#127800 From: "ptaus1" Howard: There is no controller, but kamma is, exactly, intention. And it plays a central role in the Dhamma. > > D: yup! ;-) Wait a minute guys, kamma (cetana, intention) isn't actually a factor of the noble eight-fold path, is it? I know there's a translation "right intention" of the second path factor, but I don't think that's actually referring to cetana/kamma, but rather to vitaka if I'm not mistaken. So, if we are discussing whether the path (and progress on the path) can be controlled, I'd find it helpful to focus first on whether any of the eight path factors can be controlled or not, before we move on to the other staff like kamma, etc. Best wishes pt #127801 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > ----- > > H: At the risk of appearing harsh, could I ask you to, rather than > wriggle, or make innuendo's about what I probably mean by kamma, > ------------ > > KH: Why do you object to my making innuendos? Should I not suggest you > believe in a controlling self? > > If you prefer I will simply state my opinion: you, Herman, believe in a > controlling self. > Some dhamma for you. Acharn will not like it. * The one who is doing * A certain Brahmin approached The Blessed One exchanged friendly greetings, sat on a side and said: Good Gotama I am of this view and say: Nothing is done by the self, nothing is done by others. Brahmin, I have not seen or heard of such a view: How could someone by himself approaching and receding say `Nothing is done by the self, nothing is done by others.' Brahmin, is there an occasion for making effort, Yes, good one. Brahmin, when there is an occasion for making effort, when there is a sentient being making effort, this is the being doing by the self and the other. Brahmin, when there is a going forth ... re ... ,when there is a going forward, ... re ... when there is firmness, ... re ... when there is uprightness ... re ... when there is endurance, ... re ... when there is a sentient being enduring, this is the being done by the self or other. Brahmin, I have not seen or heard of such a view: How could someone by himself approaching and receding say `Nothing is done by the self, nothing is done by others.' Good Gotama, I understand ... re ... from today, until life lasts I take refuge in good Gotama. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127803 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fw: The Storm upasaka_howard Hi, pt (and Dieter, Herman, and Ken) - In a message dated 11/14/2012 5:19:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Dieter, Howard, Herman, KenH, > Howard: There is no controller, but kamma is, exactly, intention. And it plays a central role in the Dhamma. > > D: yup! ;-) Wait a minute guys, kamma (cetana, intention) isn't actually a factor of the noble eight-fold path, is it? I know there's a translation "right intention" of the second path factor, but I don't think that's actually referring to cetana/kamma, but rather to vitaka if I'm not mistaken. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: I didn't say that kamma is a path factor, but in a way, according to the Buddha, it IS! For example, see the following: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma. "And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication, fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication, having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is called kamma that is dark with dark result. "And what is kamma that is bright with bright result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates a non-injurious bodily fabrication... a non-injurious verbal fabrication... a non-injurious mental fabrication... He rearises in a non-injurious world... There he is touched by non-injurious contacts... He experiences feelings that are exclusively pleasant, like those of the Ever-radiant Devas. This is called kamma that is bright with bright result. "And what is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates a bodily fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious... a verbal fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious... a mental fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious... He rearises in an injurious & non-injurious world... There he is touched by injurious & non-injurious contacts... He experiences injurious & non-injurious feelings, pleasure mingled with pain, like those of human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms. This is called kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. "And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? _right view_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/index.html) , _right resolve_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sankappo/index.htm\ l) , _right speech_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html) , _right action_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-kammanto/index.htm\ l) , _right livelihood_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/index.html) , _right effort_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vayamo/index.html) , _right mindfulness_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sati/index.html) , _right concentration_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/index.html\ ) . This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma." — _AN 4.235_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Moreover, kamma is the subject matter of countless suttas taught by the Buddha. ------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if we are discussing whether the path (and progress on the path) can be controlled, I'd find it helpful to focus first on whether any of the eight path factors can be controlled or not, before we move on to the other staff like kamma, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Please consider what I have written above. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Best wishes pt ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127804 From: "Yawares Sastri" HCW: > I didn't say that kamma is a path factor, Of course, you didn't. In terms of the basic issue of the discussion - can there be control aka intentional development of the path, etc, etc, - it seemed logical that we must first establish controlability of the 8 path factors, and then the rest (like kamma, etc) could follow suit automatically. Don't know why I assumed that would sound logical to others as well. Anyway, > H: but in a way, according to > the Buddha, it IS! For example, see the following: Sure, in a way. If speaking precisely though, cetana is conditioned by root cetasikas I presume, one of which in terms of the 8 path factors is right view, etc. Anyway, not to make this about kamma, it'd be nice to examine the controllability of the 8 path factors themselves first, though of course I'll understand if that's not what others here are interested in. As stated before, my contention is that control is possible, but only on later stages of development. Until then, any intention to develop this or that is likely just more lobha\dosa. Exactly where is the transition between im/possibility of control, that's the issue that interests me, though it might be a bit of a sub-topic. Best wishes pt #127806 From: "Dieter Moeller" HCW: > I didn't say that kamma is a path factor, Of course, you didn't. In terms of the basic issue of the discussion - can there be control aka intentional development of the path, etc, etc, - it seemed logical that we must first establish controlability of the 8 path factors, and then the rest (like kamma, etc) could follow suit automatically. Don't know why I assumed that would sound logical to others as well. Anyway, > H: but in a way, according to > the Buddha, it IS! For example, see the following: Sure, in a way. If speaking precisely though, cetana is conditioned by root cetasikas I presume, one of which in terms of the 8 path factors is right view, etc. Anyway, not to make this about kamma, it'd be nice to examine the controllability of the 8 path factors themselves first, though of course I'll understand if that's not what others here are interested in. As stated before, my contention is that control is possible, but only on later stages of development. Until then, any intention to develop this or that is likely just more lobha\dosa. Exactly where is the transition between im/possibility of control, that's the issue that interests me, though it might be a bit of a sub-topic. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Well, 'controllability' is a bit of a vague term. My perspective: Conditions are conditioned by other conditions. There is no agent/actor/doer, no "one" who does things. But events do occur, dhammas arising and ceasing, all conditioned, and among the conditions for dhammas are thinking and intending, themselves being conditioned namas. It is thinking and intention, and the consequences of them, that, to a great extent, give the false impression of some one who is acting. Causality/conditionality is constantly underway, but there is no "I" who causes things to come about. ----------------------------------------------- Best wishes pt ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127808 From: "ptaus1" D:kamma isn't represented by the 8fold Noble Path? Wait a minute Pt .. ;-) > path actors 2,3, 4 : > right thought > right speech > right bodily action > > are disctinct from kamma by what? Now, wait just one more minute :) Right thought, speech and action are still different cetasikas from cetanna/kamma and are respectively (if I remember correctly) - (2) vitakka, (3) and (4) virati cetasikas. So, not cetana/kamma. > Volition (cetana), o monks, is what I call action (cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami), for through volition one performs the action by body, speech or mind. OK, through cetana one performs, but cetana itself is conditioned by the roots (ala right view), etc. Surely, like right view, virati cetasikas must also have a function during a path moment. But is it cetana that conditions right view and virati cetasikas, or is cetana conditioned by them, or do they all mutually condition eachother and to what degree? I'm pretty bad at conditional relations. Best wishes pt #127809 From: "ptaus1" HCW: > Well, 'controllability' is a bit of a vague term. True. > H: My perspective: > Conditions are conditioned by other conditions. There is no agent/actor/doer, > no "one" who does things. But events do occur, dhammas arising and ceasing, > all conditioned, and among the conditions for dhammas are thinking and > intending, themselves being conditioned namas. It is thinking and intention, > and the consequences of them, that, to a great extent, give the false > impression of some one who is acting. Causality/conditionality is constantly > underway, but there is no "I" who causes things to come about. Nicely put. I guess the practical side of the issue could be about how the above applies to the moment when there's intention of the kind like "I shall be mindful right now"? Is it kusala or akusala, could it be both, on what basis, etc. Best wishes pt #127810 From: "connie" (cut...) The Buddha uses very simple examples so that a seven-year-old can understand. > > --------------- > (cut....) Raahula, when one is not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I say, that one would not do. Therefore, Raahula, you should train thus: 'I will not utter a falsehood even as a joke.' > Thank you - I never seem to hear or consider this enough. I had copied the following for myself the other day: 673. na hi vaggu vadanti vadantaa, naabhijavanti na ta.namupenti. a"ngaare santhate sayanti (senti), ginisampajjalita.m pavisanti. Sn 668. [The hell keepers] when they speak do not speak pleasantly. [The hell dwellers] do not hasten towards them; they are not arriving at a refuge. They lie on scattered coals; they enter a blazing mass of fire. ... it is not pleasant speech when I am making (worse than) childish jokes & saying things that don't serve any worthwhile purpose while 'all the world is ablaze'. may all our speech benefit those who might come towards us; may we not mislead any. thank you, connie #127811 From: "Dieter Moeller" HCW: > Well, 'controllability' is a bit of a vague term. True. > H: My perspective: > Conditions are conditioned by other conditions. There is no agent/actor/doer, > no "one" who does things. But events do occur, dhammas arising and ceasing, > all conditioned, and among the conditions for dhammas are thinking and > intending, themselves being conditioned namas. It is thinking and intention, > and the consequences of them, that, to a great extent, give the false > impression of some one who is acting. Causality/conditionality is constantly > underway, but there is no "I" who causes things to come about. Nicely put. I guess the practical side of the issue could be about how the above applies to the moment when there's intention of the kind like "I shall be mindful right now"? Is it kusala or akusala, could it be both, on what basis, etc. ------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Probably akusala. It depends on how seriously the 'I' is used in that. (But even akusala states can have useful consequences.) ---------------------------------------------------- Best wishes pt ========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127813 From: "Dieter Moeller" Conditions are conditioned by other conditions. There is no agent/actor/doer, > no "one" who does things. But events do occur, dhammas arising and ceasing, > all conditioned, and among the conditions for dhammas are thinking and > intending, themselves being conditioned namas. It is thinking and intention, > and the consequences of them, that, to a great extent, give the false > impression of some one who is acting. Causality/conditionality is constantly > underway, but there is no "I" who causes things to come about.' Pt:Nicely put. I guess the practical side of the issue could be about how the above applies to the moment when there's intention of the kind like "I shall be mindful right now"? Is it kusala or akusala, could it be both, on what basis, etc. ------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Probably akusala. It depends on how seriously the 'I' is used in that. (But even akusala states can have useful consequences.) D: akusala by what, Howard ? Kusala and akusala are part of samsara , which stands for the suffering (wandering) person. Anatta is fully realized only by the Arahant , the idea of self totally gone and so are the qualities of kamma . I like to repeat what Herman just quoted : A certain Brahmin approached The Blessed One exchanged friendly greetings,sat on a side and said: Good Gotama I am of this view and say: Nothing is done by the self, nothing is done by others. Brahmin, I have not seen or heard of such a view: How could someone by himself approaching and receding say `Nothing is done by the self, nothing is done by others.' Brahmin, is there an occasion for making effort, Yes, good one. Brahmin, when there is an occasion for making effort, when there is a sentient being making effort, this is the being doing by the self and the other. Brahmin, when there is a going forth ... re ... ,when there is a going forward, ... re ... when there is firmness, ... re ... when there is uprightness ... re ... when there is endurance, ... re ... when there is a sentient being enduring, this is the being done by the self or other. Brahmin, I have not seen or heard of such a view: How could someone by himself approaching and receding say `Nothing is done by the self, nothing is done by others.' Good Gotama, I understand ... re ... from today, until life lasts I take refuge in good Gotama." -- As I see it , confusion goes along with a mixture of mundane , conventional and supermundane (conditioned ) truth. The two 'right understandings/views' are valid in their respective domains .. The latter is fundamental but as repeatedly stated for us wordlings the former isn't less relevant. with Metta Dieter #127814 From: Nina van Gorkom People tend to be discouraged when they do not see any progress, but then they cling to the idea of my progress. It is best not to think of any progress. ------- Nina. #127815 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:37 am Subject: Re: Fw: The Storm kenhowardau Hi Connie, ------ > C: Oh sorry, Ken, my bad! You're absolutely right: kamma = cetana. ------ KH: No apologies necessary, there is so much about kamma that I don't understand; your ignorance detectors must have overloaded. :-) Ken H #127816 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fw: The Storm upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 11/14/2012 1:06:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: HCW: Probably akusala. It depends on how seriously the 'I' is used in that. (But even akusala states can have useful consequences.) D: akusala by what, Howard ? Kusala and akusala are part of samsara , which stands for the suffering (wandering) person. Anatta is fully realized only by the Arahant , the idea of self totally gone and so are the qualities of kamma . ============================ I'm not sure I understand your question, Dieter. Any thinking of "I" which involves self-view, and is not just a manner of speaking, is tainted. To that extent, the mind state is unwholesome. All of a non-arahant's mentality is tainted. (BTW, my perspective is one of gradation from fully akusala to fully kusala, and not a 0/1 or black/white matter. There are fractions and shades of gray. That, of course, is not the Abhidhammic perspective.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127817 From: "Dieter Moeller" ... it is not pleasant speech when I am making (worse than) childish jokes & saying things that don't serve any worthwhile purpose while 'all the world is ablaze'. may all our speech benefit those who might come towards us; may we not mislead any. -------------------- Han: Thank you very much for your kind interest in my series, and also for the above quote. I have many, many books, more than I can read. It is only when good friends like you write something, I happen to read that portion. It happens this time also. I am now reading Suttanipaatapaa.li, 3. Mahaavaggo, 10. Kokaalikasutta.m, from which you have taken the above verses. It is frightening to read about bhikkhu Kokaalika. http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/5Khuddaka-Nikaya/05Suttanipata/3-maha\ -vagga-e.html Bhikkhu Kokaalika said to the Buddha about Ven Saariputta and Ven Moggallaana ["Venerable sir, Saariputta and Moggallaana are with evil desires, overcome by evil desires."] The Buddha tried to stop him ["Kokaalika, do not say that, have faith in Saariputta and Moggallaana, they are well behaved."] But Kokaalika would not listen; he repeated three times. Soon after that, all over bhikkhu Kokaalika's body there arose small blisters the size of coming seeds. Next they became the size of green grams and next the size of chick peas. Then they became the size of jujubi fruits. And later the size of myrobolan fruits. From that they became the size of beluwa fruits. Later they came to be like ripe beluwa fruits, burst and pus and blood oozed. The bhikkhu Kokaalika became very ill on account of it and died and was born in the Paduma hell for bearing illwill in the mind for Saariputta and Moggallaana. ---------- Han: And the sutta tells about the Paduma hell, with the verses from which you have quoted some. It is a great reminder for me not to say or think ill about others. Thank you very much, Connie. You are indeed a Kalyaa.namitta for me! with metta and respect, Han #127819 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fw: The Storm upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 11/14/2012 3:57:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: point agreed? ======================= No disagreement. :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) AdChoices #127820 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Fw: The Storm kenhowardau Hi Herman, ----- <. . .> >> KH: If you prefer I will simply state my opinion: you, Herman, believe in a controlling self. > H: This is a good start. A little bit more work, and you will soon understand: Writing to Herman, he discerns he is writing to Herman. ------ KH: I understand the tricks of a guru: Writing a banal sentence the guru relies on his student to infer great meaning. ----------- > H: > or > Believing that Herman believes in a controlling self, he discerns that he believes that Herman....... <. . .> > > Writing profusely about some dhamma theory, he discerns he is writing profusely about some theory. ---------- KH: Well said, oh wise one! :-) Ken H #127822 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:40 am Subject: Re: The fat controller kenhowardau Hi Herman, ----- > H: Some dhamma for you. Acharn will not like it. > * > The one who is doing >* ------ KH: So that's the Dhamma, is it? there really is the one who is doing? May I ask how you explain the Buddha's teaching of anatta ("Deeds exist, but no doer of the deeds is there")? Ken H #127823 From: "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Dieter, > > > D:kamma isn't represented by the 8fold Noble Path? Wait a minute Pt .. ;-) > > path actors 2,3, 4 : > > right thought > > right speech > > right bodily action > > > > are disctinct from kamma by what? > > > Now, wait just one more minute :) > > Right thought, speech and action are still different cetasikas from cetanna/kamma and are respectively (if I remember correctly) - (2) vitakka, (3) and (4) virati cetasikas. So, not cetana/kamma. > Sorry, I was a bit lazy yesterday and didn't provide a reference. There's some detail on correspondence between path factors and cetasikas in Comprehensive manual of abhidhamma, chapter VII, paragraphs 30-33. If you don't have the book, you can read it online here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxopJgv85y4C&printsec=frontcover Interestingly, there is also a table there in paragraph 33 that lists all 37 factors of enlightenment (8 path factors, powers, faculties, etc) and cetana is actually not found in any of them, if I understand the table right. Best wishes pt #127824 From: "jagkrit2012" N: I listened to a Thai recording with very good reminders. > yang di). It should be very natural (thammada, thammada), and often, > often (boj, boj). ============= JJ: Thank you very much Nina. This is very good reminder that it is the way awareness develops. It is very natural or thammada in Thai which means "being dhamma" in Pali. ============== > We should be firm (mankong) in the development > of understanding, not discouraged (thothoi). There should be > patience, khanti, determination, aditthana, truthfulness, sacca; that > is, sincerity in the development of understanding of the four noble > Truths.> > People tend to be discouraged when they do not see any progress, but > then they cling to the idea of my progress. It is best not to think > of any progress. =============== JJ: This is also good reminder that during the way of understanding dhamma, one must understand and develop patience: khanti, determination: aditthana, truthfulness: sacca. One can not be firm and not discouraged without understanding and practicing these parts of 10 perfections. I always forget about the 10 perfections and focus on learning and studying dhamma. Have to be reminded quite often. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #127825 From: Tam Bach JJ: I get the picture you describe and admit that our Vietnamese friends are so enthusiastic and so interested in learn dhamma with T.A. Sujin and you. I had a feeling that Hanoi discussion was very great and this was the beginning of fruitful dhamma discussion which shall be held more discussion there in the future. Do you agree? ... S: Yes, I do. Tam and I were discussing this - some more discussion next year in Saigon and Hanoi. I hope you'll help us arrange it. Nice and convenient to Bangkok too. T: Indeed. i will soon talk to some Dhamma friends in Saigon, and am quite sure they will be glad. We can bring this up again on Jan and hopefully Achaan will give the green light. .... ... S: Jagkrit, you're always very kind and helpful. I have to anumodana you for helping yet again with the conference room arrangements which made such a difference for the discussions. T: Anumodana, Jagkrit ! #127826 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > ----- > <. . .> > >> KH: If you prefer I will simply state my opinion: you, Herman, believe > in a controlling self. > > > H: This is a good start. A little bit more work, and you will soon > understand: > > Writing to Herman, he discerns he is writing to Herman. > ------ > > KH: I understand the tricks of a guru: Writing a banal sentence the guru > relies on his student to infer great meaning. > > ----------- > > H: > or > > > > Believing that Herman believes in a controlling self, he discerns that > he believes that Herman....... > <. . .