing, different feelings conditioned by different contacts, and > craving conditioned by feeling. None of these realities is self or > belongs to a self. No person hears, hearing hears. Hearing hears > sound, it does not hear a train. A train is only a concept we can > think of, and the thinking does not occur at the same time as > hearing. The thinking of the concept “train†is conditioned by > accumulations of former experiences. We cannot help it that we think > in such or such a way, thinking is “beyond controlâ€, and “beyond > control†is another word for anattÃ¥. > > ------- > > Nina. > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > #127357 From: Ken O KC: My honest opinion, effort can be directed, dhamma can change dhamma and can be channel to development of one's practise be it one chooses to go on to samantha bhavana or vipassana bhavana. My understanding of control, choice, directed and samatha bhavana is different from you. Hope it's ok to make an observation - to me it seems over the years the argument has been centered on whether there is or there isn't control, whereas I think that's not the actual problem. This is because I think texts are clear that there comes a time in development when effort, sati, panna, etc, become powers, and then it seems it is quite natural to direct/control the arising of kusala. Rather, I think people just differ on the issue of when powers are actually powers as described in the texts, what then consequently affects the judgement of when control/directing of kusala actually becomes possible. Some I think believe that this happens relatively late in the development, and hence, pretty much any attempt at control is most likely bound to be akusala. Others (knowingly or by assumption) believe that control/directing of kusala is possible relatively early and hence accessible to almost anyone. So, to me at least, the issue of interest is what are the indicators of powers being at the level implied by the texts, what would then mean that the attempts to control/direct kusala (effort, sati, etc,) are actually kusala and not akusala. Though I suspect the answer will be - only panna can know... Best wishes pt #127359 From: "Yawares Sastri" HH:I guess this is one way of portraying ignorance. Would it be fair >to say that in this case, ignorance is the lack of some skills, and >that the insight that one lacks the skills does not translate into >knowing anything about those skills? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are right. I believe that ignorance is more than simply wrong theory. It is *wrong* type of skill from the Dhamma POV. Also it is one thing about smart person teaching wilderness survival from arm-chair position vs someone who has been in practice surviving it well for 30 years or so. Parrot is not necessarily wise, just good at memorizing. With best wishes, Alex AdChoices #127362 From: "philip" > Hi Nina > > ... > > Quite often in the transcriptions you qyote "there is an idea of self." For me, "an idea of self" sounds like "self" is being thought about with understanding. If there is "an idea of self" it means we are thinking about self doing this or that, so there is some degree of detachment from the idea. But when there is lobha with ditthi, it feels to me that the functions of dhamma that cling to self is more close to the bone than "an idea", is non-conceptual, it is right at the core of the citta, somehow. I can't quite explain, I don't know if what I wrote makes any sense. Could I ask you to say more about the Thai terms that Ajahn uses to talk about "an idea" of self? > > =============== > > J: Don't know if this is to your point, but although it may appear that there is clinging to 'a self' as something that is real, the actuality is that the object of such clinging can only ever be *an idea (or concept or thought) of* a self, given that there is no reality that is such. Ph: Yes, I was thinking about that today, there is no self, so the idea of cittas rooted in self makes it sound too much like it is a reality. And yet, and yet...I would say that the belief in self that can control dhammas and exercise other dukkha dispelling wonders somehow functions at a more subconscious, less explicit level than an idea, I still can't quite explain. And that's actually good, because it is to Nina's point, that the important thing is not to sort things out intellectually, it is to become familiar with the characteristics of the dhammas that are arising. I sense there is a kind of getting-familiar-with, gradually, the nature of self-view. Just the fact that I am finding an interest in the difference between lobha wihtout and lobha with ditthi is encouraging to me. A few years back I was so comfortable with the ideaw of using self to get rid of self and all that, not I am feeling more interested in a kind of gradual (very very gradual) movement towards understanding wrong view of self. My attempt to get at "idea of self" wasn't just the semnatics point I make with "should", it is for me I think a kind of sinking a little deeper into consideration of dhammas in an unforced way. And therefor I would like to stop discussing it at this point and let the understand continue to sink a little wee bit deeper thorugh unforced reflection arising from listening... > > I suppose that's all obvious anyway. Perhaps you could say more about why "an idea of self" sounds like "self" is being thought about with understanding. Ph: Well, there are times that we can see clearly enough that there is an idea of self in control of things, and there can be a kind of basic understanding that it is wrong, and that that is to me "an idea of self" rather than the subtler wrong view of self that is lurking always hidden by ignorance or whatever it is hidden by I don't wanna thinking about it anymore right now for the above reason, thanks! Phil #127363 From: Ken O > ... > >And self is very strong at 3 am when I can't sleep and a mosquito is working on me! I just find it fascinating, for some (who shall remain nameless) there are conditions for compassion towards insects always. > .... > S: Impossible! Bound to be dosa and attachment to sense objects for all but the anagami and arahat! Ph: Right. Thanks for the reminder. I guess what the person who shall remain nameless said was that there has never been a temptation for him/her to kill an insect, I think that's what he/she said. Of course as you say there would be dosa, but the dosa would not be strong enough to condition killing. No, it's not such a simple formula. But in any case, the person in question has if I understood correctly never knowingly killed an insect in a conscious, uncaring way, and certainly not the way I absolutely *destroy* mosquitoes in a ruthless fury when I get a chance at 3 a.m, honestly... > >To be honest I find the fact that I kill some mosquitos is of less import to me than the fascination I find with how it all plays out beyond control...fortunately fearing the result of deeds snd other kusala factors do arise quite often, with understanding ot not, and there is often or usually abstaining from killing. > ... > S: "fearing the result of deeds" is likely to be dosa conditioned by attachment to self most the time. When the citta is kusala, no concern about the results for 'me' at all. Like the fear of unhappy rebirth which people often refer to - just more clinging, more attachment, no understanding at such times. ph: Well, I was just using the kind of standard translation of otappa (?) without thinking, but right you are, it doesn't make sense for the word "fear" to be used, another example of why it is sometimes better to stick with the Pali. Thanks Sarah, I'll stop there. Sorry to hear about your pilates friend. Phil #127365 