> > > > > > Writing profusely about some dhamma theory, he discerns he is writing > profusely about some theory. > ---------- > > KH: Well said, oh wise one! :-) > > Guru Herman, it does have a ring to it :-) > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127827 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Members. > > The Questions Of King Milinda > [Translated ted by T.W.Rhys Davids] > > #3. The king said: 'You told me, Nâgasena, that your renunciation was to > the end that this sorrow might perish away, and no further sorrow might > spring up .' > > 'Yes, that is so.' > > 'But is that renunciation brought about by previous effort, or to be > striven after now, in this present time?' > > The Elder replied: 'Effort is now concerned with what still remains to be > done, former effort has accomplished what it had to do.' > > 'Give me an illustration 3.' > > 'Now what do you think, O king? Is it when you feel thirst that you would > set to work to have a well or an artificial lake dug out, with the > intention of getting some water to drink?' > > 'Certainly not, Sir.' > > 'Just so, great king, is effort concerned now with what still remains to > be done, former effort has accomplished what it had to do.' > > 'Give me a further illustration.' > > 'Now what do you think, O king? Is it when you feel hungry that you set to > work to have fields ploughed and seed planted and crops reaped with the > intention of getting some food to eat?' > > 'Certainly not, Sir.' > > 'Just so, great king, is effort concerned now with what still remains to > be done, former effort has accomplished what it had to do.' > > 'Give me a further illustration.' > > 'Now what do you think, O king? Is it when the battle is set in array > against you that you set to work to have a moat dug, and a rampart put up, > and a watch tower built, and a stronghold formed, and stores of food > collected? Is it then that you would have yourself taught the management of > elephants, or horsemanship, or the use of the chariot and the bow, or the > art of fencing?' > > 'Certainly not, Sir.' > > 'Just so, great king, is effort concerned now with what still remains to > be done, former effort has accomplished what it had to do. For it has been > thus said, O king, by the Blessed One: > > "Betimes let each wise man work out > That which he sees to be his weal! > Not with the carter's mode of thought, but firm p. 103 > Let him, with resolution, step right out. > As a carter who has left the smooth high road, > And turned to byways rough, broods ill at ease 1-- > (Like him who hazards all at dice, and fails)-- > So the weak mind who still neglects the good, > And follows after evil, grieves at heart, > When fallen into the power of death, as he, > The ruined gamester, in his hour of need 2." > > [67] 'Very good, Nâgasena. > > ------------- > yawares/sirikanya > > > #127828 From: "sarah" wrote: > >S: Back to seeing and visible object, the two kinds of realities - those that can experience an object and those that cannot experience anything. No names used, no mention of Buddha or Abhidhamma, we were just talking about the kinds of realities which can be known now. > > > > My friend from the other day - "Seeing, so what?" When there's no understanding, it's "so what?". More understanding, less idea of self - elements arising and falling away by conditions. Understanding leads to less attachment. Depends whether there is just living with understanding or ignorance. > > ... >P: It could be that people's understanding of seeing is a good indication of whether there is any real understanding of Dhamma. .... S: Yes, if the distinction between seeing and visible object is not clearly understood and if it is not realised (even intellectually) that these are realities, not self, not some thing, then more explanation, more questioning is needed. ... > People who think that seeing is a "so what" issue, or think that they can control what they see - something has to "click" with them. Usually it doesn't, though you and others make noble efforts to get it across. Something has to click due to conditions, and persuasive posts, persuasive talk, can only add to that sea of conditions.... .... S: Yes, in the end, no one else can do the persuading. It has to be understood or "clicked" for each one. Metta Sarah ===== #127829 From: "sarah" wrote: > >s: Always back to this moment. > > > > What we were concerned about, what was said to us.....all gone. > > Seeing now, thinking now, hardness.....like, dislike.... all gone > > immediately. > > > > The best in life - just develop understanding and share with others. > ------ > N: This was helpful for me. There was a miscommunication with the > assistant of the dentist who thought Lodewijk was still alive, > although I had told them. She was wondering about help for him on the > steep staircase. Such things upset me very much, but here I read: all > gone. But it is hard to apply when one only intellectually > understands that realities fall away immediately. ... S: We may seem to be doing fine at a difficult time and then, as you say, unexpected conditions for the anusaya (latent tendencies) to suddently condition a strong reaction. We know it's useless to think long stories about something said or done, but thinking is anatta too. It's like that for us all. This is why it has to be the path of detachment and understanding - not of having dhammas the way we'd like them to be! Metta Sarah ==== > > > > #127830 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Han (for the Pali!), > Op 5-nov-2012, om 14:37 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > > > If there's no understanding, it's useless to just read or listen or > > do anything which is not the understanding of reality now. > -------- > N: Another lovely report, wish I had been there. > When considering reality now, it makes such a difference to read Pali > texts from the Anguttara Nikaaya. I was just going over some Pali > passages, from Gair Karunatillake, transl by John Kelly: > Naaha.m, bhikkhave, añña.m ekadhamma.m pi samanupassaami, yo eva.m > saddhammassa sammosaaya antaradhaanaaya sa.mvattati, yathayida.m, > bhikkhave, pamaado. Pamaado, bhikkhave, saddhammassa sammosaaya > antaradhaanaaya sa.mvattatiiti. > Monks, indeed I do not perceive any single mental quality that thus > leads to the confusion and disappearance of the true doctrine, other > than negligence. Negligence, monks, leads to the confusion and > disappearance of the true doctrine. > -------- > N: Here we see that it is important to understand that seeing now, > visible object now essential. That is asammosa, non-forgetfulness. I > think of the student who did not understand that this is the only way > to solve the problems of life, of sorrow, separation, disease, death. > He asked; why understanding seeing...So necessary to understand death > at each moment, momentary death. (Can you tell him, Sarah? And my > warmest regards to all students) .... S: In the end, that student was very happy and brought a long his friend who liked to question and argue and present his ideas until he too was very satisfied and made a very nice little speech to Ajahn when we left. Apparently the two of them had approached dozens of teachers and never been satisfied with the answers until now. They realised we cannot just talk about "awareness of everything" or "emptiness" or dukkha without understanding seeing and visible object now. ... > N: Seeing the danger of being neglectful and lazy now, wanting to do > something else first instead of understanding whatever appears now. > All these texts are so meaningful when having in mind that the > reality now has to be understood. ... S: Thank you for the text with Pali. Heedfulness now with understanding of dhammas as anatta. Metta Sarah ===== #127831 From: "jagkrit2012" T: Indeed. i will soon talk to some Dhamma friends in Saigon, and am quite sure they will be glad. We can bring this up again on Jan and hopefully Achaan will give the green light. ============= JJ: That is good new. It seems that dhamma friends in Vietnam are so active in many cities. And I'm glad that you can arrange more discussion for them in different places. As you may aware that hearing dhamma is one of the 4 most difficult things to be happen in one's life, it is so wonderful if you can arrange more dhamma discussion for them. Especially, dhamma discussion with Than Acharn Sujin which leads to more understanding and lay foundation of right view. I anumodhana your kusala effort for this. And support your request to Acharn this Janunary. Acharn always has loving-kindness to everybody especial those who are interested in dhamma. Jagkrit #127832 From: Nina van Gorkom > path actors 2,3, 4 : > > right thought > > right speech > > right bodily action > > > > are disctinct from kamma by what?) Sorry, I was a bit lazy yesterday and didn't provide a reference. There's some detail on correspondence between path factors and cetasikas in Comprehensive manual of abhidhamma, chapter VII, paragraphs 30-33. If you don't have the book, you can read it online here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxopJgv85y4C&printsec=frontcover Interestingly, there is also a table there in paragraph 33 that lists all 37 factors of enlightenment (8 path factors, powers, faculties, etc) and cetana is actually not found in any of them, if I understand the table right. D: thanks for the link .. one really must be grateful having so many excellent material to study available on-line for free! But let us see first the obvious : kamma is always defined by action of body, speech and mind. And those mentioned by kamma patha are (nearly) identical with the 3 links of the N.P. .. As cetana stands as well for kamma ( (cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami), one may expect , that cetana as a term , is not found. You may know that the kamma force is represented as sankhara , 2nd in the chain of D.O., and sankhara khanda (mental formations) , 4th of D.O. . The former conditions vinanna or the citta , whereas the citta conditions rupa-nama ( mental formation part of it) . Now, acc. to VisM sankhara (together with avijja) is belonging to the past , sankhara khanda to the present, which indeed makes sense. A problem occurs when this past is understood to be completed /finished (by birth) , because the circle of birth ,life, birth..would be interrupted. Hence we need to understand that without interruption of the running wheel of samsara, avijja -sankhara can only mean the past up to date of all lives, not of the previous life only. so far .. with Metta Dieter #127837 From: "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: As regards your point of no experience of dhammas as 'singularities', may > > I suggest that the fact that, for example, seeing and visible object, > > hearing and audible object always seem to co-arise and from the subjective > > perspective there is never one without the other, does not negate the > > possibility of them being separate dhammas, with completely different > > conditions for their arising. > > > > Furthermore, if the dhamma that we know as audible object was not a > > separate dhamma it would mean that sound could never arise in the world in > > the absence of hearing consciousness. Yet such a notion would seem to run > > counter to our general experience. > > > > > H: The following is one example of the present temporal moment, which is > already well passed/past, in truth and reality : > > "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing > out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, > he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he > discerns that he is breathing out short. (MN22) > =============== J: Yes, agreed that the passage quoted here is not describing the experience of presently arising dhammas, but rather the development of samatha in a person who is already highly adept at that (BTW, could not find this passage in either of the translations of MN22 on the ATI website.) > =============== > H: The stories of samsara pivot around deeds, performed in a past/future > framework. If there is no awareness of what is being done, there is no > awareness. > > Only with the ceasing of doing is there the ceasing of time. That is the > present moment in truth and reality - without past or future. > =============== J: The above sounds a bit sus to me :-)) I'm not familiar with the expression "the ceasing of doing", but I am pretty sure that it is certainly not the present reality for anyone here. `Aspirational present' for some, perhaps :-)) With apologies for the delay in replying (blame it on recent travels). Jon #127839 From: Nina van Gorkom 'No one can stop thinking,....' > > D: only when you think ' stop thinking' , Nina ;-) --------- N: Even that is thinking. ------- > D:I understand that 'stop thinking ' occurs when it rests e.g. in > joyful feeling, leaving behind v. and v. > Isn't that exactly what the 2nd Jhana states? > And letting (the action of) thinking pass/phasing out , is a rather > common state of meditation (samatha ). ----- N: Difficult to attain 2nd jhaana, and indeed, no vitakka and vicara. ------- > > D:I suppose above is said to emphasise thinking in relation to the > contemplation of the 4 frames of Satipatthana ? ------ N: Yes. Direct awareness and direct understanding of naama and ruupa is different from just thinking of them. ------ Nina. #127840 From: han tun wrote: > ** > > KH: Conventional wisdom says we should do something in order to attain a > goal in the future. The Buddha's unconventional wisdom says there is no > self to do, or attain, anything. > > The wise know when they are doing something now in order to create an always unsatisfactory future, and then cease the doing of that. Laid down any burdens lately? SN 22.22 PTS: S iii 25 CDB i 871 BhÄra Sutta: The Burden At SÄvatthÄ«... There the Blessed One said this: “I will preach to you, monks, the burden,[1] the bearer of the burden,[2] the taking up of the burden,[3] and the putting down of the burden.[4] Hear this. “And which, monks, is the burden? That of which it should be said: the five clung-to aggregates. [5] “Which five? The form clung-to aggregate, the feeling clung-to aggregate, the perception clung-to aggregate, the formative mental functions clung-to aggregate, the sensory consciousness clung-to aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden. And which, monks, is the burden-bearer? That of which it should be said: the individual person, [6] who is this venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry. This, monks, is called the burden-bearer. [7] “And which, monks, is the taking up of the burden? That which is this craving leading to rebirth, connected with delight and passion, finding delight here and there: namely, craving for sensual pleasure, craving for being, and craving for extinction. This, monks, is called the taking up of the burden. “And which, monks, is the putting down of the burden? That which, of just this craving, is the cessation by means of the absence of desire without remainder: the abandoning, the forsaking, the freedom, the non-attachment. This, monks, is called the putting down of the burden.†This said the Blessed One. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, furthermore said this: Ah, surely, the five aggregates are burdens, And the individual person is the burden-bearer; Taking up the burden is suffering in the world, Putting down the burden is bliss. Having put down the heavy burden, Without taking up another burden, Pulling out craving along with its root, One is without hunger, fully extinguished. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127843 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > ----- > > H: Some dhamma for you. Acharn will not like it. > > > * > > > The one who is doing > > >* > ------ > > KH: So that's the Dhamma, is it? there really is the one who is doing? > > May I ask how you explain the Buddha's teaching of anatta ("Deeds exist, > but no doer of the deeds is there")? > > These are footnotes to the same sutta from different translators. SN 22.22 PTS: S iii 25 CDB i 871 BhÄra Sutta: The Burden Thanissaro Bhikkhu This discourse parallels the teaching on the four noble truths, but with a twist. The "burden" is defined in the same terms as the first noble truth, the truth of suffering & stress. The taking on of the burden is defined in the same terms as the second noble truth, the origination of stress; and the casting off of the burden, in the same terms as the third noble truth, the cessation of stress. The fourth factor, however — the carrier of the burden — has no parallel in the four noble truths, and has proven to be one of the most controversial terms in the history of Buddhist philosophy. When defining this factor as the person (or individual, *puggala),* the Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and-such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract factors? He doesn't say. After his passing away, however, Buddhist scholastics attempted to provide an answer for him, and divided into two major camps over the issue. One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates. However, the other camp — who developed into the Pudgalavadin (Personalist) school — said that the person was neither a ultimate truth nor a mere conventional designation, neither identical with nor totally separate from the five aggregates. This special meaning of person, they said, was required to account for three things: the cohesion of a person's identity in this lifetime (one person's memories, for instance, cannot become another person's memories); the unitary nature of rebirth (one person cannot be reborn in several places at once); and the fact that, with the cessation of the khandhas at the death of an arahant, he/she is said to attain the Further Shore. However, after that moment, they said, nothing further could be said about the person, for that was as far as the concept's descriptive powers could go. As might be imagined, the first group accused the second group of denying the concept of anatta, or not-self; whereas the second group accused the first of being unable to account for the truths that they said their concept of person explained. Both groups, however, found that their positions entangled them in philosophical difficulties that have never been successfully resolved. Perhaps the most useful lesson to draw from the history of this controversy is the one that accords with the Buddha's statements in MN 72, where he refuses to get involved in questions of whether a person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body, or of whether after death there is something of an arahant that exists or not. In other words, the questions aren't worth asking. Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off. As SN 22.36 points out, when one stops trying to define oneself in any way, one is free from all limitations — and that settles all questions. Maurice O'Connell Walshe This sutta, as E.J. Thomas (*Early Buddhist Scriptures*, London 1935, p. 123) says, "has been appealed to both by those who would find in Buddhism the doctrine of something permanent in addition to the five groups [i.e., the *sankhaaras*], and also by those who deny it." To the former party belong, e.g., H.C. Warren, who included it in his *Buddhism in Translations* (Harvard 1896, rep. 1963), and Erich Frauwallner, who prints in his *Philosophie des Buddhismus* ([East] Berlin 1956, p. 25f.) a German translation from the Chinese version of Tsa Ahan (Taisho 99, k. 3) which he entitles "Das Suutra vom Lastträger" ("The Suutra of the Burden-Bearer") with the Sanskrit heading (retranslated from the Chinese!) *Bhaarahaarasuutram*. But Woodward in KS [*Book of the Kindred Sayings*, trans. of the Sa.myutta Nikaaya, Vol. III, PTS 1924], countering a similar view expressed by A.B. Keith, says: "No bearer of the burden is mentioned at all, but a bearing. *Haaro* is 'a taking.' *The puggalo ['person'] is the taking hold of the fivefold mass*." (Woodward's italics). Woodward's view is expressly supported by Mrs Rhys Davids, as editor, in a note of her own, though she doubtless changed her mind about this later, having subsequently (as is well known) drifted into wrong views! The sutta is discussed briefly twice in EB [*Encyclopaedia of Buddhism*, Colombo 1961], and, curiously, different opinions are expressed on this point. Under *Bhaara*, U. K[arunaratana] says: "the burden-bearer (* bhaarahaara*) is the person (*puggala*)," while under *Bhaara Sutta* L[akshmi] R. G[oonesekere] writes: "the 'laying hold of the burden' [=*bharahara*] is the individual." Grammar would seem to be on the side of the latter view, and while I am unable to say whether Frauwallner has translated from the Chinese correctly or not, the same would apply to the Sanskrit title he quotes. It is further noteworthy that in Frauwallner's text the four things are given in a different order from the Pali as: "The Burden," "the taking up of the burden" (but see n. 2), "the laying down of the burden," and "the bearer of the burden" [=* bhaarahaara.*] The last of these three is said to be "the person," etc., but with a somewhat expanded description. The final verses are also somewhat different. In any case the Sanskrit text (on which the Chinese version is based) is clearly secondary. It is easy to understand how this sutta could be misunderstood, both in ancient and in modern times, since (doctrinal issues apart!) one would expect the "person" to be described as the bearer rather than the "bearing." The explanation is that the "person" is in terms of relative truth what the *khandhas* are according to ultimate truth (cf. SN 1.20, n. 8 ). One is tempted to think that this sutta was originally delivered for the benefit of one or other of the Bhaaradvaajas (see SN 7.1 , SN 7.2 , SN 35.127), whose name appears to mean "twice-born burden"! K. Nizamis *Puggala*. (The later Sanskritized form of this word is *pudgala*.) The primary sense of this very old word seems to have been “separate individualâ€, and it was used both of the “body†and of the “soul†(as well as of other kinds of “thingsâ€). It may well be related, in etymology and meaning, to the Vedic *pá¹›thak*, “separate, differentâ€, and *pá¹›thu*, “spread outâ€, and would therefore be closely related to the term *puthujjana* (see SN 12.61, note 1). (There is an interesting etymological discussion in P. Tedesco, “Sanskrit Pudgala: Body; Soulâ€, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 67, No. 3, 1947.) For a significant account of the philosophical concept of the puggala in the Buddhadhamma, and the doctrinal and ideological struggles that have occurred around it, see L. Priestley, *PudgalavÄda Buddhism: The Reality of the Indeterminate Self*, University of Toronto, Canada, 1999. Although Priestley's account focuses especially on later non-Indian Buddhist sources, his survey of course includes the earlier Indian literature, and his perceptive philosophical conclusions are of deep value for anyone sensitive to and familiar with the earlier (pre-Abhidhamma) texts. 7 . This does not mean that the *puggala*, as the “burden-bearerâ€, is a separate entity that takes hold of the “burdenâ€. Nor does it mean, as the post-Abhidhamma TheravÄda commentary supposes, that the expression “bearer of the burden†is meant to show that “the “person†is admitted only as a mere convention†(“iti vohÄramattasiddhaṃ puggalaṃ ‘bhÄrahÄro’ti katvÄ dassetiâ€, PTS Spk ii.263), which is the standard TheravÄda Abhidhamma dogma on the matter. The real point is that the “person†is neither separable from the five clung-to aggregates, nor is the “person†merely reducible to them. The nature of the “person†thereby defies reductionism (and thus nihilism), while at the same time eschewing eternalism. There is a very deep and important parallelism here between the concept of the “person†and Aristotle's concept of the *psukhÄ“*, or individuated life principle, in *de Anima*. Aristotle defined the concept of the psukhÄ“ in a radically new way within Greek philosophy: as the “form†of the living sentient being, which is neither reducible to the “material†upon which it depends, nor separable from that “materialâ€. Thus, he steered a middle way between the reductive materialism of the Atomists and the dualism of Plato. His paradigm is “hylomorphicâ€, and I have argued elsewhere (forthcoming) that it is profoundly relevant to and even helpful for a proper understanding of the teachings of the Suttanta Piá¹­aka, as the literature from which we may recover definite and coherent elements of the earliest extant (pre-Abhidhamma) Buddhadhamma. Incidentally, the first chapter, “PuggalakathÄâ€, “Debate about the Personâ€, of the fifth book of the TheravÄda Abhidhamma Piá¹­aka, the KathÄvatthu or “Subjects of Debateâ€, purports to be an extensive refutation by a TheravÄdin of the alleged PuggalavÄda “heresyâ€. However, a careful analysis of these arguments reveals that the TheravÄdins either misunderstood or misrepresented what may well have been an actually “non-heretical†PuggalavÄda interpretation of the earlier Buddhadhamma teachings. On this view, the entire “PuggalakathĆsection of the KathÄvatthu is based upon a fallacy, and “refutes†nothing more than a “straw manâ€. > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127844 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > > Dear group > > I like this one that I just heard while jogging: > > "We do not know what our next thinking will be, kusala or akusala. So why > do we fear anything to arise - there are conditions for it arising" > Kusala, schmusala. One thing is for sure, you know exactly what you want to know while jogging. You are predicting very precisely what you need to do to get where you want to go, where the ground will be every step of the way, and where other objects and people will be, given their movement. What's more, there's the constant getting into the right position to get a better perspective of the cleavages along the way. Like I said, kusala, schmusala :-) > _,_._,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127845 From: Nina van Gorkom S: 'Atthasalini', Analysis of Terms (PTS transl). "How is consciousness capable of producing a variety or diversity of effects in action? There is no art in the world more variegated than the art of painting. In painting, the painter's masterpiece is more artistic than the rest of his pictures. An artistic design occurs to the painters of masterpieces that such and such pictures should be drawn in such and such a way. "Through this artistic design there arise operations of the mind (or artistic operations) accomplishing such things as sketching the outline, putting on the paint, touching up, and embellishing... Thus all classes of arts in the world, specific or generic, are achieved by the mind. And owing to its capacity thus to produce a variety or diversity of effects in action, the mind, which achieves all these arts, is itself artistic like the arts themselves. Nay, it is even more artistic than the art itself, because the latter cannot execute every design perfectly. "For that reason the Blessed One has said, 'Monks, have you seen a masterpiece of painting?' 'Yes, Lord.' 'Monks, that masterpiece of art is designed by the mind. Indeed, monks, the mind is even more artistic than that masterpiece." And from Samyutta Nikaya, 22:100 'The Leash' (Bodhi transl): "Suppose, bhikkhus, an artist or a painter, using dye or lac or turmeric or indigo or crimson, would create the figure of a man or a woman complete in all its features on a well-polished plank or wall or canvas. "So too, when the uninstructed worldling produces anything, it is only form that he produces; only feeling that he produces; only perception that he produces; only volitional formations that he produces; only consciousness that he produces."