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Yawares, > Sorry I am not able to do this since I will be off from now on for some time. This was a Dhamma talk Venerable Nagasena gave to maha-upasika, an old Lady, very devoted to Buddha-Dhamma. She was old but she asked only for a Dhamma-talk. While Venerable Nagasena gave the Dhamma talk, he became instantly a Sotapanna and she got insight, ~nana. The arahat who was present there, delighted. He said, two great beings got realised by a pierce of one arrow. They were pierced by one arrow of understanding. We called this upasaka or upasika with great interest in Dhamma, maha-upasaka or maha-upasika, a Venerable Lay followers. This is on the beginning of Milindha-panha. #127366 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Yawares, > Are any of us here up for the complete extinction of grasping? > > It's a rhetorical question only, because I know that the answer is a > resounding NO :-) > > Given that, I wonder why it is that we are doing this dhamma thing? > > -- > Cheers > > Herman > #127367 From: Nina van Gorkom Could you kindly give me the sutta reference as I like to keep it. ------ N: We read in the “Discourse on the Six Sixes” (Middle Length Sayings III, no. 148) that the Buddha, while he was staying near Såvatthí, at the Jeta Grove, taught the monks about “Six Sixes”. He taught them that there are six internal sense-fields (åyatanas), six external sense-fields, six classes of consciousness, six classes of contact (phassa), six kinds of feeling and six kinds of craving. ------- Nina. #127369 From: Nina van Gorkom Listened some more to the chapter on Renunciation. ----- N: I listened to Lodewijk reading the perfection of wisdom and I especially liked this: < If paññå arises we can understand that the cycle of birth and death we have traversed thus far is extremely long. So long as paññå has not become accomplished, the path leading to the end of the cycle is still extremely long. Thus, as we read, for the development of paññå we have an extremely long way to go. We have to go to the further shore, into the direction of nibbåna, where, according to the Commentary, “we never went yet, not even in our dreams”. We need all ten perfections, because we have such an amount of defilements. It is not sufficient to only develop the perfection of paññå. If we do not understand what the perfections are and in what way we should develop them in our daily life, we cannot realize the four noble Truths, but we have merely vain expectations of achieving this. We do not know ourselves and we do not understand that we need the perfections which are a supporting condition for the development of kusala and for the elimination of akusala dhammas. > ------- Nina. #127370 From: "sarah" wrote: > Listening to the first few minutes of the chapter on the Perfection of > Renunciation, heard a reference to a commentary saying that renunciation > means giving up sense pleasures and akusala thinking, and thatit is > accomplished by becoming a monk, or through satipatthana. .... S: I wonder if you mean this passage which Nina quoted quite recently? Just becoming a monk without any renunciation of clinging with understanding is not the parami of renunciation being developed: >N: I quote from Khun Sujin's > Perfections about the perfection of renunciation: > <... the perfection of renunciation does not merely mean leaving > the household life and becoming a monk. Renunciation means having > the energy and courage to eliminate the clinging we all have to > visible object, sound and the other sense objects. So long as we > have not attained the excellent state of the non-returner, we have > not eradicated clinging to sense objects. We should know ourselves > as we are, we should know whether we are sincere and have the firm > determination to eliminate the clinging to the five sense objects. > We are, for example, attached to colour, when we look at pictures, > when we find them beautiful and delightful. Generally, when we see > something beautiful, we are likely to have enjoyment and clinging, > lobha. If there is heedfulness, it can be known that at such a > moment this is only a reality, a dhamma, that appears. ... > We read in the "Jatuka.n.nimå.navapucchå", Jatuka.n.ní's Questions, > of the Cúlaniddesa, "Khuddhaka Nikåya": > > "(There is) renunciation, nekkhamma (when there is) seeing, seeing > clearly, comparing, considering, developing, so that one clearly > understands the right practice, the proper practice, the practice > that is an enemy, the practice that is beneficial, the practice of > Dhamma according to the Dhamma that leads to purity of síla. > (There is renunciation, when there is) the guarding of the > sensedoors , moderation in eating, the application of energy so > that one is alert and awake, sati sampajañña (sati and paññå). > (There is renunciation, when there are) the four applications of > mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four bases of success, the > five spiritual faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of > enlightenment, the eight Path factors 5, nibbåna and the practice > leading to nibbåna. > (When there is renunciation) with happiness, (there is) resistance, > a refuge, a protection, no danger, unshakableness, the > deathlessness, a dhamma departing from clinging, which is like a > thread that fastens. Having seen(all this), there is renunciation > with happiness." ... >P: I guess I am not a "good Buddhist" but I can't understand why becoming a > monk really means renunciation of sense pleasures. ... S: If there is not the development of kusala renunciation and understanding, this is not the true meaning of "becoming a monk". ... >Surely renunciation of > sense pleasures must mean more than the superficial behaviour that is > involved. If defilements that are attached to the pleasures remain I don't > see why it is called renunciation. But I guess the superficial renunciation > is believed to help lead to deeper renunciation. I will keep listening. ... S: You are correct. It is not the outer behaviour or "superficial behaviour" that is renunciation of sense pleasures at all. Just as if there is the observing of precepts without any understanding and with akusala cittas, it is not the following of the monk's life as taught by the Buddha. ... > I would take this to mean that becoming a monk necessarily includes > becoming a monk at heart - as we all understand the outward signs > of monk-hood mean nothing on their own. > > Some may suggest that a householder can be a monk / nun at heart, all the > while keeping on keeping on being a householder. > > I think that is a misunderstanding. > .... S: It depends whether one is considering the deeper sense of the meaning of 'bhikkhu': From the Maha Satipatthana Sutta and commentaries (transl by Soma Thera): "Further, when that highest kind of person, the bhikkhu, is reckoned, the rest too are reckoned, as in regard to a royal procession and the like, when the king is reckoned, by the reckoning of the king, the retinue is reckoned. Also the word "bhikkhu" was used by the Buddha to point out the bhikkhu-state through practice of the teaching in this way: "He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said: " 'Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm, Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true. An ascetic and mendicant too.' " Metta Sarah p.s After Poland, we'll work on uploading a 'minimalist editing' of Bkk, KK 2012 when you were present. ======== #127371 From: "sarah" wrote: > And if so, is it perhaps true that experience involves a certain degree of necessary inferences --- or, at the very least, what seem to be inferences from the standpoint of language? > > I would say it does. .... S: At a moment of seeing of visible object, there is no thinking, no inference or language involved. Afterwards there is thinking about what was seen. ... > > And if that is so, the division of eye, object & eye-consciousness as each being experienced directly on the occasion of seeing makes perfect sense. .... S: At a moment of seeing or eye-consciousness, only visible object is experienced. ... >It is not to say that each is experienced in isolation, but that each is a necessary, distinct-but-not-separable-quality of seeing, similar to the way the quality of change is a necessity for experience to be at all intelligible. our thoughts? .... S: Only one object is ever experienced at a time. If visible object is experienced, nothing else is experienced at that moment. If a sound is experienced, there is just the world of sound appearing. At a moment of thinking, just a concept is experienced. For each reality to arise, whether it be seeing, visible object or any other reality, many conditions are necessary. Hence we read that for seeing to experience visible object there must be the object, eye-sense, various mental factors such as contact arising or having arisen (in the case of the visible object and eye-sense) at that moment. This doesn't mean that they are experienced at this time. Later there are ideas about what has been seen. I think these are important points to clarify and discuss further. Metta Sarah ===== #127372 From: "sarah" wrote: > It's interesting to see a descritption of the Buddha's wise way of speaking, but let's be honest, we are conditioned to speak in certain ways, we are all adults who have accumulated ways of speaking. If our habitual way of speaking is not right speech but changed dramatically to look like right speech, I think it would indicate self trying to fit into a Buddhist-feeling stereotype. Let's understand our accumulated tendencies, whether they are refined and wholesome or crude and foolish or a mix of both! > > Then again, we remember "no rules", so despite the adze handle simile, as understand deepens positive changes in our conditioned habitual ways of speaking may suddenly occur, and if they do suttas about right speech can be understood correctly - as descriptions rather than prescriptions. .... S: You make several good and rather subtle points. Of course, if 'conditioned dhammas' and 'anatta' is used as an excuse for bad speech, it's the "I am anatta" trap again. Metta Sarah ===== #127373 From: "sarah" wrote: - > <. . .> > Ph: But I don't think the point of Dhamma is to say "there are no beings", just that beings cannot be the object of satipatthana, they can only be thought about as concepts. > ---- > > KH: <..> > When there is satipathana, however, there is no trap of seeing two realities. In satipathana, citta sees how dhammas arise, function and cease, and it knows beyond doubt that this is the only reality - dhammas are all that exist and all that ever can exist. ... S: Yes, just one world at a time appearing - that of visible object , for example. Just alone with the citta at each moment - no people, no beings at all. Metta Sarah ===== #127374 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > … > Will anyone try an "intellectual chainsaw juggling" to prove that all the suttas mentioning effort, dilligence, persistance are to interpreted in the way of just conditions/tendencies for effort to arise? > Why would Budda give this teachings? > Or maybe the ones who listned were just so not enough intelligent to understand the concepts of Abhidhamma? > > Anyway - I am really happy to have this point raised and keep it in my mind. > > Regards, > > Wojtek > > PS: > The Buddha's final words are reported to have been: "All composite things pass away. Strive for your own liberation with diligence." > ============== J: The quote you give here from the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta (DN 16) is a good example of something we touched on in our earlier exchange: the juxtaposition in the suttas of the description of dhammas as conditioned elements (on the one hand) and the importance of energy, persistence, diligence and the like (on the other). Rather than attempt any "intellectual chainsaw juggling" (a new term to me, but I get the picture :-)), let me simply refer to the commentary on the sutta. ********************************************************* Firstly quoting from the translation of the sutta by Sister Vajira & Francis Story on ATI: Sutta: 8. And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things [sankhara] are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness [appamaada]!" (Pali: Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha.) Footnote: Earnestness (appamada) is explained as "presence of mindfulness." Comy.: "'You should accomplish all your duties without allowing mindfulness to lapse!' Thus did the Blessed One, while on the bed of his Parinibbana, summarize in that one word on earnestness the advice he had given through forty-five years." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html ********************************************************* Secondly, from "The Buddha's Last Days" (PTS), a translation of the commentary by Yang-Gyu An, quoting a sutta translation of `Achieve with vigilance': "`Achieve with vigilance': You should successfully perform all your duties with no absence of mindfulness. Thus did the Blessed One, while lying on his deathbed, give all the advice he had given for forty-five years by putting it into the single word 'vigilance' (appamaada)." A footnote says: "In the commentaries it ["vigilance" (appamaada)] is often explained as the presence of mindfulness." ********************************************************* Interesting to note that this one word 'appamaada' (diligence, earnestness, vigilance, etc) is said to signify the whole of the Buddha's teaching. Jon #127375 From: "sarah" wrote: S: You were talking about 'paramatha dhamma' (absolute reality): > This is where the confusion comes in. "Dhamma" in this sense does not mean the dhamma of the eightfold path, sila, dana, samatha, vipassana, etc. but means "dhamma" in the sense of thing, phenomena, irreducible experience, etc. > > So, if you take "dhamma" in the sense of teaching or a goal, the whole conversation would be unintelligible. ... S: Agreed. Of course, if there is no understanding of paramatha dhammas, there can be no understanding of the teachings or the goal. ... > >A: There doesn't seem to be any place where the Buddha used it in the sense of "ultimate realities". > > >J: I hope those who have a deeper knowledge of Pali than the terribly rudimentary knowledge I have will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when Buddha uses the phrase "saccato thetato" or when such phrase & similar phrases are used, he is referring to the same thing that the Abhidhamma would term "paramattha dhamma". > > Thanissaro translates it as "truth or reality" if you want to do a search on Accesstoinsight for relevant English translations. ... S: Here is a a past very detailed message on "saccato thetato" which you may find relevant: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/46496 Whatever is taught in the Tipitaka it is "saccato thetato" , it is about realities, truths, paramattha dhammas. Metta Sarah p.s If you haven't found "useful posts" yet in the files, keep them in mind. I just found the above link there under "saccato thetato". ===== #127376 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:55 pm Subject: Re: The Debate : Soul In The Breath?