< Metta Sarah >Az: right now and like now ============ #127848 From: Nina van Gorkom We discussed a little about your activities in Bangkok. I'd like to > suggest that you spend a little time every day sending an extract > from the many notes you took during the trip - just a few lines at > a time of what you found meaningful would be appreciated by us all. ------ N: Yes, great. ------ > > S:I heard Ajahn talking today about the importance of thinking of > others, helping others, sharing with others so as to reduce the > preoccupation with ourselves and our own needs and comforts. This > was all being discussed as an aspect of the path - developing > understanding and other kusala as perfections. ----- N:It was in the bus with Lukas. I transcribed it all, and later on I shall post it. Very worth while. Nina. #127849 From: Nina van Gorkom (D: I think we have talked about why the hindrances are included > > under ( thecontemplation of) mental objects and not the (states of) > > mind but can't remember the conclusion (?). ----- > > N: They are under contemplation of dhammas, they are akusala > cetasikas. > > D: true , but then what about other factors of the citta > contemplation?: > "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? > There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns > that the mind has passion. ... > Passion related to cetasika chanda, lobha . Aversion to dosa . > Delusion to moha and concentration to ekaggata. > I am missing still the clue of distinction .. > ------ It is repeated: the citta with lobha, without lobha. Citta is emphasized. However, we should not cling to words, as I learnt, but develop understanding of characteristics. Otherwise we just attend to theory. Take he four applications of mindfulness. The Buiddha taught these so that we see that nothing is excluded as object of awareness. It is not a matter of focussing on or staying with one of the four applications for a while. When there is mindfulness of ruupa, there should also be mindfulness of naama, otherwise we take them together and no way to get rid of the idea of my body, my seeing. At one splitsecond there can be mindfulness of citta, the next splitsecond of feeling or of any other reality. It all depends on the sati what object it takes, "you" cannot do anything. We have to learn: sati is anattaa. ------- > > N: Pa~n~naa has to be keen no matter one develops samatha or > vipassanaa. > > D: or vice versa .. the path-training refers to samadhi (6,7,8 of > the N.T:) as the supporting foundation for panna (1,2 ) > ------ N: When pa~n~naa is more developed, as is the case when stages of insight are reached, naturally also samaadhi develops. It supports pa~n~naa while it arises together with pa~n~naa. It is not: first samaadhi alone, and then pa~n~naa. -------- > > N:After seeing or after hearing, even in the same process of citta, > akusala javanacittas with attachment are bound to arise. The > attachment may be accompanied by indifferent feeling and then it is > not noticed that there is lobha already, it arises so soon. > > D: why bound to arise ? Most sensations of our daily consciousness > pass without special attention. > It is emotion of a certain impression which turns to lobha or dosa, > doesn't it? > ------ N: Yes, bound to arise. Think of each process, even now. Such a lot of javanacittas with moha, ignorance. All day long, all day long. ---- Nina. > AdChoices #127850 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Thanks so much to our wonderful new friends in Vietnam, great to be with people who are so interesteed to hear what Buddha taught. > =============== J: Thanks for the update. Yes, the keen interest was impressive (and infectious!). > right now and like now > azita > =============== J: Good one :-)) Jon #127851 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > From Sutta Nipata (650-657) > > > 'Not by birth is one a Bramana, nor is one by birth no Bramana; by kamma > one is a Bramana, by kamma one is no Bramana. (650) > 'By kamma one is a husbandman, by kamma one is an artisan, by kamma one is > a > merchant, by kamma one is a servant. (651) > 'By kamma one is a thief, by kamma one is a soldier, by kamma one is a > sacrificer, by kamma one is a king. (652) > 'So the wise, who see the cause of things and understand the result of > kamma, know this as it really is. (653) > 'By kamma the world exists, by kamma mankind > exists, beings are bound by kamma as the linch-pin of the rolling cart (654) > =============== J: The true 'worth' of a person is in how they act, not in the position they hold in life/in society. I'm reminded of the 3 'vatta' or rounds (of rebirth): kamma vatta ( the kamma round), kilesa vatta (the round of defilements) and vipaka vatta (the round of results), each supporting the other two. To my understanding, it's by the development of awareness/insight that the cycle of rounds (if that's not a tautology:-) is weakened and, eventually, broken. > Cheers > > Herman > > I do not know what I do not know > =============== J: And in studying the Dhamma we come to know better what it is that is not known :-)) Jon #127852 From: han tun Date: Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The fat controller kenhowardau Hi Herman, I am not sure I should be discussing Dhamma with you when you are so determined to believe in an eternal soul. Why should I want to take away your most precious possession by preaching anatta? Ken H >> KH: May I ask how you explain the Buddha's teaching of anatta ("Deeds exist,> but no doer of the deeds is there")? >> > H: <. . .> Thanissaro Bhikkhu #127854 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > I am not sure I should be discussing Dhamma with you when you are so > determined to believe in an eternal soul. Why should I want to take away > your most precious possession by preaching anatta? > I think we are misunderstanding each other. I only quoted you some sutta material without offering a point of view of my own. Sorry about that ! > >> KH: May I ask how you explain the Buddha's teaching of anatta ("Deeds > exist,> but no doer of the deeds is there")? > >> > > If I am correct, you are quoting from the Vis. There's about a thousand years between the Buddha and the Vis. Never mind. The Buddha could not find anything worth calling self in any "present moment". But he could remember aeons of his former lives. Would you care to offer your view on that? -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127855 From: "antony272b2" Date: Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The fat controller kenhowardau Hi Herman, ---- >> H: If I am correct, you are quoting from the Vis. There's about a thousand > years between the Buddha and the Vis. Never mind. > > The Buddha could not find anything worth calling self in any "present > moment". But he could remember aeons of his former lives. > > Would you care to offer your view on that? ---- KH: The Dhamma is deep and profound. It is so deep that some people can hear it for many years and still reject every a single word of it. Is that what you think I have been doing? I definitely reject everything Thanissaro teaches, and I don't know if there is a single point in the Dhamma that you and I agree on. Is there one? Ken H #127857 From: "jrg493" This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada > position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional > designation for the five aggregates. This is, also, actually what the sutta says: the puggala is that which has a name & clan. Can there anything be more nominal than a name & clan? > This does not mean that the *puggala*, as the burden-bearer, is a > separate entity that takes hold of the burden. Nor does it mean, as the > post-Abhidhamma Theravada commentary supposes, that the expression bearer > of the burden is meant to show that the person is admitted only as a > mere convention, which is the standard Theravada Abhidhamma dogma > on the matter. Note how he says the commentary of Theravada "supposes" & that it is "dogma". He doesn't point out that any definition of puggala must include "name" (nama) & "clan" (gotto, Skt. gotra) --- two things which are far less fundamental & real than the khandhas. It's almost painful to read what Nizami says, as it is so baseless. A puggala = name & clan, both of which could not be more conventional. And it just gets worse from there. - in Dhamma Josh #127858 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > ---- > >> H: If I am correct, you are quoting from the Vis. There's about a > thousand > > > years between the Buddha and the Vis. Never mind. > > > > The Buddha could not find anything worth calling self in any "present > > moment". But he could remember aeons of his former lives. > > > > Would you care to offer your view on that? > ---- > > KH: The Dhamma is deep and profound. It is so deep that some people can > hear it for many years and still reject every a single word of it. > > Is that what you think I have been doing? I definitely reject everything > Thanissaro teaches, and I don't know if there is a single point in the > Dhamma that you and I agree on. Is there one? > > I really don't think it is wise to claim on behalf of the Dhamma that you are not there, and still write emails to me. > Ken H > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127860 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > J: The editing is quite time-consuming work for Sarah and me, but > nonetheless a labour of love :-)) > > How nice to read your description of real daily life. Sincerely! > Jon > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127861 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > S: What can be known now is present "daily life stuff". > > > .... > > > > > > > >H: I don't agree here, with great confidence :-) > ..... > > S: Is seeing now "daily life stuff"? Is visible object, hearing, sound > "daily life stuff"? > > Can it not be proved now that all that is seen is visible object? All that > is heard is sound? That seeing now is not self? > .... > > Yes, no doubt. But more so, can it not be proved that that none of this applies to us now, who are forever in search of new futures? If we were really interested in "now", there's a heck of a lot of stuff we would have to ditch, and we would seriously and utterly refuse to do that. Some are genuinely interested in the "now", but that certainly doesn't apply to folks who intend to take up new rebirths ad infinitum. > > > > Outside of samadhi there is no hope in Hades of being anything but > deluded > > about what is now . > > > > SN 35.99 > > PTS: S iv 80< > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/SN_IV_utf8.html#pts.080> > > > > > CDB ii 1181 > > Samadhi Sutta: Concentration > > > > "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as > they > > actually are present. And what does he discern as it actually is present? > .... > S: There is concentration at every moment. When there is right > understanding, right concentration is developed. Otherwise not. > > <...> > > > S: What the six worlds are empty of is self. > > >H: Yes. > > > > > And permanence, and satisfaction ( so why are we all so happy most of the > > time ? :-). > > > ... > S: Yes, seeing now, visible object now is empty of self, impermanent and > unsatisfactory. > > Most of the time happy with lobha because the impermanent is taken for > permanent, the foul is taken for beautiful and that which is unsatisfactory > is taken for satisfactory. Only the arahat has eradicated all the > vipallasas (perversions) and realises true happiness, the happiness of the > wisdom which has eradicated all defilements. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > Thank you and > -- > Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127862 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > ----------- > <. . .> > >> KH: Sitting cross-legged, for example, is no more symbolic of > satipatthana than is walking or eating etc. (see the Satipatthana Sutta). > There is this thing called "the day's abiding". It refers to what you are doing between dawn and dusk. Generally, if in that time you are not laying down burdens, you are picking them up, That is not about symbolism, it is about understanding. If you would like to propose that somehow there is understanding in indulging in slimy-excrement-pleasure, torpor-pleasure, the pleasure of gains, offerings, & fame, please do so. > > D: I see that the Buddha stated :"There is the case where a monk - having > gone > to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building - sits > down > folding his legs crosswise, > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127863 From: Tam Bach Subject: [dsg] Vietnam To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, November 16, 2012, 3:46 PM  Hallo friends, Many times on the trip in V'nam, T.A.Sujin reminded us of present moment realities and pointed ou that when wisdom grows then there is more understanding of what 'Buddham saranam gacami' really means - taking refuge in the Buddha because he is the only being who can show the way out of samsara. The keenness of the Vietnamese people who attended discussion astounded me. Right to the very last moment before we passed thro immigration on our way home to Thailand, TA was talking with 3 vey earnest young people who had met us on the last day after we had returned from Sapa. TA spoke about the present moment of seeing -a citta - that is accompanied by 7 cetasikas all with different functions that arise and fall again and again uncountable times - NOW - its what is happening now but we are too busy 'painting pictures' to see reality. Understanding is far away most of the time except when it arises and knows a reality....... Thanks so much to our wonderful new friends in Vietnam, great to be with people who are so interesteed to hear what Buddha taught. right now and like now azita #127864 From: "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > ---- > >> H: If I am correct, you are quoting from the Vis. There's about a thousand > > years between the Buddha and the Vis. Never mind. > > > > The Buddha could not find anything worth calling self in any "present > > moment". But he could remember aeons of his former lives. > > > > Would you care to offer your view on that? > ---- > > KH: The Dhamma is deep and profound. It is so deep that some people can hear it for many years and still reject every a single word of it. > > Is that what you think I have been doing? I definitely reject everything Thanissaro teaches, and I don't know if there is a single point in the Dhamma that you and I agree on. Is there one? > > Ken H Dear ken (and herman,) I found it helpful when you explained the sutta about the blind monk and caterpillars, and so would welcome your ideas on any suttas : which is what i believe Herman is asking ( not for your opinion on thanissaro). Robert > #127865 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The fat controller kenhowardau Hi Josh, ---- >> (Thanissaro B): >> This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates.>> > J: This is, also, actually what the sutta says: the puggala is that which has a name & clan. Can there anything be more nominal than a name & clan? > ---- KH: I agree, the pugalla is a concept. Unfortunately, Thanissaro B has convinced most on-line Buddhists that the Buddha refused to take a position on concepts v's realities. In fact the Buddha refused to take a position on whether concepts were reborn or not reborn, eternal or not eternal, etc. ----------- >> K. Nizamis: > This does not mean that the *puggala*, as the burden-bearer, is a > separate entity that takes hold of the burden. Nor does it mean, as the > post-Abhidhamma Theravada commentary supposes, that the expression bearer > of the burden is meant to show that the person is admitted only as a > mere convention, which is the standard Theravada Abhidhamma dogma > on the matter. >> > J" Note how he says the commentary of Theravada "supposes" & that it is "dogma". He doesn't point out that any definition of puggala must include "name" (nama) & "clan" (gotto, Skt. gotra) --- two things which are far less fundamental & real than the khandhas. > It's almost painful to read what Nizami says, as it is so baseless. A puggala = name & clan, both of which could not be more conventional. > And it just gets worse from there. ---------- KH: I am glad to hear you say it. Even though we see these non-middle path interpretations of the Dhamma countless times I never tire of seeing them corrected. Ken H #127868 From: han tun Date: Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The fat controller kenhowardau Hi Robert K (Herman and Alex), ---- > RK: I found it helpful when you explained the sutta about the blind monk and caterpillars, ---- KH: I didn't exactly try to *explain* that sutta. In my opinion beginners should not pretend to be able to understand suttas without expert help from the ancient commentaries and DSG. I did, however, in the absence of a commentary, apply my beginner's understanding to the sutta. There were howls of protest, and I am sure they were well deserved. :-) --------------- > RK: and so would welcome your ideas on any suttas : which is what i believe Herman is asking ( not for your opinion on thanissaro). --------------- KH: I had asked Herman to explain anatta, and in reply he quoted Thanissaro (author of The Not-self Strategy). That was like waving a red rag to a bull, as Herman well knows! :-) Admittedly Herman did ask me to explain the Buddha's previous lives, as reported in the suttas. But did he really want my interpretation of those suttas, or was he just making `the Alex point'? That is, was he making the point, "If you don't believe people, trees and cars really exist, try driving your car into a tree"? Ken H PS: The Buddha's previous lives can be understood as one conditioned citta following after another – just like now. #127870 From: "truth_aerator" KH: I didn't exactly try to *explain* that sutta. In my opinion >beginners should not pretend to be able to understand suttas without >expert help from the ancient commentaries and DSG. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Buddha was such an incompetent teacher that He couldn't clearly explain the Dhamma and that only generations later some smart commentators who never even saw the Buddha and his chief disciples could? Even if some commentator was a bhikkhu under Buddha, it doesn't mean that he understands Buddha's message. Take Sati, or Arittha or Devadatta. Remember what DN16 says about the authorities? Suttas and Vinaya are authorities... With best wishes, Alex #127871 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > KH: I am glad to hear you say it. > > Even though we see these non-middle path interpretations of the Dhamma countless times I never tire of seeing them corrected. > > Ken H > I appreciate that. I think one of the reasons why the misunderstanding is so prevalent --- Bhikkhu Thanissaro's theories aside --- is that many Buddhists are unaware of other Indian systems like Vedanta or classic Hindu texts such as the Upanishads & fail to see that their own position is actually found in greater detail in another Indian system. For example, the notion that there is an unchanging, unborn, objectless & unconditioned consciousness that is identified with supreme reality is the basic, clear message of Vedanta & the Upanishads (some of which are, I think, consistently held to predate Buddha). This, also, is essentially the doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism (with some variations). The notion of a subtle, changing, finite self that is liberated is precisely Jainism, also. Just as a purely materialistic self that perishes after death is represented by, perhaps, the Charvaka. Indian philosophy tends to repeat itself over time --- I would venture to say that Buddha was the final word in Indian philosophy, insofar as he was the last to express a position (if you want to call it that) that was not already represented either by traditional Brahmanism, Jainism, agnosticism (eel wrigglers) & materialists. The methods of establishing the positions change, it is true, but the position of an absolutist-leaning Hindu today is not fundamentally different than what the Upanishads themselves say. The point is --- Buddhism only makes sense in its being different from other traditions. And if we examine all traditions which were formulated prior to Buddha, we find that his teaching is truly something not stated before & the suttas explicitly & clearly refute every position prior to Buddha, whether it be a vast, supreme, infinite consciousness or otherwise. To summarize: if one insists on self, to follow Vedanta would be a fare more intellectually honest path than trying to force self into the selfless suttas. in Dhamma - Josh #127872 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > --------------- > > RK: and so would welcome your ideas on any suttas : which is what i > > believe Herman is asking ( not for your opinion on thanissaro). > --------------- > > KH: I had asked Herman to explain anatta, and in reply he quoted > Thanissaro (author of The Not-self Strategy). That was like waving a red > rag to a bull, as Herman well knows! :-) > > Asking a person to explain anatta is like asking a person to explain dependent arising - many a trap along the way to overreach and fall into a view of some kind. (To the extent that some angst creeps into some of these conversations, that's always a sure sign of views being clung to, IMO.) Having said that, I have yet to meet a self-made being, so there's hope for me, I'm sure :-) > Admittedly Herman did ask me to explain the Buddha's previous lives, as > reported in the suttas. But did he really want my interpretation of those > suttas, or was he just making `the Alex point'? > > That is, was he making the point, "If you don't believe people, trees and > cars really exist, try driving your car into a tree"? > > I think Alex's point is quite a valid one in the situation of people who behave quite differently to what they claim to believe, but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point was more to do with the difference between self as agent and self as identity. > Ken H > > PS: The Buddha's previous lives can be understood as one conditioned citta > following after another – just like now. > > Personally, I don't see anything that qualifies as understanding in there - views aplenty, to be sure. Understanding - not on your nellie. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127873 From: "ptaus1" >KH: I didn't exactly try to *explain* that sutta. In my opinion >beginners should not pretend to be able to understand suttas without >expert help from the ancient commentaries and DSG. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Are you saying that Buddha was such an incompetent teacher that He couldn't clearly explain the Dhamma and that only generations later some smart commentators who never even saw the Buddha and his chief disciples could? I think KenH's actually saying we are incompetent students. Best wishes pt #127874 From: "ptaus1" D: thanks for the link .. one really must be grateful having so many excellent material to study available on-line for free! Yes indeed. > But let us see first the obvious : kamma is always defined by action of body, speech and mind. I guess it depends on the level of precision and context. In general talks, yes that's more or less so. But in more precise talks, kamma is cetana, actions are..., well, there's no such dhamma as action, so it's more about intimation, other rupas and other nama dhamas that happen at the time, etc. > And those mentioned by kamma patha are (nearly) identical with the 3 links of the N.P. .. > As cetana stands as well for kamma ( (cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami), one may expect , that cetana as a term , is not found. > > You may know that the kamma force is represented as sankhara , 2nd in the chain of D.O., and sankhara khanda (mental formations) , 4th of D.O. . > The former conditions vinanna or the citta , whereas the citta conditions rupa-nama ( mental formation part of it) . > Now, acc. to VisM sankhara (together with avijja) is belonging to the past , sankhara khanda to the present, which indeed makes sense. > A problem occurs when this past is understood to be completed /finished (by birth) , because the circle of birth ,life, birth..would be interrupted. > Hence we need to understand that without interruption of the running wheel of samsara, avijja -sankhara can only mean the past up to date of all lives, not of the previous life only. Thanks for the above, I'll have to study D.O. further. Best wishes pt #127875 From: "sarah" Acharn: concepts and living in the world of absolute realities? What is the > difference? It is actually: living in the world of ignorance and > living in the world of right understanding. ... S: This is the point that Ken H and others of us try to stress - no matter what concepts are used to describe our daily life, in fact there are only absolute realities, paramattha dhammas, arising and falling away from moment to moment. Metta Sarah ====== #127876 From: Nina van Gorkom --------- Nina. #127877 From: Nina van Gorkom I sleep 12 hours a day and am looking for techniques to overcome > sloth and torpor. > --------- N: This leaves you 12 waking hours. For all of us, during our waking hours: how many akusala cittas with sloth and torpor arise? Uncountable. When the citta is not intent on daana, siila or bhaavana we act, speak or think with akusala cittas, and the akusala cittas that are sasankhaarika, induced, can be accompanied by sloth and torpor. (Akusala cittas rooted in attachment or rooted in aversion can be asankhaarika, spontaneous, not induced, or induced, thus, weaker.) We do not really know the different cittas that arise. Therefore, it is important to develop understanding of naama, mental phenomena, and ruupa, physical phenomena, that arise in daily life. As you say, suitable Dhamma conversation is helpful. You are thinking of ways to overcome sloth and torpor. There are no techniques, because these are realities, dhammas, arising because of their own conditions and they are uncontrollable, non-self. The only thing that can be done is developing right understanding of the present moment. Even thinking of techniques is only a naama arising because of conditions. We are thinking and thinking and we take thinking for self. We take sloth and torpor for self. My sloth and torpor. As Sarah wrote: When thinking of techniques we are thinking of a whole situation, of a concept. Concepts are not paramattha dhammas. But I am doing the same, my problem is sadness, giving in to sadness. I just heard a passage on sadness during the talks in Poland ( see the audio, DSG organisation, recommendable): Instead of sadness, you can replace it by sloth and torpor. They have to be understood as . They are passing. When the understanding of naama and ruupa is more developed their arising and falling away can be directly known, but not in the beginning. Now we just have intellectual understanding of the truth of impermanence. This helps to a certain extent. Perhaps now you will not take your sloth and torpor too heavily, we all have plenty, no matter we sleep a lot or we sleep little. ------ Nina. #127879 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > > Dear Azita, Sarah, Jon, Nina and friends > > Thank you Azita for your participation and support in the discussions in Hanoi and for sharing your Dhamma interest with us. We look foward to seeing you in Jan and having the chance again to listen/discuss the Dhamma together. > > Our weekly Dhamma discussions have resumed, with some new members, keen and enthusiastic. Today we reminded ourselves Achaan's words about how incredibly long it l takes for panna to be developed, as habit of wanting to see result or to measure one's progress is part of the accumulations of many among us. It was all helpful. Mr "so what" came too, again with his "so what" spirit, but very genuine in saying what he thinks, and after all, he still likes to come back :-) > =============== J: Good to hear about the discussions resuming, and the new members. I'm sure the discussions will be a great help to those who attend. > =============== > Some of us can not access the DSG's yahoo groups, the same problem I encountered before, while another person has registered. It apparently depends on computer and service provider... > =============== J: Yes, it seems quite quirky. From our hotel room in Hanoi, Sarah (using a Mac) could access Yahoo Groups while I (using a PC) could access for the first day or so but not subsequently. Of course, once subscribed it is easy to follow the list, and to send posts, by choosing to receive individual emails or daily digests to one's inbox, so web access is not necessary (these options can be chosen by sending the appropriate email command). > =============== > That's about painting today :-) > =============== J: And so it goes on :-)) Jon AdChoices #127880 From: "jagkrit2012" What is the way to have less clinging > to the self? It is not just reading the Tipi.taka, and not just > thinking of what is going on in one's life, whether there is > wholesomeness or unwholesomeness. > > It does not mean that one will not have the idea of self at all > by reading or by listening to some of > the discussions on Dhamma, but it has to be the direct understanding > that what one reads occurs now, at this moment. =================== JJ: Acharn pointed out precisely the way to understand dhamma. Acharn always mentioned that when one study any words in Tipitaka, one has to understand the meaning and contemplate it again and again until experiencing reality as direct understanding. Otherwise, it will be only knowing words and remembering words without real understanding. This will be useless because at the end we will forget those words. Just like conventional subjects, all will be forgotten in the end of one's life. I love the quote of Acharn Azita has posted " Right now, like now". Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #127881 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The fat controller upasaka_howard Hi, Josh - In a message dated 11/18/2012 12:39:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, uriopollu@... writes: For example, the notion that there is an unchanging, unborn, objectless & unconditioned consciousness that is identified with supreme reality is the basic, clear message of Vedanta & the Upanishads (some of which are, I think, consistently held to predate Buddha). This, also, is essentially the doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism (with some variations). ================================ Josh, I'm only adding a comment with respect to the above portion of your extremely clear and informative post. What I wish to point out with respect to the above material is that the important part of what you say, IMO, is "that is identified with supreme reality ." The Buddha *does*, of course, speak of an unchanging, unborn, unconditioned dhamma that may also be the "consciousness without surface" spoken of in MN49 as follows: 'Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around, has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.' The Nibbana that the Buddha teaches is certainly unchanging, unborn, and unconditioned, even coming close in the Dvayatanupassana Sutta to being described as the sole reality . I end this post with a few sutta quotations along these lines. With metta, Howard /There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned./ (Ud 8.3) ___________________________ /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace./ (From the Potaliya Sutta) ______________________ /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #127882 From: "azita" wrote: > > Hi Azita (& Vietnamese friends), > > Great to hear your report - what a lovely welcome back from Sapa too! Hope you enjoyed the rest of the trip. > > We discussed a little about your activities in Bangkok. I'd like to suggest that you spend a little time every day sending an extract from the many notes you took during the trip - just a few lines at a time of what you found meaningful would be appreciated by us all. Azita: I'll take up yr suggestion while I am near a computor! When we discuss dhamma we should be clear about what we're talking about eg we say dhamma/nama and rupa but do we really know what they mean or are we jst using words? Right now seeing - nama- arises and falls away experiencing visible object - rupa. Seeing arises and falls away by conditions, understanding arises the same way, by conditions, nothing can arise at will, there is no-one who can control arising and falling of realities. Whether we have heard Buddha's teachings or not, realities appear but are not known because no understanding. Avijja has been accummulated for a very long time, so when realities appear and they are doing so right now, they appear to ignorance so they are not known. Only panna can know, not me not I. Slowly, slowly the greatness of the Buddha's wisdom can be known and we can realize that he is the SammasamBuddho! Right now and like now azita #127883 From: "azita" wrote: > > > Dear Azita, Sarah, Jon, Nina and friends > > Thank you Azita for your participation and support in the discussions in Hanoi and for sharing your Dhamma interest with us. We look foward to seeing you in Jan and having the chance again to listen/discuss the Dhamma together. > > Our weekly Dhamma discussions have resumed, with some new members, keen and enthusiastic. Today we reminded ourselves Achaan's words about how incredibly long it l takes for panna to be developed, as habit of wanting to see result or to measure one's progress is part of the accumulations of many among us. It was all helpful. Mr "so what" came too, again with his "so what" spirit, but very genuine in saying what he thinks, and after all, he still likes to come back :-) > > Some of us can not access the DSG's yahoo groups, the same problem I encountered before, while another person has registered. It apparently depends on computer and service provider... > > That's about painting today :-) > > Metta, > Tam #127884 From: "jrg493" > What I wish to point out with respect to the above material is that > the important part of what you say, IMO, is "that is identified with supreme > reality ." The Buddha *does*, of course, speak of an unchanging, unborn, > unconditioned dhamma that may also be the "consciousness without surface" > spoken of in MN49 as follows: 'Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant > all around, has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the > liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind > ... the allness of the all.' There is a way I want to approach this but I think it would be unskillful in an open forum. But what it would involve is asking you a series of questions until we reach some agreement. Its lovely in a one-on-one setting, but in a forum I fear someone would read a question I ask & not realize its a question-with-a-purpose & not something I'm personally trying to figure out. If I don't do it like that & simply list the questions outright it seems to me to be a little more confrontational than I'd like. Without tone of voice & facial expressions, a lot of written stuff can come off as way more confrontational than is tasteful. So here goes: "Consciousness without surface" is "vinnanam anidassanam". The great Gotama Buddha was even so thoughtful as to add, in the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11), the statement vinnanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti. Something that is "nirodha" cannot simultaneously be nicca. Bhikkhu Thanissaro translates it, "With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end" But "[the activity of]" here is inserted because he must believe in a consciousness that can't, itself, cease, but can have its activities cease --- much like a Walmart doesn't cease merely because the workers strike for a while. Adding things in brackets like this, too, to make it fit with one's interpretation is a little misleading, too, I think. This would be like saying "all formations are impermanent [except ice cream & fast cars]." If anyone is interested in the commentary on this verse, I am not aware of where it is translated into English but I did find this: Using the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11), for example, Suan Lu Zaw, a Burmese lay-teacher of Pali and Abhidhamma, explains that according the the Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha (i.e. the commentary to this particular sutta), vinnanam does not refer to the usual meaning of "consciousness" here, but instead defines it as, "There, to be known specifically, so (it is) "vinnanam". This is the name of Nibbana." He also explains that the following line of DN 11, "Here (in Nibbana), nama as well as rupa cease without remainder. By ceasing of conscousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here" illustrates ths point. He states that, "Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one of the Pali names happens to be vinnanam." And finally, he concludes by using a quote from a section of the Dhammapada Attakatha (i.e. the commentary to the Dhammapada), which apparently states that there is no consciousness component in parinibbana after the death of an arahant. - http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/2661/some-thoughts-on-the-fate-of-the-arahant-\ after-death-existence-versus-non-existence I would say I half-agree. I don't think we need to take this sutta's use of the term vinnana to mean anything other than the vinnana khandha which, if without clinging (upadana), is free, though still subject to nirodha. But this gives us a small idea of what the commentary on the verse says. Now as we can see, there is arising differences of interpretation about this teaching & we are adding our "comments" to it. That this should have occurred historically is not odd --- personally, I feel that the Theravadin tradition does produce individuals today who are close to being on par with some of Buddha's greatest disciples (as far as possible in the modern day, that is), so I trust that the Abhidhamma, commentaries, etc. are useful for clarifying difficult points in sutta. The "old time religion" is good enough for me, you might say. I vaguely remember disagreeing with things I read from a Bhikkhu Sujato, but I agree with him here: http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-\ just-isn%E2%80%99t/ http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/nibbana-is-still-not-vinna%E1%B9%87a/ > The Nibbana that the Buddha teaches is certainly unchanging, unborn, > and unconditioned, even coming close in the Dvayatanupassana Sutta to being > described as the sole reality . I end this post with a few sutta quotations > along these lines. > Thank you for the quotations. I would add that there is not a religion or form of mysticism on the world which does not make some claim to an unborn, unchanging & unconditioned reality. However, the difference between the suttas & the rest of history is that the suttas do not state that there is an unborn, unchanging, unconditioned khandha, whereas the rest of history clearly does. I do not know if you believe the anidassana vinnana is an eternal vinnana khandha yet. I like to think you don't. But if you do --- & I ask you this without the slightest bit of confrontation or nastiness --- I would also be interested to know if you are of the mind that Buddha followed the Upanishads, essentially, or if he taught something widely different than the Upanishads? I know many Indian scholars feel this way & I think it would be more appropriate if scholars like Thanissaro would state this explicitly if they really think it. I find Thanissaro's approach --- & the approach of many others --- to be disingenuous as their view is almost in lockstep with some forms of Hinduism, though they go on as if this were not the case. And keep in mind I am asking Howard this, also, & not the entire group, nor am I attempting in any way to start a discussion on the Upanishads or anything else outside of Buddhism proper. I personally do not feel that Buddha taught anything like the Upanishads, although there is much overlap insofar as there is overlap in all Indian philosophies, such as karma, dharma, ahimsa, samadhi, etc. in Dhamma - Josh #127885 From: "jrg493" 18. "Raahula, develop meditation on loving-kindness; for when you > develop meditation on loving-kindness, any ill will be abandoned. ----120. metta.m raahulaati kasmaa aarabhi? taadibhaavassa kaara.nadassanattha.m. As to the phrase, mettaa raahulaa, (develop loving kindness, Rahula) why did he begin (with these words)? In order to explain the condition for “such nature” (of the arahat). he.t.thaa hi taadibhaavalakkha.na.m dassita.m, Before, the characteristic of “such nature” was explained, na ca sakkaa aha.m taadii homiiti akaara.naa bhavitu.m, but it is not possible to develop “such nature” when there are no conditions for being so; napi ``aha.m uccaakulappasuto bahussuto laabhii, nor when one thinks, “I am belonging to a noble family, I have heard much and I am wealthy, ma.m raajaraajamahaamattaadayo bhajanti, aha.m taadii homii''ti the king , his ministers and so on associate with me”, imehi kaara.nehi koci taadii naama hoti, someone cannot be called “of such nature” because of these reasons. mettaadibhaavanaaya pana hotiiti However, one can be “of such nature” by the development of loving- kindness and so on. taadibhaavassa kaara.nadassanattha.m ima.m desana.m aarabhi. Therefore, the Buddha began this teaching (of mettå) in order to explain the condition for being of “such nature”. ------- N: Of such nature: taadibhaava: this is of the arahat. In a previous section this is elaborated on in the subcommentary: Commentary passage relevant to the Subcommentary: idaanissa taadibhaavalakkha.na.m aacikkhanto pathaviisamantiaadimaaha. Now he said, when explaining the characteristic of such nature (of the highest qualification), “like the earth” and so on. i.t.thaani.t.thesu hi arajjanto adussanto taadii naama hoti. not being attached nor having aversion with regard to the desirable and the undesirable is called “suchness”. -------- Text Subcommentary: 119. taadibhaavo naama ni.t.thitakiccassa hoti, aya~nca vipassana.m anuyu~njati, Someone who has completed the task is called “of such nature”, and he practises insight; atha kimattha.m taadibhaavataa vuttaati? and then, for what purpose was the nature of suchness spoken of? pathaviisamataadilakkha.naacikkha.naahi vipassanaaya sukhappavattiattha.m. The explanation of the characteristic of (development) like the earth and so on has as purpose a happy course of insight. tenaaha ``i.t.thaani.t.thesuu''tiaadi. Therefore he says, “with regard to the desirable and the undesirable” and so on. gahetvaati kusalappavattiyaa okaasadaanavasena pariggahetvaa. As to the expression, after he has mastered them, this means, after he has thoroughly comprehended them, because of the opportunity that was given for a skilful course of action. ------ N: I like he phrase: but it is not possible to develop “such nature” when there are no conditions for being so. It all depends on conditions. We also see that insight and mettaa go together. When insight is developed more, there will also be more conditions for mettaa, less self, self. And also, when reading suttas I like to be reminded that it always points to insight, to development of understanding of what appears now. That is the way to become eventually as , but that takes aeons. **** Nina. > > 19. "Raahula, develop meditation on compassion; for when you > develop meditation on compassion, any cruelty will be abandoned. > > 20. "Raahula, develop meditation on appreciative joy; for when you > develop meditation on appreciative joy, any discontent will be > abandoned. > > 21. "Raahula, develop meditation on equanimity; for when you > develop meditation on equanimity, any aversion will be abandoned. > > 22. "Raahula, develop meditation on foulness; for when you develop > meditation on foulness, any lust will be abandoned. > > 23. "Raahula, develop meditation on the perception of impermanence; > for when you develop meditation on the perception of impermanence, > the conceit 'I am' will be abandoned. #127887 From: "truth_aerator" I think KenH's actually saying we are incompetent students. What about Sati, Arittha, Devadatta? How do we know that certain teacher of Buddhism is competent? With best wishes, Alex #127888 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > How do we know that certain teacher of Buddhism is competent? > One can, linguistically, remain uncertain of anything, insofar as thought exists as the internal language of the mind & requires a vast network of stored memories, definitions of symbols, associations, etc. to function properly at all & are easy to pick apart. The eel-wrigglers & Madhyamikans are masters of uncertainty, & their non-conclusions can seem like wisdom to the untrained eye, as often we think whatever is unintelligible is profound if it comes from a respected mouth. But our actual lives are another matter. I personally feel a Buddhist teacher is competent if: 1. They have no sex scandals, no alcohol scandals, no money scandals in their history-as-a-Buddhist-teacher 2. They are not the students-in-good-standing of a Buddhist teacher who has sex scandals, alcohol scandals or money scandals Can you agree with me so far? 3. They do not make up their own novel interpretations of Buddhist tradition, nor interpret Buddhism in light of European thought in contradiction of Theravada-as-a-whole (that is, no Aristotle, no Sartre, no Schopenhauer, no Lacan, etc.) 4. They do not define Buddhism as chiming with non-Buddhism (that is, no Buddhism-as-Hinduism, no Buddhism-as-Taoism, no Buddhism-as-Scientology, etc.) Can you relate? 5. They do not say there is a nicca vinnana, or that nibbana is atta We could add that they should have meditated for such & such number of years, or studied with this or that accomplished meditation teacher, or have studied the suttas for this or that amount of time & but I am willing to listen to them so long as they fit all of these requirements, because their internal level of realization is a far too intimate subject for me to even begin to think I am competent to judge. These are the things I can think of, for now. Honestly, if Sarvastivada or Sautantrika were still around I wouldn't take them as equally valid as Theravada in terms of essentials, but I would appreciate to listen to their take on certain things, insofar as they spent more time confronting the other darshanas philosophically. While Theravada was traveling East & South, the Sarvastivadins & Sautantrikas wrote in Sanskrit, refuting some of the later Vijnanavada & Mahayana sects, & I take their critiques seriously & feel there is some benefit in learning of them, even if I might disagree. In Dhamma - Josh #127889 From: "Dieter Moeller" As cetana stands as well for kamma ( (cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami), one may expect , that cetana as a term , is not found. > You may know that the kamma force is represented as sankhara , 2nd in the chain of D.O., and sankhara khanda (mental formations) , 4th of D.O. . > The former conditions vinanna or the citta , whereas the citta conditions rupa-nama ( mental formation part of it) . Pt: Thanks for the above, I'll have to study D.O. further. D: I went a bit far , refering to the 3 lives interpretation of VisM. .. leaving that part out , any question to above? with Metta Dieter #127890 From: "truth_aerator" Can you agree with me so far? Yes on both points. >3.They do not make up their own novel interpretations of Buddhist >tradition, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is very tricky. How do we know that commentators did not make up their own novel interpretations of Buddhism? Suttas is the best that we have. As for schisms, each side believes it is right. There are two sides to every schism, and the "victor" writes the history. >4. They do not define Buddhism as chiming with non-Buddhism (that >is, no Buddhism-as-Hinduism, no Buddhism-as-Taoism, no >Buddhism->>>>as-Scientology, etc.) > Can you relate? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do we know that Buddha didn't "mix" his teaching in Brahmanistic worldview to be able to relate to the 5th BC culture of India? He did borrow A LOT of terminology from existing traditions. We are not Indians, nor is it 5th century BC. >5.They do not say there is a nicca vinnana, or that nibbana is atta Right. >We could add that they should have meditated for such & such number >of years, or studied with this or that accomplished meditation >teacher, or have studied the suttas for this or that amount of time >& but I am willing to listen to them so long as they fit all of >these requirements, because their internal level of realization is a >far too intimate subject for me to even begin to think I am >competent to judge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. With best wishes, Alex #127891 From: "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Dear Josh, all, > > >Can you agree with me so far? > > Yes on both points. Excellent. This makes things a lot easier, doesn't it? :) > >3.They do not make up their own novel interpretations of Buddhist >tradition, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This is very tricky. How do we know that commentators did not make up their own novel interpretations of Buddhism? Suttas is the best that we have. I think there is a prudent & imprudent way to ask "how do we know?" For instance, I can ask "how do I know I am not a leprauchan?" That would be imprudent as, though I am mostly Irish, there is no evidence that I can bring up that would lead me to conclude that I fit the bill as to how a leprauchan is traditionally described. That is, there is no evidence that would give me --- or anyone else --- the reason to question the fact of my non-leprauchanianity. Now in this case, if you question the commentaries or Abhidhamma, what you must first do is demonstrate that there is a passage of either the Abhidhamma or the commentaries which clearly contradicts a sutta. I will admit that they say things that are not found in the sutta --- in fact, they would have no reason for existing if they did not. But until you can bring out some passages to which there is a flat contradiction (or one which, at the very least, hints at a contradiction), then I fail to see how this is intrinsically different than questioning whether or not I am a leprauchan, a Frankenstein, or some other such thing. A prudent question about "how do we know", I think, would be "how do we know that Coomaraswamy's theory on the suttas is correct?" To which we can go to the suttas & see it clearly & succinctly refuted time after time. Now, if the same holds for the commentaries, we should be able to go to the suttas & see how they clearly contradict the Abhidhamma or commentaries. Can you do this? Again though: contradict. Not add. > > As for schisms, each side believes it is right. There are two sides to every schism, and the "victor" writes the history. That is true, but if you are going to take the schismatic claims of Sarvastivadins or whomever as valid you must also demonstrate the basis of the validity. For instance, Madhyamikan Buddhism is clearly schismatic but we know definitively that they cannot make the same claim as any of the so-called "Hinayana" sects insofar as Madhyamikan Buddhism is clearly of late origin, with no mention of it or its methods prior to Nagarjuna & the composition of the Prajnaparamita literature. The language of these texts, even, demonstrates that they were literary pieces rather than memorized formulas. Now, Theravada clearly uses a language which pre-dates the popularization of Sanskrit just as Jainism does, so it is clear than their textual traditions have come claim to primacy over any group which utilizes Sanskrit. But let's exclude this fact for a moment: what we would need to do is look at the Sarvastivadin Abhidharma, or whatever other commentarial literature of a schismatic sect & see if it we can tell if it was: a) originally composed in Sanskrit or some other tongue & b) if it was originally written or is an example of a memorized formula written down We can maybe say the Buddha did not speak Pali --- though he may have spoke a closely related language --- but he most certainly didn't speak literary Sanskrit or Buddhist-hybrid Sanskrit & all such texts must be of later date. Pali, to be sure, is earlier & therefore more authentic if we take age as our measure of authenticity. I would say, also, that the Pali Abhidhamma --- at least what I have read in English translation & looked over in romanized Pali --- is even more exemplary of a rigidly memorized set of formulas than the suttas themselves & is clearly an attempt at writing down as carefully as possible what initially began as huge, memorized catechisms of formulas & definitions. It is probably the least literary text on Earth, from an aesthetic standpoint, but works quite will as having in-built mnemonic devices that aid transmission. Now keep in mind, I do not take any of what I have said above as authoritative or even necessary to taking Abhidhamma itself seriously. But I think it is a suitable scholastic remedy to questioning which schismatic sect has the most ancient claim on Abhidhamma, if you want to make such an enquiry. But I also do not think one needs to believe that the Abhidhamma came straight from the historical Buddha's mouth to see the value in Abhidhamma. For me, it is enough that a single sagely bhikkhu in modern times sees benefit in Abhidhamma for me, today, to see benefit in Abhidhamma, irregardless of their historicity. I look at it this way: if the practice of Satipatthana is portrayed correctly in Theravada & there are those in Theravada who correctly practice Satipatthana (& everything else), then they bear witness to what the Dhamma is today as a living presence in this modern world &, therefore, I see no need to reject what they do not reject. > >4. They do not define Buddhism as chiming with non-Buddhism (that >is, no Buddhism-as-Hinduism, no Buddhism-as-Taoism, no >Buddhism->>>>as-Scientology, etc.) > > Can you relate? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > How do we know that Buddha didn't "mix" his teaching in Brahmanistic worldview to be able to relate to the 5th BC culture of India? > > He did borrow A LOT of terminology from existing traditions. Yes. He was part of the samana-movement. I think I've stated elsewhere that there is huge overlap between Buddhism & every other Indian sect, with sharp & important differences. This means nothing more than India was a fertile ground for someone to eventually realize what the mind & body actually were, & how to end suffering. I think it could have happened in Greece, too, to be honest. But do you, personally, Alex, think that Buddha taught something new --- as he claimed --- or that he taught essentially the same thing as: Jainism Samkhya Vedanta (fill in the blank) ? in Dhamma - Josh #127893 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The fat controller upasaka_howard Dear Josh - I just spent 15 minutes giving a long and detailed reply to your inquiries, and then lost it before sending it! My reply lay, I'd say halfway between a positive and a negative response to your questions, and I'm much too tired (from all the stress due to our damages from Hurricane Sandy and the nor'easter) to try to reproduce it. A couple of my main responses, greatly abbreviated, are the following: 1) I don't much care whether vi~n~nana anidassanam = nibbana or not. I do think that nibbana is beyond all conditioned dhammas, and that includes all dhammas in the vi~n~nanakkhandha, but nibbana is a nama of sorts, but is utterly supermundane. I also believe that it is a reality and, in fact, the sole reality, with samsara being nibbana misperceived. My perspective is, I readily admit, influenced not only by certain Pali suttas but also by elements of Mahayana and also by the "acosmism" of Jewish mysticism, especially as found in Chabad Hasidism. (I'm one of those annoying "Jubus"! ;-) 2) I don't consider the Buddha to have been a follower of the Upanishads, but the innovator who is called "the teacher of anatta". The Upanishads, and Sankara, taught of a universal "self", whereas the Buddha taught su~n~nata and anatta. The Buddha's emphasis is on emptiness and relinquishment, and not identity and substantialism. With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/18/2012 8:47:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, uriopollu@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > > What I wish to point out with respect to the above material is that > the important part of what you say, IMO, is "that is identified with supreme > reality ." The Buddha *does*, of course, speak of an unchanging, unborn, > unconditioned dhamma that may also be the "consciousness without surface" > spoken of in MN49 as follows: 'Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant > all around, has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the > liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind > ... the allness of the all.' There is a way I want to approach this but I think it would be unskillful in an open forum. But what it would involve is asking you a series of questions until we reach some agreement. Its lovely in a one-on-one setting, but in a forum I fear someone would read a question I ask & not realize its a question-with-a-purpose & not something I'm personally trying to figure out. If I don't do it like that & simply list the questions outright it seems to me to be a little more confrontational than I'd like. Without tone of voice & facial expressions, a lot of written stuff can come off as way more confrontational than is tasteful. #127894 From: "Dieter Moeller" > N: Pa~n~naa has to be keen no matter one develops samatha or > vipassanaa. > > D: or vice versa .. the path-training refers to samadhi (6,7,8 of > the N.T:) as the supporting foundation for panna (1,2 ) > ------ N: When pa~n~naa is more developed, as is the case when stages of insight are reached, naturally also samaadhi develops. It supports pa~n~naa while it arises together with pa~n~naa. It is not: first samaadhi alone, and then pa~n~naa. -------- D: there is interaction between both , but in the 3 fold path training of sila, samadhi and panna , the former two are the foundation of the latter as it is stated in numerous suttas. > N:After seeing or after hearing, even in the same process of citta, > akusala javanacittas with attachment are bound to arise. The > attachment may be accompanied by indifferent feeling and then it is > not noticed that there is lobha already, it arises so soon. > > D: why bound to arise ? Most sensations of our daily consciousness > pass without special attention. > It is emotion of a certain impression which turns to lobha or dosa, > doesn't it? > ------ N: Yes, bound to arise. Think of each process, even now. Such a lot of javanacittas with moha, ignorance. All day long, all day long. D: yes, avijja /moha are company , always latent ... conditioning kusala and akusala kamma ( exempted lokuttara citta). That indifferent feeling turns to lobha seems to me more the exception than the rule. with Metta Dieter #127895 From: "truth_aerator" But do you, personally, Alex, think that Buddha taught something new >as he claimed --- or that he taught essentially the same thing as: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course he taught some fundamental new things, total extinction of dukkha. With best wishes, Alex #127896 From: "jrg493" > Dear Josh - > > I just spent 15 minutes giving a long and detailed reply to your > inquiries, and then lost it before sending it! No worries. :) > > 1) I don't much care whether vi~n~nana anidassanam = nibbana or not. I do > think that nibbana is beyond all conditioned dhammas, and that includes all > dhammas in the vi~n~nanakkhandha, but nibbana is a nama of sorts, but is > utterly supermundane. I also believe that it is a reality and, in fact, the > sole reality, with samsara being nibbana misperceived. My perspective is, I > readily admit, influenced not only by certain Pali suttas but also by > elements of Mahayana and also by the "acosmism" of Jewish mysticism, especially > as found in Chabad Hasidism. (I'm one of those annoying "Jubus"! ;-) If you have time, I'd like to know what you think of the definitions of Nibbana as given in the Dhammasangani that I listed earlier (and I apologize if I mistranslated any of the terms. I went off the PTS dictionary on my Digital Pali reader, & was inspired to compile the list because I found Rhys David's translation terribly inadequate). > > 2) I don't consider the Buddha to have been a follower of the Upanishads, > but the innovator who is called "the teacher of anatta". The Upanishads, and > Sankara, taught of a universal "self", whereas the Buddha taught su~n~nata > and anatta. The Buddha's emphasis is on emptiness and relinquishment, and > not identity and substantialism. > > With metta, > Howard > You might be interested to find that a great luminary of Mahayana Buddhism --- Bhavaviveka --- made the following statement about the Vedantic atman: "Indeed, if such an atman is intended by you as neither an agent nor an enjoyer & is unborn (ajata), single in nature (ekarupatva), undifferentiated (abheda), omnipresent (sarvaga), permanent (nitya), undying (acyuta), supreme (para), deathless (avinasa), pure (suddha), peaceful (shanta), indescribable (avacya), reality (tattva), unmanifest (niranjana) then because the terms for it (nama) are so similar [to our own], it is faultless & justified." (I believe this is in the Madhyamikahrdaya but I need to double-check) And I have seen many authors tie different types of Kabbalah together with similar conclusions reached in Vedanta. I don't know enough about Kabbalah to comment. It is my own pet theory that one of the reasons Buddhism died out in India was because Mahayana became so similar to Vedanta & other forms of Hinduism that it no longer had a philosophical need to exist as an independent system --- at least not in the minds of the rajas under whose aegis all sects existed or went into exile. There is a lot of literature on this very subject easily available online if anyone wanted to pursue it. It's not a discussion I think is worth having here, though. Suffice to say that I think the list I gave in the Dhammasangani is enough to root out any bad ideas about nibbana. in Dhamma - Sangani #127897 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Dear Josh, all, > > >But do you, personally, Alex, think that Buddha taught something new >as he claimed --- or that he taught essentially the same thing as: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Yes of course he taught some fundamental new things, total extinction of dukkha. > I would never say to a Jain, a Vedantin, a Samkhin, or whatever other darshana that they didn't teach total extinction of dukkha. All of these systems are united in being a lofty attempt at rooting out all suffering. Whether or not their teaching is successful is a question only the successful practitioner can say, definitively, but I can't help but look at them as brothers & sisters in regard to them taking an honest look at the plight of what it is to be a sentient being & thirsting for a more authentic form of living where suffering might end. How Buddha innovated was in regards to tying all perceptions of self to a subtle form of craving/clinging, even to a self as infinite consciousness, or a nothingness, or a paradoxical neither-perception-nor-non-perception. In this regard he went beyond the sects that pre-existed him, but he is a true son of India in the sense that her tradition has always given us men & women who gave everything they had to ease their own pain & the pain of their fellow beings, whether it lead only to a pleasant here & now, a rebirth in a heavenly realm or the end of birth entirely. So you will find the ideal of sorrowing no more in sects which pre-existed Buddha. What you won't find is anatta. in Dhamma - Josh #127898 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > in Dhamma > - Sangani > How's that for unintentional hilarity? I must've read "Dhamma" & unconsciously though to type "Sangha" . . . how embarrassing. This is what happens when you multitask & typed out Pali terms all day (I've been working on the vinnana khandha section of the Vibhanga). :( No I'm not trying to give myself a cool Pali name. ;) #127899 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The fat controller upasaka_howard Hi, Josh - In a message dated 11/18/2012 1:28:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, uriopollu@... writes: If you have time, I'd like to know what you think of the definitions of Nibbana as given in the Dhammasangani that I listed earlier (and I apologize if I mistranslated any of the terms. I went off the PTS dictionary on my Digital Pali reader, & was inspired to compile the list because I found Rhys David's translation terribly inadequate). ============================== Generally, I think that all definitions must fall short, because nibbana is beyond all conditions, delineations, and concept. These "definitions" are only possibly helpful (and possibly "dangerous") pointings. I'll insert a couple comments about them below, starring those I either think are most on-target or which have most appeal to me: the unconditioned (asankhata) * the taintless (anasava)* reality or truth (sacca) * the transcendent (para) the subtle (nipuna) the arcane (sududdasa) the unfading (ajajjara) the permanent (dhuva) the indissoluble (apalokita) the invisible (anidassana) the undiffused (nippapanca) the serene (santa) * (Descriptive of contact with nibbana) the deathless (amata) * (Not arising, hence unceasing) the excellent (panita) the beneficent (siva) the tranquil (khema) the destruction of thirst (tanhakkhaya) (The result of contact with) the marvelous (acchariya) the wondrous (abbhuta) the harmless (anitika) the uninjuring dharma (anitikadhamma) the blowing out (nibbana)* (But ambiguous) the untroubled (abyapajjha) the passionless (viraga) the pure (suddhi) salvation, emancipation, liberation (mutti) (Better used of 'bodhi') the unattached (analaya) the island or light (dipa)* the secure (lena) the protection (tana) the refuge (sarana)* the end (parayana) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127900 From: "jrg493" > Generally, I think that all definitions must fall short, because > nibbana is beyond all conditions, delineations, and concept. These "definitions" > are only possibly helpful (and possibly "dangerous") pointings. The ones you commented on are actually from the Samyutta Nikaya. It's the lower ones on the page, with the bracketed numbers that are from the Dhammasangani. I have often wondered about the relationship with the words that occur in our head about what Nibbana is & how it differs from actual practice. When I was younger & had just learned about Buddhism I had all sorts of magical ideas about nibbana, thinking it must be some blissful, whizz-bang kaleidoscope of wonders. I don't try to relate it to anything that occurs to me in meditation anymore --- but, that in itself I think helps to avoid some misunderstanding on my part. And certainly, any discussion I might have about it is strictly a scholastic exercise at this point. The history of meditative sects is that they all point to some realization as "the highest" & interpret the world that way, though there's another sect out there to say, "that's not the highest. I know something higher." In the end I simply want a tradition without womanizing, drinking, money-laundering gurus. ;) What I like about the Dhammasangani definitions is that they pretty much make it impossible to think about it in any fashion we're accustomed to, though. in Dhamma - Josh #127901 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The fat controller upasaka_howard Hi, Josh - In a message dated 11/18/2012 2:56:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, uriopollu@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: > > Generally, I think that all definitions must fall short, because > nibbana is beyond all conditions, delineations, and concept. These "definitions" > are only possibly helpful (and possibly "dangerous") pointings. The ones you commented on are actually from the Samyutta Nikaya. It's the lower ones on the page, with the bracketed numbers that are from the Dhammasangani. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Ah, sorry - I missed them. In looking them over, I see a lot in common with the 1st list. I also see a good many which are really more descriptive of mind in contact with nibbana than nibbana "itself". A few I especially like, such as "unfixed (aniyata)," "objectless (anarammana)" [interesting. I think!], and "which has no beyond, the incomparable, unsurpassed (anuttara)". Three of them I find somewhat "odd" such as "to be put away (pahatabba) neither by insight (dassanena) nor by meditation (bhavana), & without a cause that can be put away by such," and "that which makes neither for the piling up (acaya) nor for the undoing of rebirth (apacayagamini / apacayagamino)," and "not striking/impingeing (appatigha)." ------------------------------------------------- I have often wondered about the relationship with the words that occur in our head about what Nibbana is & how it differs from actual practice. When I was younger & had just learned about Buddhism I had all sorts of magical ideas about nibbana, thinking it must be some blissful, whizz-bang kaleidoscope of wonders. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, I suppose that bodhi *is* wondrous, but nibbana "itself" is just ... . -------------------------------------------------- I don't try to relate it to anything that occurs to me in meditation anymore --- but, that in itself I think helps to avoid some misunderstanding on my part. And certainly, any discussion I might have about it is strictly a scholastic exercise at this point. The history of meditative sects is that they all point to some realization as "the highest" & interpret the world that way, though there's another sect out there to say, "that's not the highest. I know something higher." In the end I simply want a tradition without womanizing, drinking, money-laundering gurus. ;) What I like about the Dhammasangani definitions is that they pretty much make it impossible to think about it in any fashion we're accustomed to, though. ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: Zen as well. BTW, there is much that is Zen-like, I find, in many statements of Khun Sujin. ----------------------------------------------------- in Dhamma - Josh ================================ With metta, Howard Bodhi Occurs, Nibbana Is /Now the question is often asked: If Nibbana is attained by the practice of the path, doesn't this make it something conditioned something produced by the path? Doesn't Nibbana become an effect of the cause, which is the path? Here we have to distinguish between Nibbana itself and the attainment of Nibbana. By practising the path one doesn't bring Nibbana into existence but rather discovers something already existing, something always present./ (Bhikkhu Bodhi) #127902 From: "jrg493" HCW: > Three of them I find somewhat "odd" such as "to be put away > (pahatabba) neither by insight (dassanena) nor by meditation (bhavana), & without a > cause that can be put away by such," and "that which makes neither for the > piling up (acaya) nor for the undoing of rebirth (apacayagamini / > apacayagamino)," and "not striking/impingeing (appatigha)." The Dhammasangani is based on a matika of different definitions which are either affirmed or denied for a given dhamma. That matika can be seen here: http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Abhidhammamatika/in\ dex.htm Everything is then analyzed in this master. Other works such as the Vibhanga continue this analysis. I think some of the oddness may of these may stem from that we'd never suppose nibbana would need to be put away by meditation or insight, but I think another way to look at it is that insight & meditation cannot obscure nor cause nibbana. Impinging is a technical term. Why note quote Nina Van Gorkom's famous Abhidhamma in Daily Life here?: "An object which impinges on one of the senses can be visible object, sound, smell, taste or an impression through the body-sense." Matter is objectless, too, if I remember correctly. Here is what I was working on today, to give an example (from the sutta portion of the Vibhanga, on the vinnanakhandha): 1. Consciousness in the past is defined as: past, gone by (atita) dissolved, ceased (niruddha) gone away, disappeared (vigata) changed (viparinata) gone (atthangata) vanished, "set" (abbhatthangata) which having arisen is gone away, is past & is part of the collection of the past 2. Consciousness in the future is defined as: unborn (ajata) unbecome (abhuta) ungrown (asanjata) non-existent or non-reborn (anibbatta) completely non-existent or non-reborn (anabhinibbatta) unmanifest (apaatubhuta) unarisen (anuppanna) not originated (asamuppanna) not yet come, future (anagata) that which is future as part of the collection of the future 3. Consciousness in the present is defined as: born (jata) become (bhuta) grown (sanjata) existing or reborn (nibbatta) completely existing or reborn (abhinibbatta) manifest (patubhuta) arisen (uppanna) originated (samuppanna) ______ I left out some terms I'm really not comfortable with my translation choice, by the way, (nor am I comfortable with anyone else's, yet). Now when we see a word like "unborn", I think our first response is to think of something that no one made, like God, the Tao, the "force" of Jedi fame. We don't think of future consciousness as being "unborn" --- but it is! --- & it is interesting that the same term is used. And if something is present it is here defined as "born" --- which we also ascribe to our loftiest notions of universal excellencies, whatever they might be. I need to look up some of these terms in the Atthasalini & see what light it sheds on the matter. - In Dhamma Josh #127903 From: han tun , but that takes aeons. Thank you very much once again. with metta and respect, Han --- On Sun, 11/18/12, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > thank you for the series on Raahula. > Before, I studied the commentary to the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta and > posted it long ago. I could select some parts, but you are already at > the next sutta. > But here is a part. > Op 16-nov-2012, om 22:58 heeft han tun het volgende > geschreven: > > > 18. "Raahula, develop meditation on loving-kindness; for when you > > develop meditation on loving-kindness, any ill will be abandoned. > ----120. metta.m raahulaati kasmaa aarabhi? > taadibhaavassa kaara.nadassanattha.m. > > As to the phrase, mettaa raahulaa, (develop loving kindness, Rahula) > why did he begin (with these words)? In order to explain the > condition for “such nature†(of the arahat). > > he.t.thaa hi taadibhaavalakkha.na.m dassita.m, > Before, the characteristic of “such nature†was explained, > > na ca sakkaa aha.m taadii homiiti akaara.naa bhavitu.m, > but it is not possible to develop “such nature†when there are no > conditions for being so; > > napi ``aha.m uccaakulappasuto bahussuto laabhii, > nor when one thinks, “I am belonging to a noble family, I have heard > much and I am wealthy, > > ma.m raajaraajamahaamattaadayo bhajanti, aha.m taadii homii''ti > the king , his ministers and so on associate with meâ€, > > imehi kaara.nehi koci taadii naama hoti, > someone cannot be called “of such nature†because of these reasons. > > mettaadibhaavanaaya pana hotiiti > However, one can be “of such nature†by the development of loving- > kindness and so on. > > taadibhaavassa kaara.nadassanattha.m ima.m desana.m aarabhi. > Therefore, the Buddha began this teaching (of mettÃ¥) in order to > explain the condition for being of “such natureâ€. > ------- > N: Of such nature: taadibhaava: this is of the arahat. In a previous > section this is elaborated on in the subcommentary: > Commentary passage relevant to the Subcommentary: > > idaanissa taadibhaavalakkha.na.m aacikkhanto pathaviisamantiaadimaaha. > Now he said, when explaining the characteristic of such nature (of > the highest qualification), “like the earth†and so on. > > i.t.thaani.t.thesu hi arajjanto adussanto taadii naama hoti. > not being attached nor having aversion with regard to the desirable > and the undesirable is called “suchnessâ€. > > -------- > Text Subcommentary: > > 119. taadibhaavo naama ni.t.thitakiccassa hoti, aya~nca vipassana.m > anuyu~njati, > Someone who has completed the task is called “of such natureâ€, and he > practises insight; > > atha kimattha.m taadibhaavataa vuttaati? > and then, for what purpose was the nature of suchness spoken of? > > pathaviisamataadilakkha.naacikkha.naahi vipassanaaya > sukhappavattiattha.m. > The explanation of the characteristic of (development) like the earth > and so on has as purpose a happy course of insight. > > tenaaha ``i.t.thaani.t.thesuu''tiaadi. > Therefore he says, “with regard to the desirable and the undesirableâ€Â > and so on. > > gahetvaati kusalappavattiyaa okaasadaanavasena pariggahetvaa. > As to the expression, after he has mastered them, this means, after > he has thoroughly comprehended them, because of the opportunity that > was given for a skilful course of action. > ------ > N: I like the phrase: but it is not possible to develop “such natureâ€Â > when there are no conditions for being so. It all depends on > conditions. We also see that insight and mettaa go together. > When insight is developed more, there will also be more conditions for > mettaa, less self, self. And also, when reading suttas I like to be > reminded that it always points to insight, to development of > understanding of what appears now. That is the way to become > eventually as , but that takes aeons. > > **** > Nina. #127905 From: sarah abbott > >From: Ann Marshall > >Subject: Poland: parents and children > >Date: 18 November, 2012 10:17:48 AM PST > > > >Hello All > >Long in the coming, but nonetheless an important discussion with Achan at breakfast before she was leaving to return to Thailand. > >Achan has been aware over the years of some my concerns regarding my son, now 27. Since his teen years he has experienced depressions periodically. > >She said "you worry a lot about John, you are very attached to him" and I agreed. She said that the worries show how much attachment there is to self. She went on to say that it is best to consider more metta, kusala deeds towards others, not just John. This can help one understand no self. "No John, no you, no Glen (my husband)". Metta can help understanding grow. > >Someone else mentioned that there is a lot of responsibility involved in raising a child. Achan quickly chimed in saying "giving birth, that's all." We were somewhat taken aback. > >In thinking about it, while we feel great "responsibility" for children, especially little ones, there is no "we" to be responsible, it all happens by conditions, the attachment, the metta, the worry, the pleasant feelings and the unpleasant. We try to make things the best they can be for young children and while feeling far less responsible for adult children, they still remain "our children". The attachment is so strong and accordingly, the worry very great. Very good to be reminded that the loba is just loba - "no one there". > >Achan also reminded us that the person who cares about us most is our mother and referred to the Maha Mangala Sutta. Support with metta for parents is a blessing not to be forgotten. We think mostly of the first two blessings, association with the right person and hearing the true Dhamma, and often neglect the others. But they are all important and necessary. She encouraged those of us with living parents to be in touch, not to cause them worry by absence etc. > >In the end, she said that with regard to children and our worry "do your best, that is all you can do". > >Ann > . #127906 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The fat controller kenhowardau Hi Josh, --------- <. . .