/Going Forth kenhowardau Hi Herman, I can't resist a good rhetorical question: ----- > H: Are any of us here up for the complete extinction of grasping? ----- KH: If we ever have a moment of right understanding we are, at that moment, totally in favour of the complete extinction of grasping. Not at other times, though. ----- >H: It's a rhetorical question only, because I know that the answer is a resounding NO :-) > >Given that, I wonder why it is that we are doing this dhamma thing? ---- KH: Each of us will have to answer that for himself. All too often people do the Dhamma thing (practice) out of grasping, but there is no excuse for that here. Here at DSG we are continually reminded that practice for the purpose of gaining something is not Dhamma practice at all. It is anti-Dhamma practice – going the wrong way! Ken H #127377 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Alex: > > > > > Not only this, but what people teach today may or may not be what the > > > Buddha as historical person (if he even existed) has taught. > > Robert: > > > > I'm not big on speculation. I think such worry is a waste of time, and > is > > > also harmful and an excuse. The point is not whether this or that > teacher > > > can do this or that, it is whether there is a practice that you can > follow > > > and that will lead you in the direction you want to go. No one can > > > guarantee you anything, but you can find out for yourself whether your > > > practice is good and is going where you want to go. If so, do it. If > not, > > > don't. > > > > > > > > I think what is important here is the acknowledgement that people always > > choose what they want to learn. "The Teacher" can function as a > smokescreen > > to hide that fact. > > Over the years, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I've developed a > certain degree of pragmatism and common sense. I could spend 20 years > trying to "learn" how to fix a car, but since it's an area I know nothing > about I would probably wind up with the equivalent of a giant pipe bomb. > I'd rather go to a car mechanic who can diagnose and fix it in five > minutes. When I wanted to learn to play clarinet, I went to a clarinet > teacher. True, I then more or less taught myself to play jazz saxaphone, > but I had a lot of training in basic technique and music theory to back me > up. The idea that a teacher would be a "smokescreen" rather than an aid > defies common sense, unless they are a very bad teacher, and in that case, > not really a teacher at all. The idea that we "learn what we want to" as if > such learning will magically arise out of the air doesn't make a whole lot > of sense to me. We may investigate on our own for many years, and I have > done so in this area and others, but it is when I bounce my ideas off of > others that I quickly find out which ideas are ridiculous and which may > have some merit. The role of interaction and discussion seems to be > dismissed by you here. I do not understand why you seem so hard-set against > any communal aspect to learning. > > You are talking about teaching and learning in daily life. I am talking about cessation through lack of clinging. Do you honestly believe that can be taught? > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127378 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Rob E. > > > > > Over the years, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I've > developed > > > a certain degree of pragmatism and common sense. I could spend 20 years > > > trying to "learn" how to fix a car, but since it's an area I know > nothing > > > about I would probably wind up with the equivalent of a giant pipe > bomb. > > > I'd rather go to a car mechanic who can diagnose and fix it in five > > > minutes. When I wanted to learn to play clarinet, I went to a clarinet > > > teacher. True, I then more or less taught myself to play jazz > saxaphone, > > > but I had a lot of training in basic technique and music theory to > back me > > > up. The idea that a teacher would be a "smokescreen" rather than an aid > > > defies common sense, unless they are a very bad teacher, and in that > case, > > > not really a teacher at all. The idea that we "learn what we want to" > as if > > > such learning will magically arise out of the air doesn't make a whole > lot > > > of sense to me. We may investigate on our own for many years, and I > have > > > done so in this area and others, but it is when I bounce my ideas off > of > > > others that I quickly find out which ideas are ridiculous and which may > > > have some merit. The role of interaction and discussion seems to be > > > dismissed by you here. I do not understand why you seem so hard-set > against > > > any communal aspect to learning. > > > > > > And by the way, I am still waiting for you to tell me what you > consider to > > > be the real path that definitely exists but which most people are > trying to > > > avoid. I am finding it frustrating that you haven't responded to this > and > > > given me a clear statement of what you think the correct approach to > > > Buddhism really is. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html > > That is very impressive and a most valuable sutta. However, all that is > described by the Buddha here takes place prior to parinibbana. It is a > state of consciousness for the living who have let go of clinging and are > capable of dwelling in pure emptiness while still alive. > > Yes, agreed. > In other words, complete cessation of the life process is not necessary or > synonymous with dwelling in pure emptiness or complete release of > consciousness. > > Sure. But I think we can safely exclude daily life from being possible in these states. What do you reckon? > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127379 From: "sarah" wrote: > MN 117. Mahaacattaariisaka Sutta: The Great Forty > Paa.li text from http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/ > The translation by Ven Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi. > "Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammaasa"nkappo? Sammaasa"nkappa.mpaha.m, bhikkhave, dvaaya.m vadaami atthi, bhikkhave, sammaasa"nkappo saasavo pu~n~nabhaagiyo upadhivepakko; atthi, bhikkhave, sammaasa"nkappo ariyo anaasavo lokuttaro magga"ngo. > > 12. "And what, bhikkhus, is right intention? Right intention, I say, is twofold: there is right intention that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment; and there is right intention that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path. ... S: Here, as you point out later, it is vitakka cetasika which is referred to. When it is vitakka of the eightfold path that accompanies sammaa di.t.thi and the other path factors, it is called sammaa sa"kappa. "Right intention" may be considered as a rather misleading translation, because intention is usually used as a translation of cetana. Vitakka as the function of 'touching' the object, leading (in this context), sammaa di.t.thi and the other factors to experience the reality, like the rudder on a boat. At moments of mundane understanding, the path factors are said to be "saasavo", affected by taints, because the anusaya (latent tendencies) have not been eradicated and lead to the arising of aasava (taints) after the mundane path cittas (moments of satipatthana) have fallen away. ... > ---------- > Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammaasa"nkappo saasavo pu~n~nabhaagiyo upadhivepakko? Nekkhammasa"nkappo, abyaapaadasa"nkappo, avihi.msaasa"nkappo 'aya.m, bhikkhave, sammaasa"nkappo saasavo pu~n~nabhaagiyo upadhivepakko'". > > 13. "And what, bhikkhus, is right intention that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment? The intention of renunciation, the intention of non-ill will, and the intention of non-cruelty [Note 1106]: this is right intention that is affected by taints...ripening on the side of attachment. > > [Note 1106] This is the standard definition of right intention as a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path; see MN 141 Saccavibhanga sutta, paragraph 25. .... > ---------- > > "Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammaasa"nkappo ariyo anaasavo lokuttaro magga"ngo? Yo kho, bhikkhave, ariyacittassa anaasavacittassa ariyamaggasama"ngino ariyamagga.m bhaavayato takko vitakko sa"nkappo appanaa byappanaa cetaso abhiniropanaa vaciisa"nkhaaro aya.m, bhikkhave, sammaasa"nkappo ariyo anaasavo lokuttaro magga"ngo. > > 14. "And what, bhikkhus, is right intention that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The thinking, thought, intention, mental absorption, mental fixity, directing of mind, verbal formation in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path [Note 1107]: this is right intention that is noble...a factor of the path. > > [Note 1107] In this definition, the factor of intention (sa"nkappa) is identified with applied thought (vitakka), which is further specified as the factor responsible for absorption by fixing and directing the mind upon its object. For applied thought as "verbal formation," see MN 44 Cuu.lavedalla sutta, paragraph15. .... S: Yes, vitakka and yes, I also understand, sammaa sa"nkappo to be responsible for directing the citta and other factors onto the object (in this case, nibbana) with appana (absorption) level concentration. > ---------- > > So micchaasa"nkappassa pahaanaaya vaayamati, sammaasa"nkappassa upasampadaaya, svaassa hoti sammaavaayaamo. So sato micchaasa"nkappa.m pajahati, sato sammaasa"nkappa.m upasampajja viharati; saassa hoti sammaasati. Itiyime tayo dhammaa sammaasa"nkappa.m anuparidhaavanti anuparivattanti, seyyathida.m sammaadi.t.thi, sammaavaayaamo, sammaasati. > > 15. "One makes an effort to abandon wrong intention and to enter upon right intention: this is one's right effort. Mindfully one abandons wrong intention, mindfully one enters upon and abides in right intention: this is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three states run and circle around right intention, that is, right view, right effort, and right mindfulness. [Note 1108] > > [Note 1108] MA: This statement refers exclusively to the co-existent factors accompanying supramundane right intention. In the preliminary phase of the practice, the three mundane right intentions arise separately, but at the moment of the supramundane path, a single right intention arises cutting off the threefold wrong intention. Thus the supramundane right intention may also be described as the intention of renunciation, non-ill will, and non-cruelty. The same method applies to right speech, etc. > > -------------------- S: The most important thing to remember is that in actuality there is no "one" to make and effort or do anything. When the conditions are in place, sammaa di.t.thi, sammaa sa"nkappo and the other factors arise and experience nibbaana. At this moment of (noble) path consciousness, the various anusaya (latent tendencies) are eradicated according to the level of attainment. ... > > Han: I had thought that the intention of renunciation (nekkhammasa"nkappo), the intention of non-ill will (abyaapaadasa"nkappo), and the intention of non-cruelty (avihi.msaasa"nkappo) are wholesome intentions which are good enough as a path factor. Now, I realize that they are still liable to be affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment. They are wholesome, no doubt, and may lead to favourable rebirths in human and deva realms, but still not good enough for the final liberation. .... S: At moments of mundane right understanding when there is renunciation (nekkhamma), for example, but it is saasavo, "affected by taints" because of the anusaya which has not been eradicated. For the sotapanna, the cittas are no longer 'affected by" the taint of di.t.thi, for example, because this has been eradicated. The arahat's cittas are not "saasavo", affected by any taints, because all anusaya have been eradicated. As you say, the mundane path cittas are wholesome, leading to the end of the cycle, but "still not good enough for the final liberation" until all anusaya have been eradicated. .. > > Then, what has one to do for supramundane right intention? > thinking, takko > thought, vitakko > intention, sa"nkappo > mental absorption, appanaa > mental fixity, byappanaa > directing of mind, cetaso abhiniropanaa > verbal formation, vaciisa"nkhaaro > (Note 1107) gives only this explanation: In this definition, the factor of intention (sa"nkappa) is identified with applied thought (vitakka), which is further specified as the factor responsible for absorption by fixing and directing the mind upon its object. > [If members of DSG group can come up with further explanation on the above, I will be most grateful.] ... S: No one can do anything for any right anything! Just the understanding now of dhammas, of what is right, what is wrong, what is reality now. At almost every moment, vitakka is directing the citta onto its object - wisely or unwisely. Right understanding can begin to understand what is 'wisely' and what is 'unwisely'. ... > > (Note 1108) says that in the preliminary phase of the practice, the three mundane right intentions arise separately, but at the moment of the supramundane path, a single right intention arises cutting off the threefold wrong intention. The same method applies to right speech, and right action. > Han: This is also an important point for me. I did not know this fact before reading this sutta. ... S: I think it's like how in the mundane path, right speech and right action cannot arise together. At a moment of abstaining from wrong speech through the speech door, there cannot be the abstaining from from action at that time. The same applies to the different kinds of thinking (sammaa sa"nkappo), but I agree it's not an easy topic to follow. Metta Sarah ====== #127380 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi KC, Jon and all, > > > KC: My honest opinion, effort can be directed, dhamma can change dhamma > and can be channel to development of one's practise be it one chooses to go > on to samantha bhavana or vipassana bhavana. My understanding of control, > choice, directed and samatha bhavana is different from you. > > Hope it's ok to make an observation - to me it seems over the years the > argument has been centered on whether there is or there isn't control, > whereas I think that's not the actual problem. This is because I think > texts are clear that there comes a time in development when effort, sati, > panna, etc, become powers, and then it seems it is quite natural to > direct/control the arising of kusala. > > Thank you for a very good, clear post. I agree, the issue of control is often just a red herring ie irrelevant. > Rather, I think people just differ on the issue of when powers are > actually powers as described in the texts, what then consequently affects > the judgement of when control/directing of kusala actually becomes > possible. Some I think believe that this happens relatively late in the > development, and hence, pretty much any attempt at control is most likely > bound to be akusala. Others (knowingly or by assumption) believe that > control/directing of kusala is possible relatively early and hence > accessible to almost anyone. > > So, to me at least, the issue of interest is what are the indicators of > powers being at the level implied by the texts, what would then mean that > the attempts to control/direct kusala (effort, sati, etc,) are actually > kusala and not akusala. Though I suspect the answer will be - only panna > can know... > :-) Yes, and then I would have to ask "how is panna known?" I think jhanas are a good indicator of powers. > > Best wishes > pt > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127381 