> > J: I think one of the reasons why the misunderstanding is so prevalent --- Bhikkhu Thanissaro's theories aside --- is that many Buddhists are unaware of other Indian systems like Vedanta or classic Hindu texts such as the Upanishads & fail to see that their own position is actually found in greater detail in another Indian system. ---------- KH: That would be one way of identifying a misunderstanding. A much better way, of course, would be to know right understanding. Then all others would be clearly wrong. :-) I think Azita summed up right understanding with this quote: "Right now seeing - nama- arises and falls away experiencing visible object - rupa. Seeing arises and falls away by conditions, understanding arises the same way, by conditions, nothing can arise at will, there is no-one who can control arising and falling of realities." ----------------- <. . . > > J: The point is --- Buddhism only makes sense in its being different from other traditions. And if we examine all traditions which were formulated prior to Buddha, we find that his teaching is truly something not stated before & the suttas explicitly & clearly refute every position prior to Buddha, whether it be a vast, supreme, infinite consciousness or otherwise. ------------------ KH: Yes, it is important to know scholastically that the Dhamma is unique, but that is still not enough. We need to know that the Dhamma is different from our *own* first impressions of it. Almost inevitably a beginner will assume the Dhamma to be a list of things to do – just like all the other teachings. And that is probably the hardest hurdle to get over. I notice you have recently quoted the Pali scholar, Suan Law. He was a regular contributor to DSG for many years until he finally noticed what people here had been saying all along. That is, that the Dhamma was not a list of things to do but was, instead, a way of understanding. Suan was outraged and vehemently campaigned against some DSG members before eventually unsubscribing. I wonder if you, Josh, have noticed that certain prominent DSG members and their mentor, K Sujin, do not believe in Buddhist meditation as it is popularly understood today. (That is, as something that can be deliberately practised.) ------------ > J: To summarize: if one insists on self, to follow Vedanta would be a fare more intellectually honest path than trying to force self into the selfless suttas. ------------- KH: Yes, quite so. I am sorry if I strayed off-topic for a while, but meditation - and the true meaning of bhavana - is a matter that must be settled eventually. Ken H #127907 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > I notice you have recently quoted the Pali scholar, Suan Law. He was a regular contributor to DSG for many years until he finally noticed what people here had been saying all along. That is, that the Dhamma was not a list of things to do but was, instead, a way of understanding. > > Suan was outraged and vehemently campaigned against some DSG members before eventually unsubscribing. > I wasn't aware he was on this list. I found him after I looked at the Pali to the sutta in question & tried to find, online, if anyone had translated it into English. But I can't imagine being "outraged" & "vehement" about anything Dhamma related. ;) > I wonder if you, Josh, have noticed that certain prominent DSG members and their mentor, K Sujin, do not believe in Buddhist meditation as it is popularly understood today. (That is, as something that can be deliberately practised.) > I've noticed, but practical concerns --- that is, whether it is deliberate or not, how it is done, etc. --- is something I have no questions about & nothing to add. Maybe someday. in Dhamma - Josh #127908 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The fat controller upasaka_howard Hi, Josh (and Nina) - In a message dated 11/18/2012 4:50:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, uriopollu@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , upasaka@... wrote: -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Three of them I find somewhat "odd" such as "to be put away > (pahatabba) neither by insight (dassanena) nor by meditation (bhavana), & without a > cause that can be put away by such," and "that which makes neither for the > piling up (acaya) nor for the undoing of rebirth (apacayagamini / > apacayagamino)," and "not striking/impingeing (appatigha)." The Dhammasangani is based on a matika of different definitions which are either affirmed or denied for a given dhamma. That matika can be seen here: _http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Abhidhammamati ka/index.htm_ (http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Abhidhammamatika/i\ ndex.htm) Everything is then analyzed in this master. Other works such as the Vibhanga continue this analysis. I think some of the oddness may of these may stem from that we'd never suppose nibbana would need to be put away by meditation or insight, -------------------------------------------- HCW: What is even meant by "put away"? --------------------------------------------------- but I think another way to look at it is that insight & meditation cannot obscure nor cause nibbana. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't get that. And, of course, nibbana CAN be obscured, not by insight but by avijja. Of course, whether obscured or not, nibbana is unaffected. ------------------------------------------------- Impinging is a technical term. Why note quote Nina Van Gorkom's famous Abhidhamma in Daily Life here?: "An object which impinges on one of the senses can be visible object, sound, smell, taste or an impression through the body-sense." -------------------------------------------- HCW: But there IS consciousness of (and contact with) nibbana, I do believe Nina would assert. -------------------------------------------- Matter is objectless, too, if I remember correctly. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, sure. As regards nibbana, a nama, even if it were a form of knowing, it would NOT be a subject/object knowing, and so nibbana would be objectless. ----------------------------------------------- Here is what I was working on today, to give an example (from the sutta portion of the Vibhanga, on the vinnanakhandha): 1. Consciousness in the past is defined as: past, gone by (atita) dissolved, ceased (niruddha) gone away, disappeared (vigata) changed (viparinata) gone (atthangata) vanished, "set" (abbhatthangata) which having arisen is gone away, is past & is part of the collection of the past 2. Consciousness in the future is defined as: unborn (ajata) unbecome (abhuta) ungrown (asanjata) non-existent or non-reborn (anibbatta) completely non-existent or non-reborn (anabhinibbatta) unmanifest (apaatubhuta) unarisen (anuppanna) not originated (asamuppanna) not yet come, future (anagata) that which is future as part of the collection of the future 3. Consciousness in the present is defined as: born (jata) become (bhuta) grown (sanjata) existing or reborn (nibbatta) completely existing or reborn (abhinibbatta) manifest (patubhuta) arisen (uppanna) originated (samuppanna) ______ I left out some terms I'm really not comfortable with my translation choice, by the way, (nor am I comfortable with anyone else's, yet). Now when we see a word like "unborn", I think our first response is to think of something that no one made, like God, the Tao, the "force" of Jedi fame. We don't think of future consciousness as being "unborn" --- but it is! --- & it is interesting that the same term is used. And if something is present it is here defined as "born" --- which we also ascribe to our loftiest notions of universal excellencies, whatever they might be. ------------------------------------------------------ HCW: To say that future consciousness "IS unborn" implies its existence, which is nonsense. Odd language - I'd say, Josh. --------------------------------------------------- I need to look up some of these terms in the Atthasalini & see what light it sheds on the matter. - In Dhamma Josh =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127909 From: "jrg493" > HCW: > What is even meant by "put away"? Discarded, rejected, etc. > HCW: > I don't get that. The Dhammasangani: [1002] Which are the states that are to be put away by insight? The three Fetters, to wit, the theory of individuality, perplexity, and the contagion of mere rule and ritual. [1007] Which are the states that are to be put away by culture? Whatever lust, hate and dulness still remain, and any corruptions united with them; the four skandhas that are associated with them; whatever action, bodily, vocal or mental, springs from them. [1008] Which are the states that are to be put away neither by insight nor by culture? Good and indeterminate states relating to the worlds of sense, form or the formless, or to the life that is Unincluded; the four skandhas; all form, moreover, and uncompounded element. --- Rhys Davids trns. > > Impinging is a technical term. Why note quote Nina Van Gorkom's famous > Abhidhamma in Daily Life here?: > > "An object which impinges on one of the senses can be visible object, > sound, smell, taste or an impression through the body-sense." > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > But there IS consciousness of (and contact with) nibbana, I do believe > Nina would assert. [1089] Which are the states that impinge The spheres of the senses and sense-objects. [1090] Which are the states that are non-impingeing? The four skandhas; that form also which, being neither visible nor impingeing, is included under [mental] states; also uncompounded element. > HCW: > Well, sure. As regards nibbana, a nama, even if it were a form of > knowing, it would NOT be a subject/object knowing, and so nibbana would be > objectless. Is there a term in Abhidhamma you consider equivalent to "subject" &, if so, what is it? > HCW: > To say that future consciousness "IS unborn" implies its existence, > which is nonsense. Odd language - I'd say, Josh. This demonstrates, I think, that you are thinking of "unborn" as a quality that something has rather than a pure negation, different than "not born". Of course I could be wrong, so I'll try to explain this as carefully as I can: More loosely we might say "not yet". Such as, "the water is not yet warm" or, if you prefer, prior to the big bang, "galaxies are not yet there". "Is" here does not necessarily imply a present fact applied to existence now --- that is, the term "is" has a wider application than merely implying a present existence. "Is" can also mean potential unrealized, such as the knowing father of a future pro-basketball star whose son is only 3 years old might say that "his potential IS unrealized." This term is equivalent to saying "his potential is not yet realized." I doubt if someone would ask, "Is it going to rain tomorrow?" one would necessarily counter, "To say 'is' implies it is raining right now, which is nonsense. Odd language, I'd say." Similarly, if I would ask (& I wouldn't) "Is it going to be consciousness tomorrow?" one wouldn't counter this by concluding that my use of the term "is" implies a present existence of "consciousness tomorrow." But one might say to this that "is it" implies a present state of "going to" --- that is, does the current state that is present now imply the future occurrence of rain? I'm sure we could say that. But, if we say a future state of consciousness is unborn, in the same way we are implying that there is something of a consciousness at the present which serves as the condition for the arising of a future consciousness, but that this future consciousness, for now, is unborn --- abhuuta, for instance, is also defined as not real, false, not true. in Dhamma - Josh #127910 From: Nina van Gorkom She said "you worry a lot about John, you are very attached to him" > and I agreed. She said that the worries show how much attachment > there is to self. She went on to say that it is best to consider > more metta, kusala deeds towards others, not just John. This can > help one understand no self. "No John, no you, no Glen (my > husband)". Metta can help understanding grow. ------- N: And vice versa, more understanding conditions more mettaa. Thank you, Ann, always so good to have reminders about kusala in daily life, and realizing how much attachment there is to self. If the Buddha had not taught this, we would be completely ignorant. ----- Nina. AdChoices #127911 From: Nina van Gorkom > HCW: > > Three of them I find somewhat "odd" such as "to be put away > > (pahatabba) neither by insight (dassanena) nor by meditation > (bhavana), > & without a > > cause that can be put away by such," and "that which makes > neither for > the > > piling up (acaya) nor for the undoing of rebirth (apacayagamini / > > apacayagamino)," and "not striking/impingeing (appatigha)." > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > What is even meant by "put away"? > --------------------------------------------------- > N: pahatabba: must be abonded, this is said of defilements, kilesa, > not of nibbaana. Loluttara citta experiences nibbaana, but it > cannot do anything about nibbaana, or affect it. That is the > meaning of this text. Also of the following terms. Ignorance makes > for piling up and understanding makes for the taking away of the > bricks that were piled up. Nibbaana is neither ignorance nor > wisdom. It is just the object of lokuttara pa~n~naa. > As Josh said: insight & meditation cannot > obscure nor cause nibbana. > > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't get that. And, of course, nibbana CAN be obscured, not by > insight but by avijja. Of course, whether obscured or not, nibbana is > unaffected. > ------------------------------------------------- > N: Yes, as you say, it is unaffected. The citta can be obscured by ignorance, not nibbaana. ------- > > Josh: Impinging is a technical term. Why note quote Nina Van > Gorkom's famous > Abhidhamma in Daily Life here?: > > "An object which impinges on one of the senses can be visible object, > sound, smell, taste or an impression through the body-sense." > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > But there IS consciousness of (and contact with) nibbana, I do believe > Nina would assert. > -------------------------------------------- > N: Each citta is accompanied by contact, phassa, which contacts the object so that citta can experience it. Again, the meaning is that nibbaana is unaffected, nothing can be done about nibbaana. > > --------------------------------------------- > HCW: > As regards nibbana, a nama, even if it were a form of > knowing, it would NOT be a subject/object knowing, and so nibbana > would be > objectless. > ----------------------------------------------- > N: NIbbaana is naama, but it does not know an object, it is object > of lokuttara citta. > -------- > > Josh: 2. Consciousness in the future is defined as: > > unborn (ajata) > unbecome (abhuta) > ------------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > To say that future consciousness "IS unborn" implies its existence, > which is nonsense. Odd language - I'd say, Josh. > --------------------------------------------------- > N: It simply means that future citta is not yet come into being, > that is all. But it will be. First there is nothing, then by > conditions there is citta, like seeing, and then it vanishes > immediately. THus, it is not something eternal that exists. It > arises, appears and then it is gone for good. > Josh, thanks for all the quoted texts. Now, how can we relate them to the present moment? Before understanding the unconditioned element, we have to understand conditioned realities. We have to understand what has to be put away (pahatabba), what can be developed by samatha and vipassanaa. What is the piling up right now? After seeing, hearing, etc. there are countless moments of ignorance we do not even notice. They are gone already. But we are piling up the bricks of the wall of samsaara. If there can be a short moment of understanding of a reality, like visible object that is not a person, not a thing, we are pulling down a brick.We believe that we really see a person, but no, only what is visible can be seen. I also have to hear this again and again before it sinks in. ------ Nina. > I need to look up some of these terms in the Atthasalini & see what > light > it sheds on the matter. > > - In Dhamma > Josh > =========================== > With metta, > Howard > > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > > > #127912 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: ... he then uttered the stanza, namely, 'No weeping', showing that while people remain overpowered by weeping and sorrow, etc., on the death of their relative and give nothing for their benefit, their tears and sorrow are only a self-mortification quite sterile of any benefit for the departed ones. > .... S: Good quote! Better each day to consider what may be of benefit for the departed, out of respect for the departed and for those around us while there is the opportunity. Tears for me because of attachment to me most the day..... the considering of others and the understanding of dhammas is the break from akusala. I hear K.Sujin saying "when there is understanding, there are no problems in life." ... > > my father's cuti was on this recent leap day so it’s a long year i plan on "being in mourning" â€" may it please you that i've been happy to include Bodhi and Lodewijk as dhamma relatives; if there were only my own merit to share, it would be a meager offering at best & even so, whoever might be in the ghost realm would soon enough protest: NO MORE STALE FARE! .... S: Don't underestimate the value of 'your' kusala in a day.... no stale fare at such times and it accumulates too. Yes, all dhamma relatives.... Thanks again for all your great assistance behind the scenes. (Good set of posts in reply to Rev Triple's qu about female Buddhas, too.) ... > > good grief, i am like the king who planted bananas where he thought he would be reborn as a monkey! ... S: We never know...... regardless, just dhammas rolling on.... Metta Sarah ===== #127914 From: sarah abbott wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > From Sutta Nipata (650-657) > > > > > > 'Not by birth is one a Bramana, nor is one by birth no Bramana; by kamma > > one is a Bramana, by kamma one is no Bramana. (650) > > 'By kamma one is a husbandman, by kamma one is an artisan, by kamma one > is > > a > > merchant, by kamma one is a servant. (651) > > 'By kamma one is a thief, by kamma one is a soldier, by kamma one is a > > sacrificer, by kamma one is a king. (652) > > 'So the wise, who see the cause of things and understand the result of > > kamma, know this as it really is. (653) > > 'By kamma the world exists, by kamma mankind > > exists, beings are bound by kamma as the linch-pin of the rolling cart > (654) > > =============== > > J: The true 'worth' of a person is in how they act, not in the position > they hold in life/in society. > Yes, indeed. > > I'm reminded of the 3 'vatta' or rounds (of rebirth): kamma vatta ( the > kamma round), kilesa vatta (the round of defilements) and vipaka vatta (the > round of results), each supporting the other two. > > To my understanding, it's by the development of awareness/insight that the > cycle of rounds (if that's not a tautology:-) is weakened and, eventually, > broken. > > I agreed with you right at the top. That can't ever be taken away from me :-) I'm not sure whether I'm now disagreeing with you, but awareness / insight also makes it impossible to hold vipaka as a support for kamma. > > Cheers > > > > Herman > > > > I do not know what I do not know > > =============== > > J: And in studying the Dhamma we come to know better what it is that is > not known :-)) > > Jon > > Kamma and dependent origination are both said to be imponderable - that is wisdom, IMO. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127917 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Dieter, > > > > D: thanks for the link .. one really must be grateful having so many > excellent material to study available on-line for free! > > Yes indeed. > > > > But let us see first the obvious : kamma is always defined by action of > body, speech and mind. > > I guess it depends on the level of precision and context. In general > talks, yes that's more or less so. But in more precise talks, kamma is > cetana, actions are..., well, there's no such dhamma as action, so it's > more about intimation, other rupas and other nama dhamas that happen at the > time, etc. > > I think you have a very good combination there - precision and context. When we have a football player moving sharply backwards and towards his left, in the context and precisely, he is moving to intercept the ball, which is not yet where it will be. In this very context, it becomes absurd to increase or decrease the precision. The action of the footballer is not to be understood in terms of cell metabolism, or the Earth rotating around the Sun. If you want to alter precision, you have to change the context. You say there is no such dhamma as action - that is because the dhammas you talk about and daily life are totally different levels of precision and context. What piques me is why some folks want to pretend that the precision of the pillow (I should be in marketing :-)) somehow applies while they are shopping for a better rate on their health insurance????? > > > And those mentioned by kamma patha are (nearly) identical with the 3 > links of the N.P. .. > > As cetana stands as well for kamma ( (cetanaham bhikkhave kammam > vadami), one may expect , that cetana as a term , is not found. > > > > You may know that the kamma force is represented as sankhara , 2nd in > the chain of D.O., and sankhara khanda (mental formations) , 4th of D.O. . > > The former conditions vinanna or the citta , whereas the citta > conditions rupa-nama ( mental formation part of it) . > > Now, acc. to VisM sankhara (together with avijja) is belonging to the > past , sankhara khanda to the present, which indeed makes sense. > > A problem occurs when this past is understood to be completed /finished > (by birth) , because the circle of birth ,life, birth..would be > interrupted. > > Hence we need to understand that without interruption of the running > wheel of samsara, avijja -sankhara can only mean the past up to date of all > lives, not of the previous life only. > > Thanks for the above, I'll have to study D.O. further. > > Best wishes > pt > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127918 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The fat controller upasaka_howard Hi, Josh - In a message dated 11/18/2012 11:40:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, uriopollu@... writes: > HCW: > Well, sure. As regards nibbana, a nama, even if it were a form of > knowing, it would NOT be a subject/object knowing, and so nibbana would be > objectless. Is there a term in Abhidhamma you consider equivalent to "subject" &, if so, what is it? ========================== I don't know. I doubt it. But I do believe that our ordinary knowing is a defiled, seemingly split knowing in which there is the deluded sense of a subject joined to an object by that knowing. That is what I believe the vi~n~nana of the dependent-origination cycle to be, a defiled, separative knowing. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127919 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The fat controller upasaka_howard Hi, Josh - In a message dated 11/18/2012 11:40:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, uriopollu@... writes: This demonstrates, I think, that you are thinking of "unborn" as a quality that something has rather than a pure negation, different than "not born". Of course I could be wrong, so I'll try to explain this as carefully as I can: More loosely we might say "not yet". Such as, "the water is not yet warm" or, if you prefer, prior to the big bang, "galaxies are not yet there". -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Such water is conceived of only. Consciousness not-yet-arisen is nonexistent. There is only, at any time, only now, ------------------------------------------------- "Is" here does not necessarily imply a present fact applied to existence now --- that is, the term "is" has a wider application than merely implying a present existence. "Is" can also mean potential unrealized, such as the knowing father of a future pro-basketball star whose son is only 3 years old might say that "his potential IS unrealized." This term is equivalent to saying "his potential is not yet realized." ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Understood, but it is only a manner of speaking and offers the danger of being taken literally. ------------------------------------------------ I doubt if someone would ask, "Is it going to rain tomorrow?" one would necessarily counter, "To say 'is' implies it is raining right now, which is nonsense. Odd language, I'd say." Similarly, if I would ask (& I wouldn't) "Is it going to be consciousness tomorrow?" one wouldn't counter this by concluding that my use of the term "is" implies a present existence of "consciousness tomorrow." --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Okay, especially conventional speech, (I say "especially" because ALL speech is, of course, a matter of convention,) ------------------------------------------------- But one might say to this that "is it" implies a present state of "going to" --- that is, does the current state that is present now imply the future occurrence of rain? I'm sure we could say that. But, if we say a future state of consciousness is unborn --------------------------------------------------- HCW: I just don't like the expression. I would apply 'unborn' to nothing but nibbana. --------------------------------------------------- , in the same way we are implying that there is something of a consciousness at the present which serves as the condition for the arising of a future consciousness, but that this future consciousness, for now, is unborn --- abhuuta, for instance, is also defined as not real, false, not true. in Dhamma - Josh =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127920 From: "jrg493" > HCW: > Such water is conceived of only. Consciousness not-yet-arisen is > nonexistent. There is only, at any time, only now, Even "now", as an item of language, is a conception. But I am sure the water is warm somewhere. ;) The Abhidhamma approach, insofar as I understand it, is not to dispense with the use of concepts entirely, but allows for clarification & nuance in the use of concepts: It gives us 1. A real concept: Matter, feeling, etc., exist in an ultimate sense. 2. an unreal concept: Land, mountain, etc., are terms given to things that do not exist in an ultimate sense. 3. an unreal concept by means of a real concept: 'Possessor of sixfold supernormal vision.' Here the former does not exist in an ultimate sense, but the latter does. 4. a real concept by means of an unreal concept: Woman's voice. Here the voice exists in an ultimate sense, but not the woman. 