From: "philip" > >P: I guess I am not a "good Buddhist" but I can't understand why becoming a > > monk really means renunciation of sense pleasures. > ... > S: If there is not the development of kusala renunciation and understanding, this is not the true meaning of "becoming a monk". Thank you for this, and for the other comments on this topic. Clearer to me now. And also thanks for your comments re what I wrote about right speech. And thank you in advance re a rough edit for KK 12. That's four thanks in a row, you are a well-thanked person at this moment in time. Phil #127382 From: "philip" N: I listened to Lodewijk reading the perfection of wisdom and I > especially liked this: > < If paññ? arises we can understand that the cycle of birth and > death we have traversed thus far is extremely long. So long as paññ? > has not become accomplished, the path leading to the end of the cycle > is still extremely long. Thus, as we read, for the development of > paññ? we have an extremely long way to go. We have to go to the > further shore, into the direction of nibbåna, where, according to the > Commentary, "we never went yet, not even in our dreams?. > We need all ten perfections, because we have such an amount of > defilements. It is not sufficient to only develop the perfection of > paññ?. If we do not understand what the perfections are and in what > way we should develop them in our daily life, we cannot realize the > four noble Truths, but we have merely vain expectations of achieving > this. We do not know ourselves and we do not understand that we need > the perfections which are a supporting condition for the development > of kusala and for the elimination of akusala dhammas. > Ph: To be honest, I've come to be kind of confused about the perfections. I hear, for example, that unless it is accompanied by panna, the kusala cannot be of the degree of a perfection, but then we see that panna itself is one of the perfections. I listened to the beginning of the chapter on wisdom today, and the definitions of panna given is so precise and penetrative, cutting through like a knife to the characteristics of the dhamma. But then there is the anecdote in which a bodhisatta (?) sees the dew drops evaporates and there is wisdom that makes him decide to renounce the world, which feels like a different kind of panan than inside into the characteristics of one dhamma. I find the whole topic of the Perfections has my head in a spin when I come across it. Perhaps we can talk about it in Thailand (Looking forward to finally meeting you.) For now I must admit I wonder why think of the perfections, why not just moments of kusala, when they arise there may be awareness of them, with detachment, gradually this develops. Why think of the Perfections? Sorry for my selfishness, but I would rather talk about it in Thailand, when the time comes. These days I am keen on things like seeing and visible object. THere was a wonderful post by you today or yesterday about how there is seeing and mind door process, hearing and mind door processes, we think seeing goes on, etc. I am sure I will come back to the Perfections some day, but it doesn't seem the right time for me now... Phil #127383 From: "ptaus1" Thanks for coming over yesterday and assisting Jon with his recording device. Thanks for the invite, good to visit you. > S: Sanna remembers and marks at every moment and with every citta. So even at moments of seeing and hearing, sanna is remembering and marking the object experienced. It's never lost. The sanna accumulates remembering what has been marked before. Thanks for further detail. Probably the main thing I remember from discussion is that it's not marks that accumulate nor are they stored somewhere. But it is marking in fact, or sanna, that accumulates. Whereas marks in fact have to do with the object, not with sanna, as I think you say below. > S:The marks are the particular characteristics of the object, the signs which are interpreted by thinking as being this or that. Each visible object is different because it has a different characteristic. If there were no sanna marking the various realities experienced, there'd be no pleasant and unpleasant feelings on account of them, no thoughts or stories about people, places and things. > > When sanna marks concepts, they are remembered. I was wondering about this - when there's marking of concepts, what are the marks or characteristics of a concept at the time? Best wishes pt #127384 From: han tun Yes, and then I would have to ask "how is panna known?" Since panna is a singular dhamma, I guess we'd need to look at the commentarial texts for the detail on how a singular dhamma is known (so basically an object of insight). From memory, a certain dhamma (like panna) would need to arise in a sense/mind door process of cittas. As soon as that process of cittas finishes, one of the dhammas from that process of cittas (so a singular dhamma like panna for example) could then become an object of the immediately following process of cittas. If there's panna arising in this new process of cittas (in particular during javana cittas stage), then we can figuratively say that "panna is known". Of course, strictly in technical terms, panna that is the object of the new process of cittas has already fallen away with the previous process, but since these citta processes are said to happen very fast, then for all purposes, panna that has fallen away and became the object is still considered to be occurring "now", so to speak. Anyway, that's how I remember the explanation. There are detailed descriptions of processes of cittas in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma. > I think jhanas are a good indicator of powers. I think that's probably right when it comes to samatha kind of sati, panna, effort, etc. Though, I remember hearing an explanation that samatha kinds of cittas and cetasikas are quite different from those with the same names, but accompanying vipassana. Since then I suspected that powers in samatha would not guarantee or be indicative of powers in vipassana. But I don't really know. Best wishes pt #127386 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Wojtek > > (126569) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Wojciech Czypicki wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > … > > Will anyone try an "intellectual chainsaw juggling" to prove that all the suttas mentioning effort, dilligence, persistance are to interpreted in the way of just conditions/tendencies for effort to arise? > > Why would Budda give this teachings? > > Or maybe the ones who listned were just so not enough intelligent to understand the concepts of Abhidhamma? > > > > Anyway - I am really happy to have this point raised and keep it in my mind. > > > > Regards, > > > > Wojtek > > > > PS: > > The Buddha's final words are reported to have been: "All composite things pass away. Strive for your own liberation with diligence." > > ============== > > J: The quote you give here from the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta (DN 16) is a good example of something we touched on in our earlier exchange: the juxtaposition in the suttas of the description of dhammas as conditioned elements (on the one hand) and the importance of energy, persistence, diligence and the like (on the other). > > Rather than attempt any "intellectual chainsaw juggling" (a new term to me, but I get the picture :-)), let me simply refer to the commentary on the sutta. > > ********************************************************* > Firstly quoting from the translation of the sutta by Sister Vajira & Francis Story on ATI: > > Sutta: > 8. And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things [sankhara] are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness [appamaada]!" > > (Pali: Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha.) > > Footnote: > Earnestness (appamada) is explained as "presence of mindfulness." > Comy.: "'You should accomplish all your duties without allowing mindfulness to lapse!' Thus did the Blessed One, while on the bed of his Parinibbana, summarize in that one word on earnestness the advice he had given through forty-five years." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html > > ********************************************************* > Secondly, from "The Buddha's Last Days" (PTS), a translation of the commentary by Yang-Gyu An, quoting a sutta translation of `Achieve with vigilance': > > "`Achieve with vigilance': You should successfully perform all your duties with no absence of mindfulness. Thus did the Blessed One, while lying on his deathbed, give all the advice he had given for forty-five years by putting it into the single word 'vigilance' (appamaada)." > > A footnote says: > "In the commentaries it ["vigilance" (appamaada)] is often explained as the presence of mindfulness." > > ********************************************************* > > Interesting to note that this one word 'appamaada' (diligence, earnestness, vigilance, etc) is said to signify the whole of the Buddha's teaching. > > Jon > #127388 From: "Yawares Sastri" Ph: To be honest, I've come to be kind of confused about the > perfections. I hear, for example, that unless it is accompanied by > panna, the kusala cannot be of the degree of a perfection, but then > we see that panna itself is one of the perfections. ------ N: The motive should be pure, no gain for yourself. Thus, no expectation of a happy result for yourself, or with clinging to being a good person, you know. Yes, pa~n~naa is one of the perfections, all perfections support one another, we need them all. ------- > Ph: But then there is the anecdote in which a bodhisatta (?) sees > the dew drops evaporates and there is wisdom that makes him decide > to renounce the world, which feels like a different kind of panan > than inside into the characteristics of one dhamma. ------ N: We cannot compare the Bodhisatta's pa~n~naa with ours at all. He was not merely thinking of dewdrops. ------ > Ph: For now I must admit I wonder why think of the perfections, > why not just moments of kusala, when they arise there may be > awareness of them, with detachment, gradually this develops. Why > think of the Perfections? ----- N: right you are. Kh Sujin always says: we do not have to think of the perfections, just any kind of kusala through body, speech and mind, but, with a pure intention, to have less defilements. ------ Nina. #127393 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > For each reality to arise, whether it be seeing, visible object or any other reality, many conditions are necessary. Hence we read that for seeing to experience visible object there must be the object, eye-sense, various mental factors such as contact arising or having arisen (in the case of the visible object and eye-sense) at that moment. This doesn't mean that they are experienced at this time. > > Later there are ideas about what has been seen. > > I think these are important points to clarify and discuss further. > Apologies in advance to anyone who might read this & find it terribly impractical: Much of what Herman has said reminds me of Madhyamika critiques of Sarvastivada, some of which could be mutually applicable to Theravada teachings & one of the methods of critique is to a) point out the a statement is conceptual and/or based on inference b) discount its validity on this basis, arguing that experience is non-conceptual & therefore doesn't include their concept/inference So, yes, at the moment of experiencing an object there isn't a perfectly simultaneous arising of conceptual thought & everything that is thought about it comes later, but where I was directing my comments was to a pattern of reasoning that is found in many mystics which proposes that every statement of truth must derive from an unmediated, non-conceptual understanding. On this basis, Abhidhamma has been critiqued insofar as one might question how there can be an eye, the eye's object & visual consciousness as three, unique occurrences, rather than a blanket, indivisible dhamma that is simply defined as "seeing". (I don't question this at all, I am just saying some do). Now what you bring up reminds us that there is an actual pre-conceptual level to experience where experience is simply & purely an experience, prior to any & all methodical dividing. How is the gap bridged, however? If we say there is at once "only seeing" & yet there is also 1) the eye, 2) the object & 3) visual consciousness, how can these two facts be reconciled? You write, "for seeing to experience visible object there must be the object, eye-sense, various mental factors such as contact arising or having arisen (in the case of the visible object and eye-sense) at that moment. This doesn't mean that they are experienced at this time." & I agree. The notion of a seeing apart from the conditions of seeing is monstrous --- like asking one how long a rabbit's horns are. But what would one say to someone who insists on non-conceptuality? I find it useful at this stage to refer to experience as it feels in the moment & look at it in terms of this non-conceptuality using the same method. For instance, if someone acknowledges that there is a perception of change, how do they philosophically account for it outside of inference? And if they cannot account for it outside of inference, are they not then admitting that their experience involves an experience-of-inference &, even worse, are they not admitting that experience as it is commonly felt *requires* a degree of inference, without which the experience of change is not possible? Of course, Buddha's statements to Bahiya make it clear that it is not necessary for Bahiya to see things in a way different to how experience is commonly felt --- which, at the same time, leads to deathlessness. And it would be far easier to allow the two statements --- of the 3 afforementioned factors of seeing & allowing seeing to be what it is on its own --- to go on unopposed, insofar as there is not an inherent opposition in the statements. But I might be missing something here --- it's happened before. :) in Dhamma - Josh #127394 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Of course, Buddha's statements to Bahiya make it clear that it is not necessary for Bahiya to see things in a way different to how experience is commonly felt --- which, at the same time, leads to deathlessness. > That should read "Buddha's statements to Bahiya make it clear it *is* necessary. . . " in Dhamma, - Josh #127395 From: Ken O I think jhanas are a good indicator of powers. K: Is it important to have powers from jhanas, it is not necessary to attain powers in order to attain insight. Some could attain insight using jhanas as a basis, by not having powers from the jhanas cheers KC > #127396 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > I am at the point where I take what I understand is useful and try my best to avoid the rest. I try not to cling to this or that philosophical position as it is uncertain (though with some moods I occasionally commit this mistake). I would submit to you that there is a huge difference between not clinging to a view & telling yourself you're not clinging to a view. Perhaps you already know this. But if not, a few things: To agree or disagree with a given statement presents itself linguistically as a position. Therefore, a human being could literally not communicate at all without presenting a view --- language is a presentation of things which are not at all the things they attempt to depict. To have a view, also, of not clinging to views is a view in itself --- in fact, this is perfectly exhibited as the well-known "eel wrigglers" of sutta & finds its expression in Madhyamika & a host of other groups. The question is not in how one uses language but what is the internal state of mind from which the language comes. A true statement given to the wrong person or in the wrong setting can do as much damage as a lie, & similarly to tell oneself they have no views while at the same time *really having views* creates a false sense of development. The question, I think, isn't really about Abhidhamma or traditions or what's a view & what's not. It's about other things such as our own desire to persist indefinitely, or to have something desirable to hold on to. At the outset, if we're told that no, there's isn't a blissful, stable, wonderful reality that we can fly away into after death then we're immediately frightened & think our self is somehow being lost. But fear is the problem, not loss. > As you know, we can't prove beyond any doubt that Buddha existed, that he was Fully Awakened, that he didn't use too much skillful means, that certain tradition properly carried his message, etc, etc. Sure. > I have read a bit of Bhikkhu Nanavira. I like Ajahn Chah. I also have been reading a bit of Zen recently, and before that about some philosophical debates in Tibet. Sometimes it depends on my mood. > When I first encountered Buddhism I liked the most practical, pithy sounding things. I couldn't stand Nagarjuna or Abhidhamma. Now the more "practical" sounding stuff seems too much a repetition of things I've already heard a million times. That it's own problem, as you can well imagine. To be perfectly frank, part of the reason I appreciate the Theravada tradition is that it at least gives lip service to the idea that an Arahant ought not to be rascal. In Zen & Tibetan Buddhism, an enlightened being can be a drunken womanizer & can't say I have time for that behavior in an enlightened being. And yes, I'm aware of rascally monks in Theravada, as there are in every form of monasticism or asceticism the world has ever known, but at the very least I don't have to hear it justified as unobjectionable behavior. A case in point, Ch'an Master Sheng-yen writes, "It should be remembered that the mind of the master is ever pure... and even if the master tells lies, steals, and chases women..., he is still to be considered a true master as long as he scolds his disciples for their transgressions." And a long, long time ago I did wrangle in my head all sorts of questions as to whether I should interpret Ajahn Chah & other Thai Forest bhikkhus in light of Abhidhamma or in light of Mahayana/Hinduism. But it's the same question one might have about the suttas, or about anything, forever & ever. If I ask myself why I trust Abhidhamma & the traditional outline of the various stages on the path, it is because I trust that certain figures in Theravada recently (as in, my grandfather's lifetime) were legitimately enlightened & because they used Abhidhamma, I see no reason to throw it out. And even if that were not the case, if the documentaries "Doing Time, doing Vipassana" or "Dhamma Brothers" are accurate, then even if this whole business about Arahants isn't true, still, I think my life would be immeasurably improved by meditating & learning about the Dhamma as housed in the Theravadin tradition. in Dhamma - Josh #127397 From: han tun wrote: > > > Dear Sarah and all > > >S: I don't remember the similes of the beggar child in the palace or the lost horn cow. Can you say more or give a reference? I remember about the twisting ofthe horn of a newly-calved cow simile to show how wishing for results isuseless, in the Bhumija sutta, MN 126, but not the lost horn cow! > > JJ: As I checked in Tipitaka, this sutta is in: > > Suttanta Tipitaka Anguttara Nikaya Sattaka-Attaka-Navaka nibatra book no.4 > > [215] 1. Vuddhi Sutta > The characteristic of the one who develops kayagatasati (Body mindfulness) > > The story was about one Bhikkhu who faultily alleged Sariputra to the Buddha that Sariputra carelessly bumped him and did not apologize. > > The Buddha called Sariputra to clarify this incident. .... S: Thank you very belatedly for sharing the full sutta. I had forgotten about the similes of the beggar child and cow which had lost its horns. Lots of excellent reminders about humbleness, humility, lack of mana (conceit), learning to be a 'nobody' like the dust-rag. > To my understanding, this sutta shows that the one who develops Kayagatasati will always be mindful to his body. Whatever happens to his body, he will definitely be aware. ... S: The one that develops kayagatasati understands that only rupas, tangible objects are experienced through the body-sense, no 'body', no 'self' in reality at all. This is the way that detachment is developed from what is experienced. Nothing to be conceited about at all. Just vipaka cittas experiencing rupas at the moment of being 'bumped', for example. As Nina pointed out, all kinds of realities have to be known - impossible that just rupas through the body-sense are known. ... >In the meantime, his mindfulness associated with not clinging to that body because of its loathsome like a corpse of snake and dog or a rotten grease pot. Therefore, by not clinging to his body at all, he apologizes to his friend. ... S: Yes, because of his great understanding, no attachment at all to sense experiences or to what we take for being 'body'. If someone bumps into us or accuses us of bumping into them, rightly or wrongly, easy to apologise to help the other be at ease. ... > > Sariputra knew that the allegation was fault. However, with Kayagatasati, that allegation was like dirty trash, fecal, urine, spit, pus or blood, he who understood never felt uncomfortable, frustrated or loathed with that allegation like the feeling of the land, water, fire, wind or dust-rag toward the dirt. His mind was so humble as the feeling of the beggar child or lost horns cow, which was never arrogant. And he never felt resentment to that Bhikkhu. .... S: It's the attitude that should be developed no matter what is said or done by others. With more understanding of kamma and vipaka and of dhammas - just dhatus (elements) - it will develop naturally. .. > > However, very interestingly, ever though he was the one who should forgive his Bhikkhu friend. He asked for forgiveness from his Bhikkhu friend as well. Why? Does it concern Kayagatasati in any aspect? > > This point is interesting to discuss. ... S: I think as Nina said, it shows his humility. Even though Sariputta did no wrong, there were conditions for the bhikkhu to blame him and commit akusala kamma-patha, so Sariputta asked his forgiveness. In the same way, one may have good intentions but someone may get upset with us or what we write (like on DSG!), so good to apologise. Metta Sarah ==== #127399 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Jagkrit and Sarah, > > The story mentioned by Jagkrit is in: > > Dhammapada Verse (95) > > 95. Pathavisamo no virujjhati, > indakhilupamo taadi subbato. > Rahadova apetakaddamo, > sa.msaaraa na bhavanti taadino. > > 95. Like the earth, the arahat is patient and is not provoked to respond in anger; like the door-post he is firm; he is unperturbed by the ups and downs of life; he is serene and pure like a lake free from mud. For such an arahat there will be no more rebirth. > (translated by Daw Mya Tin) <....> I always appreciate hearing these accounts of Sariputta and the excellent examples of being like the earth, door-mat, beggar of bull with broken horns - without resentment no matter what rubbish comes... Metta Sarah ====