5. a real concept by means of a real concept: Eye-consciousness. Here the sensitive eye exists in an ultimate sense, and so does the consciousness dependent on it. 6. an unreal concept by means of an unreal concept: King's son. Here neither the son nor the king exists in an ultimate sense. http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_8.htm > HCW: > Understood, but it is only a manner of speaking and offers the danger > of being taken literally. I would assume most Buddhists are safe from at least intellectually taking certain things literally, but perhaps not. > HCW: > I just don't like the expression. I would apply 'unborn' to nothing > but nibbana. I understand this, but neither the Theravada nor Mahayana nor Vajrayana tradition applies the term "unborn" to nothing but nibbana. in Dhamma - Josh #127921 From: "jrg493" > Is there a term in Abhidhamma you consider equivalent to "subject" &, if > so, what is it? Your reply: > I don't know. I doubt it. But I do believe that our ordinary knowing > is a defiled, seemingly split knowing in which there is the deluded sense of > a subject joined to an object by that knowing. That is what I believe the > vi~n~nana of the dependent-origination cycle to be, a defiled, separative > knowing. "Subject" has different connotations in English. As in, a "subjective" opinion is something that borders on flippant. In terms of phenomenology, we might say, "subject" implies the function of that which becomes aware of objects in contrast to the objects themselves. This is why, I think, its necessary to clarify what pali term we might be referring to. in Dhamma Josh #127922 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The fat controller kenhowardau Hi Josh, ---- <. . .> > J: I've noticed, but practical concerns --- that is, whether it is deliberate or not, how it is done, etc. --- is something I have no questions about & nothing to add. Maybe someday. ---- KH: I look forward to that day. In the meantime let me at least warn you that you are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And there is an iceberg out there. Ken H #127926 From: sarah abbott ________________________________ > From: Nina van Gorkom >Poland, during a walk at noon. > >Acharn: Each moment is once in a lifetime, even a moment of sadness. >It never comes back. That is all. That is the way to have less >clinging. There must be the understanding of realities as not self, >otherwise it does not work at all. > >Sarah: You said to Lukas that sadness seems so great, but that it is >nothing compared to what will come. Did you mean in this life or in >other lives? > >Acharn: It depends on pa~n~naa whether it can see that. Sadness now >is not the same as sadness a moment ago. > >Sarah: you often talk about passing a test. There cannot be the >passing of a test with this little bit of sadness now. What will it >be when it is something serious? ..... S: This was not quite right. What I said was: "*If* there cannot be the passing of a test with this little bit of sadness now, what will it be like when it is something serious?" It's a rhetorical question to Lukas and others, beginning with IF. In other words, if there is no understanding, no awareness now when we experience ordinary worldly conditions, how will there be any understanding, any detachment later? This is because it has to begin at this moment, whilst experiencing seeing, hearing, ordinary ups and downs in life. As KS goes on to elaborate, panna has to grow. We may experience really great pain in this life or lives to come - so many reminders in the Tipitaka - now is the time to develop panna as we go through the ordinary daily tests and trials. Only visible object or sound that is experienced, followed by so may stories with lobha, dosa or moha. .... > >Acharn: One can see that the manner of development of pa~n~naa is >little by little. Otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. When >sound appears, think of nothing at all, no thing, except sound. Or >nothing at all, except hardness, only that is reality. > >******* S: Good reminders! Just one world at a time! I'm glad you're enjoying the recordings. We have one more to upload at the time, but it's been tricky as Jon had the pause button on for a large chunk, so we're having to "patch" in some from Jagkrit's recording. Last night we were trying to find the places to do this! Metta Sarah ====== #127927 From: "ptaus1" >I think KenH's actually saying we are incompetent students. > > What about Sati, Arittha, Devadatta? Don't know really. Haven't met them either. I guess something might be said about their excellent fortune (kamma, accumulations, etc) to meet and converse with the Buddha. Mine's crap in comparison. I think I once read that Devadatta went straight to hell for spilling the Buddha's blood, but once that bad kamma expires, in the next lifetime he'll go on to become a Paccekabuddha. I'll be stuck in the round for a lot longer after that I think. > How do we know that certain teacher of Buddhism is competent? Yeah, sorry, I don't really know about that either. Sometimes it might be useful to adopt KenH's thing - no such thing as a teacher in the first place, and just move on. I guess it largely goes down to interest - if I'm interested in something, I'll read it, regardless of who's the teacher. Lately, I'm not really interested in anything, modern teachers or the suttas, but that probably doesn't mean that some modern teacher or the Buddha is incompetent. So, what is "interest" and where does it come from might be good questions to consider. Best wishes pt #127928 From: "philip" #127930 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, all > > >S:"How does....?" will never understand anything because it indicates >a self, an idea of "doing" something. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >A: Without effort at developing kusala qualities deeply ingrained akusala qualities will win over any time and awakening will NEVER happen. .... S: What is effort, viriya? Is it a conditioned mental factor or is it a Self? ... > >A: Eradication of self view starts (as appears in the suttas) with dana and other ethical qualities. Jataka tales are an example. I am yet to find a Jataka where Bodhisatta started with reading books. ... S: Is the first factor of the 8-fold path dana or samma ditthi? Can there be a beginning of the path which leads to the eradication of self view without an understanding of seeing, visible object, attachment and thinking? Metta Sarah ==== #127933 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Dear group, > > If there is any seeing when eyes are closed? is eye-base still active at that time. Cos when i close my eyes then turn from dark to light, i still feel light, but not really seeing. So i wonder.... > =============== J: It depends what you mean when you say you *feel* light. If light is experienced through the eye-door, that would be seeing, regardless of whether or not any (conventional) objects are discernible. Seeing is the experience of visible object. Jon #127934 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Dieter, > > D: no, Ken ..'suffering in brief ' is defined by 5 khandha attachment . > -------------- > > KH: You've got me there. No matter how many times I see this point explained it never fully sinks in. I gather that the four supramundane khandhas, which exist in a moment of path consciousness, are excluded from "the five aggregates of clinging" (but not from "the five aggregates"). .... S: Right. They are conditioned dhammas, so they are impermanent and dukkha, but they cannot be the object of attachment. ... >That much I do know, but I don't remember the significance of it. Does it mean the aggregates not subject to clinging are inherently anicca and anatta but *not* dukkha? .... S: they are dukkha. Suffering in brief - the 5 khandhas subject to attachment above would not include the lokuttara dhammas here. CMA: "The round of existence in the three planes is suffering" (dukkha.m tebhuumaka.m va.t.ta.m) "mental states asociated with the paths and the fruits are excluded from the four truths" [maggayuttaa phalaa c'eva catusaccavinissa.taa] Comy to Abhidhammatthasangaha (PTS) notes: "...It is the round (va.t.ta) [of rebirth] in that it is where kamma and its results happen (vattati)." S: Clearly, lokuttara cittas and cetasikas are supramundane, outside the rounds. "The items joined with the path are the remaining items, other than the eight factors, beginning with contact that are associated with the path, and the fruit along with its associated items - these are outside, excluded from, the four truths from an absolute standpoint. But from a relative standpoint, since it is stated in the exposition of the faculty of having known that it is a 'path factor and included in the path', (dhs 117) it is possible, in the case of the dhammas belonging to the fruit, to include right view, etc., in the truth of the path, and the other dhammas associated with the paths and the fruits in the truth of suffering because they share in the suffering constituted by conditioned formations. When this is done the summarising of all also occurs in the teaching of the truths." For now, seeing is dukkha, visible object is dukkha, attachment, aversion, panna....all conditioned dhammas are dukkha! Metta Sarah ===== #127935 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > (127552) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > J: As regards your point of no experience of dhammas as > 'singularities', may > > > > I suggest that the fact that, for example, seeing and visible object, > > > hearing and audible object always seem to co-arise and from the > subjective > > > perspective there is never one without the other, does not negate the > > > possibility of them being separate dhammas, with completely different > > > conditions for their arising. > > > > > > Furthermore, if the dhamma that we know as audible object was not a > > > separate dhamma it would mean that sound could never arise in the > world in > > > the absence of hearing consciousness. Yet such a notion would seem to > run > > > counter to our general experience. > > > > > > > > H: The following is one example of the present temporal moment, which is > > > already well passed/past, in truth and reality : > > > > "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or > breathing > > out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in > short, > > he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he > > discerns that he is breathing out short. (MN22) > > =============== > > J: Yes, agreed that the passage quoted here is not describing the experience of presently arising dhammas, but rather the development of samatha in a person who is already highly adept at that > > (BTW, could not find this passage in either of the translations of MN22 on > the ATI website.) > > I got it from here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html > > =============== > > H: The stories of samsara pivot around deeds, performed in a past/future > > > framework. If there is no awareness of what is being done, there is no > > awareness. > > > > Only with the ceasing of doing is there the ceasing of time. That is the > > present moment in truth and reality - without past or future. > > =============== > > J: The above sounds a bit sus to me :-)) > That's OK :-) > I'm not familiar with the expression "the ceasing of doing", > Well, let me give you an example to clarify. With your eyelids open, you will be looking. With your eyelids closed, you can't look. Closing your eyes, you cease looking. Now, it is the case that samatha develops through the ceasing of stuff that you are doing, and that can't happen before you realise that you are actually doing it. After that, you still have to be willing to cease that voluntary activity - it won't be foisted upon you. > but I am pretty sure that it is certainly not the present reality for > anyone here. > I'd be interested to know by which means you gain such certainty. > `Aspirational present' for some, perhaps :-)) > > Well, there is nothing aspirational about not being able to look when you have opted to close your eyes. "Having put away covetousness and grief" for looking, you know the drill. With apologies for the delay in replying (blame it on recent travels). > No, travels are foisted on no-one. I blame you, squarely :-) > > Jon > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127936 From: "sarah" wrote: > >D: I think it is often overlooked that kusala / akusala are qualities of samsara/D.O., i.e. still lokiya . > >PT: Thanks. One of the things I don't quite understand is the relationship between D.O. and mundane kusala cittas with panna of insight kind - since at those instances of kusala cittas, there is no ignorance, no craving, no clinging, and then logically, no bhava conditioning, but then there is cetana, and if there is a next life(s), that cetana will likely produce kusala vipaka. So, in a away D.O. does not apply, but then it also does in a way... .... S: All kinds of mundane kusala and akusala cetana/kamma that can condition rebirth are included here. Clinging here is a condition by natural decisive support (pakatu upanissaya paccaya) for such mundane kusala which arises later during life of whatever kind leading to kusala vipaka by way of favourable rebirth in heavenly, rupa, arupa brahma or human realms. Without clinging, no kamma, no rebirth. As discussed, conditions are very complicated. If there were no clinging, there'd be no more kusala or akusala, no more kamma at all. Metta Sarah ==== > > > > The moments of lokuttara /path consciousness however are lokuttara , associated with the unconditioned, nibbana . > > This got me thinking, even moments of path consciousness (like in the example at the start, also have no ignorance, no clinging, etc, but they do have cetana, which I think still produces vipaka - albeit (according to abhidhamma) in the very next moment, in the form of fruit consciousness. So again, D.O. doesn't really apply, but then it kind of does... > > Anyway, D.O. is a difficult subject, I'm just revising here. > > Best wishes > pt > #127937 From: "sarah" wrote: > I sleep 12 hours a day and am looking for techniques to overcome sloth and torpor. .... S: The main thing to remember is that sloth, torpor and any other dhammas are not-self. Just conditions for different dhammas to arise and fall away during the day. All are elements, dhatus, that don't last for an instant. I remember you were taking some medication. Perhaps this makes you sleep more than normal? Why not set an alarm clock for a little earlier than you usually get up and then make it 10 mins earlier each day? Have a programme of tasks for the day, such as sharing a sutta with us here or adding a comment. Time is short and precious - lots of opportunities for kusala in a day. I'm wondering if you're able to get around more easily these days? If so, you might like to come over to Manly when Pt next visits us (possibly the first half of Dec.) You could take the ferry over. There are lots of topics we could discuss and I think you'd enjoy it. Let me know off-list (or here) if interested. .. > I am consulting Nyanaponika Thera's The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html > > "Without having overcome these five hindrances, it is impossible for a monk whose insight thus lacks strength and power, to know his own true good, the good of others, and the good of both"; > — AN 5:51 > > According to the Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta Noble Friendship and Suitable Conversation are helpful for all five hindrances. ... S: I think that dhamma discussion, especially discussion about the realities now as anatta is very important and helpful. Otherwise, it's all about "me" trying to get rid of the hindrances, leading to frustration because it's all motivated by attachment to self being a particular way. ... > > According to one famous teacher ill-will and sloth and torpor are both vibhava tanha so oversleeping is a form of mental suicide. And as well as being active more hours per day early risers also have a longer life expectancy. ... S: It all comes back to 'now'. Now, we're not sleeping and there is seeing, there is visible object which is seen and there is thinking. If we're worrying now about the sleep and sloth and torpor, it indicates there is no awareness, no understanding of what is conditioned now. Look forward to hearing more from you, Antony and perhaps to seeing you again. Metta Sarah ===== #127938 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Dear group, > > If there is any seeing when eyes are closed? is eye-base still active at that time. Cos when i close my eyes then turn from dark to light, i still feel light, but not really seeing. So i wonder.... ... S: As Jon said, there can still be seeing of visible object. Another friend asked some good questions on the return journey from Halong Bay about when eye-base is weak and so on. Ajahn Sujin explained that we cannot refer to weak eye-base or seeing (such as when we wear glasses or our eyes are almost closed). Seeing sees visible object regardless. Usually we mix up conventional ideas with dhammas all the time. If you have a moment, do introduce yourself a little to others here and look forward to more qus and comments! Metta Sarah ==== #127939 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear group, > > If there is any seeing when eyes are closed? > Yes, there can be for sure. Dreams can be full of seeing and looking, for example. Imagining also does not require open eyes. is eye-base still active at that time. Cos when i close my eyes then turn > from dark to light, i still feel light, but not really seeing. So i > wonder.... > > Linh from Vietnam > > With metta > <...> > __ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127940 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: I'm reminded of the 3 'vatta' or rounds (of rebirth): kamma vatta ( the > > kamma round), kilesa vatta (the round of defilements) and vipaka vatta (the > > round of results), each supporting the other two. > > > > To my understanding, it's by the development of awareness/insight that the > > cycle of rounds (if that's not a tautology:-) is weakened and, eventually, > > broken. > > > > > H: I agreed with you right at the top. That can't ever be taken away from me > :-) > > I'm not sure whether I'm now disagreeing with you, but awareness / insight > also makes it impossible to hold vipaka as a support for kamma. > =============== J: Sorry, but I'm not following you here. Would you mind elaborating a little. Thanks. > =============== > > J: And in studying the Dhamma we come to know better what it is that is > > not known :-)) > > > H: Kamma and dependent origination are both said to be imponderable - that is > wisdom, IMO. > =============== J: DO is not one of the 4 'acinteyya' (see entry from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary at end of this message). As I understand the teaching, the series of connections set out in DO are matters that the enlightened being comes to realise in the course of his/her development of the path. As far as kamma is concerend, I think it's the detailed working of kamma and vipaka, rather than the nature of the relationship, that is said to be imponderable. The Buddha did, after all, speak of the significance of kamma in many suttas, including in the passage you quoted from Sutta Nipata: 'Not by birth is one a Bramana, nor is one by birth no Bramana; by kamma one is a Bramana, by kamma one is no Bramana. (650) 'By kamma one is a husbandman, by kamma one is an artisan, by kamma one is a merchant, by kamma one is a servant. (651) 'By kamma one is a thief, by kamma one is a soldier, by kamma one is a sacrificer, by kamma one is a king. (652) 'So the wise, who see the cause of things and understand the result of kamma, know this as it really is. (653) 'By kamma the world exists, by kamma mankind exists, beings are bound by kamma as the linch-pin of the rolling cart (654) Kamma as spoken of here is not 'imponderable', but is to be considered and reflected upon. Jon From Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary ************************** acinteyya lit. 'That which cannot or should not be thought, the unthinkable, incomprehensible, impenetrable, that which transcends the limits of thinking and over which therefore one should not ponder. These 4 unthinkables are: - the sphere of a Buddha (buddha-visaya), - of the meditative absorptions (jhaana-visaya), - of karma-result (kamma-vipaaka), and - brooding over the world (loka-cintaa), especially over an absolute first beginning of it (s. A.IV.77). ************************** AdChoices #127941 From: Nina van Gorkom "Can there be thinking about people and things without seeing?" ------- N: Seeing sees visible object and sa~n~naa remembers and then we think of stories. Atta sa~n~naa is likely to come in, wrong remembrance of self. Nina. #127942 From: Nina van Gorkom If there is any seeing when eyes are closed? is eye-base still > active at that time. Cos when i close my eyes then turn from dark > to light, i still feel light, but not really seeing. So i wonder.... ----- N: There is still the experience of what is visible, dark or light. But we do not perceive different things as we do when our eyes are open. Nina. #127943 From: Nina van Gorkom "Ya.m panaanicca.m dukkha.m vipari.naamadhamma.m kalla.m nu ta.m > samanupassitu.m 'eta.m mama, esohamasmi, eso me attaa'"ti? "No > heta.m, bhante". > > "Raahula, what do you think? Are any feeling, any perception, any > formations, any consciousness that arise with mind-contact as > condition permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, venerable sir." > "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?" "Suffering, > venerable sir." "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to > change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is > my self'?" "No, venerable sir." ------- N: As to the expression 'eta.m mama, esohamasmi, eso me attaa, This is mine, this I am, this is my self', we find in the Vibhanga and also in the commentaries to different suttas a further elaboration: 'this is mine' represents lobha, clinging without wrong view, 'this I am' represents clinging with conceit (mana) and 'this is myself' represents clinging with wrong view. ------ Nina. #127944 From: Nina van Gorkom In other words, if there is no understanding, no awareness now when > we experience ordinary worldly conditions, how will there be any > understanding, any detachment later? This is because it has to > begin at this moment, whilst experiencing seeing, hearing, ordinary > ups and downs in life. As KS goes on to elaborate, panna has to grow. > > We may experience really great pain in this life or lives to come - > so many reminders in the Tipitaka - now is the time to develop > panna as we go through the ordinary daily tests and trials. Only > visible object or sound that is experienced, followed by so may > stories with lobha, dosa or moha. ------ N: And I like this one you quote: ------ Nina. #127945 From: sarah abbott samanupassitu.m 'eta.m mama, esohamasmi, eso me attaa'"ti? "No > heta.m, bhante".> > "Raahula, what do you think? Are any feeling, any perception, any > formations, any consciousness that arise with mind-contact as > condition permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, venerable sir." > "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?" "Suffering, > venerable sir." "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to > change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is > my self'?" "No, venerable sir." ------- N: As to the expression 'eta.m mama, esohamasmi, eso me attaa, This is mine, this I am, this is my self', we find in the Vibhanga and also in the commentaries to different suttas a further elaboration: 'this is mine' represents lobha, clinging without wrong view, 'this I am' represents clinging with conceit (mana) and 'this is myself' represents clinging with wrong view. ------ D:I do not understand that , Nina... e.g. what explanation is provided for 'this is mine' represents lobha, clinging without wrong view? with Metta Dieter #127948 From: "Dieter Moeller" So now, are you interested in knowing what life is in reality, in > the absolute truth? If one says that one is interested in life but > one doesn’t know what life is, what does it mean? Not understanding! #127950 From: Nina van Gorkom A good base to produce interest for Dhamma study , gradually > leading to more understanding when it is confirmed by one's own > experience . > > are you going along ? ;-) ----- N: Yeah, yeah, we are all going along!!! Nina. #127951 From: Nina van Gorkom D:I do not understand that , Nina... e.g. what explanation is > provided for 'this is mine' represents lobha, clinging without > wrong view? ---- N: We may cling with wrong view, believing in a self. Or just without wrong view, liking pleasant sounds, flavours etc. There is not always a wrong view, but just liking things. We learn that of the eight types of cittas rooted in lobha, four are with wrong view and four are without wrong view. ----- Nina. #127952 From: "philip" > > D: I think that is a good approach to bring attention to the here-and-now reality. A first understanding that life means this mental and bodily consciousness. A good base to produce interest for Dhamma study , gradually leading to more understanding when it is confirmed by one's own experience . > > are you going along ? ;-) > No. Nice try. Nice politics. But you forgot the central part of your platform, which is seeking to control the outcome of citta processes. So what you write above is meaningless fluff. You are so eager to find common ground at DSG but you never will, thankfully unless your core understanding of Dhamma undergoes a radical shift, unlikely. Anything is possible of course but your understanding that led you to deplore the lack of concensus here was a correct one. I don't have anything further to say, I won't be here, so carry on without expectation of any further sniping. phil p.s I know you are a good person but that is irrelevant. No meaningful "milk and water" without correct understanding and the good Dhamma friend refers to cittas with right understanding, not people with pleasant manners. Of course there are other kinds of valuable friends other than Dhamma friends in life. #127953 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:09 am Subject: A Quick Question about Digest Format upasaka_howard Hi, all - For any of you who use or are familiar with the digest format for receiving posts, is it easy to clearly reply to individual posts? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127954 From: han tun wrote: Dear Dieter, N: We may cling with wrong view, believing in a self. Or just without wrong view, liking pleasant sounds, flavours etc. There is not always a wrong view, but just liking things. We learn that of the eight types of cittas rooted in lobha, four are with wrong view and four are without wrong view. ----- Nina. #127955 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:37 am Subject: Re: Fw: The Storm kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ----- > S: Great to see you more active around here again! ----- KH: Thanks, although I doubt everyone would say it was" great", exactly. I can be a bit tiresome at times. :-) -------- > S: Just one point: <. . .> > They are conditioned dhammas, so they are impermanent and dukkha, but they cannot be the object of attachment. -------- KH: I wonder if I am, after all these years, beginning understanding this point. I think you are saying the first noble truth – the truth of dukkha – does not refer broadly to all dhammas that have the dukkha lakkhana. It refers particularly to all dhammas that are not included in the third and fourth noble truths. Pretty obvious now that I think about it! :-) (But now I am reminded of the immortal words, "Do not say that, Annanda!" So I should not have said it was pretty obvious. Even the earliest beginnings of right understanding are not obvious.) Ken H #127956 From: "truth_aerator" S: What is effort, viriya? Is it a conditioned mental factor or is >it a Self? >>>>>>>>>>> ... It is anatta and fully conditioned. But if it is not produced, it doesn't arise. > >A: Eradication of self view starts (as appears in the suttas) with dana and other ethical qualities. Jataka tales are an example. I am yet to find a Jataka where Bodhisatta started with reading books. > ... > S: Is the first factor of the 8-fold path dana or samma ditthi? >>>>>> Preliminary path seems to start with Dana and other merit making things. N8P comes later. >Can there be a beginning of the path which leads to the eradication >of self view without an understanding of seeing, visible object, >attachment and thinking? True understanding requires lots of factors. Merely thinking and reading is not enough. IMHO. With metta, Alex #127957 From: "sarah" For any of you who use or are familiar with the digest format for > receiving posts, is it easy to clearly reply to individual posts? .... S: I think it's very convenient for reading posts, especially when one wants to scroll through quickly, such as when travelling - it's a very clear format. However, for replying, I don't find it so convenient. One has to delete all the other text and messages and if one forgets to do this, the entire digest gets posted. So I'd say, good for people who are only reading or when one is on holiday, but otherwise individual posts are more convenient for replying to. Of course, one can receive mail in digest format in one's in box for reading but use the DSG website for replying. Another thing I'll recommend to friends who like to receive individual mail but don't wish to have so much mail in their in box - use a filter! I do this - I have a filter sending all mail with 'dhammastudygroup' to its own file. It's there for searching or for using for replies. For reading, one can either use that or the website under 'expand' to continuously read through. *** For other recently FAQ let me also mention: Most the time when people are having trouble posting to the list, it is because they are using a different email address to the one they originally joined with. It must be the same email address - your member address. Otherwise, you need to join again with the new email address. Joining is very easy - simplest way is to go to DSG website tp://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/ and click "join here" and follow steps. Any problem, contact Pt (best) or Jon or I. If you can't access the website and want to start a new thread, just send your message to: //groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/ I use the nickname dsg for it in my address book and then just send to 'dsg'. Simple! Pt may remember if there are other FAQ Metta Sarah ===== #127958 From: "sarah" wrote: > > > > S: What can be known now is present "daily life stuff". > > > > .... > > >H: I don't agree here, with great confidence :-) > > ..... > > S: Is seeing now "daily life stuff"? Is visible object, hearing, sound > > "daily life stuff"? > > > > Can it not be proved now that all that is seen is visible object? All that > > is heard is sound? That seeing now is not self? > > .... >H: Yes, no doubt. But more so, can it not be proved that that none of this > applies to us now, who are forever in search of new futures? .... S: It applies now because this is what daily life is now whether it is known or not. Without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, can there be "searching of new futures", any conflicts or problems in life? What we like so much or are so distressed about is just visible object or sound - elements that arise and fall away instantly, experienced by vipaka cittas accompanied by neutral feeling. None of them 'me' or 'a thing'. Just because there's lots of avijja now doesn't mean that it's not the truth. ... > >H: If we were really interested in "now", there's a heck of a lot of stuff we > would have to ditch, and we would seriously and utterly refuse to do that. > > Some are genuinely interested in the "now", but that certainly doesn't > apply to folks who intend to take up new rebirths ad infinitum. .... S: When we think about what "we would have to ditch" or other folks, it's all just thinking about various stories about 'me' and 'them', it's not understanding seeing now, visible object now. What is seen now? Metta Sarah ==== #127959 From: "sarah" wrote: > Our weekly Dhamma discussions have resumed, with some new members, keen and enthusiastic. Today we reminded ourselves Achaan's words about how incredibly long it l takes for panna to be developed, as habit of wanting to see result or to measure one's progress is part of the accumulations of many among us. It was all helpful. Mr "so what" came too, again with his "so what" spirit, but very genuine in saying what he thinks, and after all, he still likes to come back :-) .... S: Great if you give brief summaries of your discussions like this. I was particularly glad to hear that Mr "So what?" came too. Is his real name Vinh? I like his approach of questioning and still have his "so what?" note in my book as a souvenir:-) Hope he also asks some of his challenging qus here as well. He said he likes writing. Did his friend, Ninh come too? .. > Some of us can not access the DSG's yahoo groups, the same problem I encountered before, while another person has registered. It apparently depends on computer and service provider... .... S: Hope it improves in Vietnam so no one has these access problems. I'm glad to see you're finding a work-around. ... > That's about painting today :-) .... S: :-) Yes, painting all day with lobha, dosa and moha most of the time.... Metta Sarah p.s Tai - we hung the Vietnamese hanging from your company on the wall in our tiny flat in Hong Kong and I'm looking at it now - all the intricate designs of the cittas from moment to moment. ===== #127960 From: "sarah" wrote: > >From: Ann Marshall > >Long in the coming, but nonetheless an important discussion with Achan at breakfast before she was leaving to return to Thailand. ... [side note: we've now edited this discussion and it'll be loaded onto dhammastudygroup.org later today. It was rather tricky because of being held in the coffee shop at breakfast and because we also had to do a cut and paste from Jagkrit's recording for a chunk that was missing.] ... > >Achan has been aware over the years of some my concerns regarding my son, now 27. Since his teen years he has experienced depressions periodically. > > > >She said "you worry a lot about John, you are very attached to him" and I agreed. She said that the worries show how much attachment there is to self. She went on to say that it is best to consider more metta, kusala deeds towards others, not just John. This can help one understand no self. "No John, no you, no Glen (my husband)". Metta can help understanding grow. .... S: Yes, we think it is the concern for the other person, but it's really for ourselves, our attachment to pleasant feelings. As she repeated again and again in Vietnam, without seeing and hearing, there are no problems. In other words, the 'problems', 'the worries' are all on account of what is seen and heard now. It always comes back to the undersanding, the growth of detachment from what is conditioned now. At moments of kusala, there are no concerns, no worries - one just helps those around one in whatever way one can and understanding develops through the careful consideration and understanding of realities. We talked a lot about elements - there are just cittas, cetasikas and rupas, different elements, no matter how they are named - no people at all. We think our concern, our caring for those dear to us will help them, but actually, the attachment and anxiety don't help at all. This is why it's often easier to give good dhamma reminders and encouragment to those we are not so close to. When someone asks a question or presents a problem, it's clear that the problem is just the present avijja, ignorance and that the solution comes back to the understanding of seeing now, visible object now, understanding dhammas as anatta. However, when it's the 'beloved' one, we rush in with band-aids and all sorts of goodies to try and make their lives more comfortable, so often without the gentle, but firm reminders about the real truths in life, the truths about seeing now as impermanent and unsatisfactory, visible object now as not 'my arm' or 'my possession', but just an element, anatta. ... > > > >Someone else mentioned that there is a lot of responsibility involved in raising a child. Achan quickly chimed in saying "giving birth, that's all." We were somewhat taken aback. > > > >In thinking about it, while we feel great "responsibility" for children, especially little ones, there is no "we" to be responsible, it all happens by conditions, the attachment, the metta, the worry, the pleasant feelings and the unpleasant. We try to make things the best they can be for young children and while feeling far less responsible for adult children, they still remain "our children". The attachment is so strong and accordingly, the worry very great. Very good to be reminded that the loba is just loba - "no one there". .... S: Yes, it is just lobha and "no one there". This doesn't mean we don't help as we can, but sometimes the best help is encouraging anyone to learn to 'live alone' with the present realities, one world at a time now. [another side note: Why don't you bring John to Thailand for a visit? Perhaps he could come for the last trip to Kaeng Krachan as it's not too long and he likes nature - lots of space for long walks in between the discussions. A smaller group there as well. Then the two of you could travel around together and discuss the discussion topics further. Even if none of it appeals to him at all, he'd at least have a little more understanding of his mother's main interest and priority in life. We'd all be glad to meet him. You could give him some books to read first like BDL] .... > > > >Achan also reminded us that the person who cares about us most is our mother and referred to the Maha Mangala Sutta. Support with metta for parents is a blessing not to be forgotten. We think mostly of the first two blessings, association with the right person and hearing the true Dhamma, and often neglect the others. But they are all important and necessary. She encouraged those of us with living parents to be in touch, not to cause them worry by absence etc. .... S: This is very important. It's not enough to just associate with dhamma friends, hear the Dhamma and not support parents while we have the chance. You may note have seen my last installment from Poland in which I quote from the Mangala Sutta and discuss further: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/126561 Another blessing not to be overlooked is" to be of good speech". The commentary elaborates and says: "Good speech that is opportune, truthful, friendly, profitable and spoken with thoughts of loving-kindness." If we hear good Dhamma and develop some understanding, there must be these other Mangala too, such as good speech. Helpful for us all to reflect on all the mangala. ... > >In the end, she said that with regard to children and our worry "do your best, that is all you can do". ... S: It's all that can ever be done. We just do our best when we have the opportunity and develop equanimity (as well as the other brahma viharas), understanding that all are heirs to their own kamma and accumulations. When we do our best without accumulating more dosa - more worry, more anxiety, we sleep well and help more. Always great to hear from you Ann. These issues are helpful for me to reflect on as well. Like you, I become very concerned and anxious when dear ones have difficulties. Hope your health issues are stable now at least. Metta Sarah ===== #127961 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > J: I'm reminded of the 3 'vatta' or rounds (of rebirth): kamma vatta ( > the > > > > kamma round), kilesa vatta (the round of defilements) and vipaka vatta > (the > > > round of results), each supporting the other two. > > > > > > To my understanding, it's by the development of awareness/insight that > the > > > cycle of rounds (if that's not a tautology:-) is weakened and, > eventually, > > > broken. > > > > > > > > H: I agreed with you right at the top. That can't ever be taken away > from me > > > :-) > > > > I'm not sure whether I'm now disagreeing with you, but awareness / > insight > > also makes it impossible to hold vipaka as a support for kamma. > > =============== > > J: Sorry, but I'm not following you here. Would you mind elaborating a > little. Thanks. > > Very happy to elaborate. But before I do I want to make it very clear upfront that in talking about kamma, I am using that term exactly in the same sense as it is used in the sutta from the Sutta Nipata that we are now both referring to: and that sense is kamma as action, as opposed to intention. Do you agree that this is the appropriate reading here? Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127962 From: Nina van Gorkom For any of you who use or are familiar with the digest format for > receiving posts, is it easy to clearly reply to individual posts? ---- N: Very easy, just push answering button. Nina. #127963 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > thank you for the correction. I listen and stop and write, listen and > stop and in this way I miss out words. .... S: No problem. I just listened to the relevant part and I've inserted the corrections in your transcript below: ****** Poland, during a walk at noon. Acharn: Each moment is once in a lifetime, even a moment of sadness. It never comes back. That is all. That is the way to have less clinging. There must be the understanding of realities as not self, otherwise it does not work at all. Sarah: And when you said to Lukas before the sadness may seem so great, but it's nothing to what will come. Did you mean in this life or in other lives? Acharn: Even in this life. Sarah: It will be much worse. Acharn: It depends on pa~n~naa whether it can see that. Sadness now is not the same as sadness a moment ago. Sarah: You often talk about, or you used to talk about, "passing the tests". If there cannot be the passing of the test with this little bit of sadness now, what will one do when it's really something serious! Acharn: So one can see the value of the development of pa~n~naa, little by little, otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. Think of nothing at all, no thing, except sound. And nothing at all, except hardness, only that is reality. Jon: And a lot of thinking! Acharn: Yes. ======== Metta Sarah >N:Thank you also for the very > meaningful elaboration. We cannot hear this enough. > >S: In other words, if there is no understanding, no awareness now when > > we experience ordinary worldly conditions, how will there be any > > understanding, any detachment later? This is because it has to > > begin at this moment, whilst experiencing seeing, hearing, ordinary > > ups and downs in life. As KS goes on to elaborate, panna has to grow. > > > > We may experience really great pain in this life or lives to come - > > so many reminders in the Tipitaka - now is the time to develop > > panna as we go through the ordinary daily tests and trials. Only > > visible object or sound that is experienced, followed by so may > > stories with lobha, dosa or moha. #127966 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:20 am Subject: Testing upasaka_howard Empty Message #127967 From: "Dieter Moeller" leading to more understanding when it is confirmed by one's own > experience > > are you going along ? ;-) ----- N: Yeah, yeah, we are all going along!!! D: good ,the ' boy who cried wolf ' ignored , so more to come ;-) with Metta Dieter . #127968 From: "Dieter Moeller" Even the earliest beginnings of right understanding are not obvious.) ----- N: Because Dhamma is so very subtle. -- Nina. #127970 From: han tun wrote: > ** > > > Empty Message > > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127972 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Testing upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > This is insight of the highest order. > (to be read both with ------------------------------- HCW: Yes ... ------------------------------ and without ------------------------------ HCW: LOL! ------------------------------- a smiley) > > On 22 November 2012 00:20, wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Empty Message > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Herman > > > I do not know what I do not know > > > ============================= I sent that w/the idea of testing how a reply works at the web site. Not too bad! #127973 From: Tam Bach Some of us can not access the DSG's yahoo groups, the same problem I encountered before, while another person has registered. It apparently depends on computer and service provider... .... T: we have advised those having difficulty with the access to use a "right" computer to sign up, then continue to follow through e-mails, just like me. p.s Tai - we hung the Vietnamese hanging from your company on the wall in our tiny flat in Hong Kong and I'm looking at it now - all the intricate designs of the cittas from moment to moment. T: Thai will read this once his signing-up problem is settled :-) ===== Metta, Tam #127974 From: "ptaus1" Sarah: For other recently FAQ let me also mention: > > Most the time when people are having trouble posting to the list, it is because they are using a different email address to the one they originally joined with. It must be the same email address - your member address. Otherwise, you need to join again with the new email address. Yahoo also gives an option to go into your Yahoo account settings and change your primary email address. So, for example, if you joined dsg some time ago by creating a Yahoo account and a Yahoo email address, but nowadays prefer to use a different email address for your online correspondence, you can now go into your Yahoo account settings and enter the new email address and mark it as the main one. Yahoo will then drive all traffic to and from dsg through this new email address and you won't have to use or remember the old email address anymore. Best wishes pt #127975 From: "ptaus1" S: All kinds of mundane kusala and akusala cetana/kamma that can condition rebirth are included here. Clinging here is a condition by natural decisive support (pakatu upanissaya paccaya) for such mundane kusala which arises later during life of whatever kind leading to kusala vipaka by way of favourable rebirth in heavenly, rupa, arupa brahma or human realms. Without clinging, no kamma, no rebirth. > > As discussed, conditions are very complicated. If there were no clinging, there'd be no more kusala or akusala, no more kamma at all. Thanks. Yeah, I don't really get this. Let's leave it for Manly. Best wishes pt #127976 From: "ptaus1" What piques me is why some folks want to pretend that the precision of the > pillow (I should be in marketing :-)) somehow applies while they are > shopping for a better rate on their health insurance????? I guess it has to do with what is deemed important and what isn't. Best wishes pt #127977 From: "ptaus1" I like to emphasize : "In the supramundane consciousness wisdom (pañña) is predominant, while in the ordinary types of consciousness volition (cetana) is predominant." An interesting detail. > That means for all of us , who are not claiming supramundane consciousness (lokuttara citta = not regarded as Kamma and vipaka), volition(cetana) is of decisive importance. Ok, but in the context of the discussion, what controls cetana during a kusala moment - what's the condition(s) for its arising? > D: I went a bit far , refering to the 3 lives interpretation of VisM. > > .. leaving that part out , any question to above? Actually, I'm most familiar with the 3 lives interpretation. One-citta interpretation I think is from abhidhamma and I need to review it first (I think it's explained in detail in Vibhanga and its commentary). If I'm not mistaken, you were mostly trying to explain the one-life interpretation. Afaik, that's a more modern interpretation and I don't know much about it, I'd need to read about it first before continuing discussion. Any suggestions? Best wishes pt #127978 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: >... As stated before, my contention is that control is possible, but only on later stages of development. Until then, any intention to develop this or that is likely just more lobha\dosa. Exactly where is the transition between im/possibility of control, that's the issue that interests me, though it might be a bit of a sub-topic. .... S: All dhammas are anatta and not within anyone's control. Conditioned dhammas, even those we refer to as the arahat's or Buddha's are still uncontrollable by any being. This applies to the indriyas, the balas, jhana cittas, enlightenment factors, path cittas, cittas prior to and post nirodha samapatti - all conditioned dhammas. No one can ever make seeing arise or stop it arising when there are conditions. What is true about dhammas as anatta now will always be true. No one can avoid the death of cittas now or death at the end of this life when time is up due to kamma. Metta Sarah ===== #127980 From: "sarah" wrote: > > (cut....) Raahula, when one is not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I say, that one would not do. Therefore, Raahula, you should train thus: 'I will not utter a falsehood even as a joke.' > > > >C: Thank you - I never seem to hear or consider this enough. > I had copied the following for myself the other day: > > 673. na hi vaggu vadanti vadantaa, naabhijavanti na ta.namupenti. > a"ngaare santhate sayanti (senti), ginisampajjalita.m pavisanti. > > Sn 668. [The hell keepers] when they speak do not speak pleasantly. [The hell dwellers] do not hasten towards them; they are not arriving at a refuge. They lie on scattered coals; they enter a blazing mass of fire. > > .... S: This is the sort of think I was thinking about when I said (in a reply to an extract Nina gave about sadness) how the tests and difficulties in life can be so much harder, so if we can't pass the small tests now in life, no chance with the unimaginably harder ones! ... > > ... it is not pleasant speech when I am making (worse than) childish jokes & saying things that don't serve any worthwhile purpose while 'all the world is ablaze'. > > may all our speech benefit those who might come towards us; may we not mislead any. ... S: Most our childish jokes and speech during the day, such as chatter about food and weather and daily topics, is just motivated by ordinary lobha, not intending to mislead others in a harmful way. Lobha will be around for a long time to come. We can distinguish between ordinary (sama) lobha, whether we speak or keep quiet and out of the ordinary (visama) lobha, such as when there is deceit and intentional telling of lies. Metta Sarah ===== #127981 From: "sarah" wrote: > Connie: > I had copied the following for myself the other day: > 673. na hi vaggu vadanti vadantaa, naabhijavanti na ta.namupenti. > a"ngaare santhate sayanti (senti), ginisampajjalita.m pavisanti. > > Sn 668. [The hell keepers] when they speak do not speak pleasantly. [The hell dwellers] do not hasten towards them; they are not arriving at a refuge. They lie on scattered coals; they enter a blazing mass of fire. > > Han: > > I am now reading Suttanipaatapaa.li, 3. Mahaavaggo, 10. Kokaalikasutta.m, from which you have taken the above verses. > > It is frightening to read about bhikkhu Kokaalika. > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/5Khuddaka-Nikaya/05Suttanipata/3-maha\ -vagga-e.html > > Bhikkhu Kokaalika said to the Buddha about Ven Saariputta and Ven Moggallaana ["Venerable sir, Saariputta and Moggallaana are with evil desires, overcome by evil desires."] The Buddha tried to stop him ["Kokaalika, do not say that, have faith in Saariputta and Moggallaana, they are well behaved."] But Kokaalika would not listen; he repeated three times. > > Soon after that, all over bhikkhu Kokaalika's body there arose small blisters the size of coming seeds. Next they became the size of green grams and next the size of chick peas. Then they became the size of jujubi fruits. And later the size of myrobolan fruits. From that they became the size of beluwa fruits. Later they came to be like ripe beluwa fruits, burst and pus and blood oozed. The bhikkhu Kokaalika became very ill on account of it and died and was born in the Paduma hell for bearing illwill in the mind for Saariputta and Moggallaana. > > ---------- > > Han: And the sutta tells about the Paduma hell, with the verses from which you have quoted some. It is a great reminder for me not to say or think ill about others. ... S: Thanks for sharing this too, Han. It was interesting that even though the Buddha warned him, he would not listen. We see the conditioned accumulations for such harmful speech and the almost immediate results. Also how the accumulated kamma resulted in birth in the Paduma hell. As you say, a good reminder of the harm of saying or thinking ill of others, especially the wise! Thanks again for your sutta series - I'm often behind with my reading, but always appreciate them. Metta Sarah ==== #127982 From: han tun wrote: > Connie: > I had copied the following for myself the other day: > 673. na hi vaggu vadanti vadantaa, naabhijavanti na ta.namupenti. > a"ngaare santhate sayanti (senti), ginisampajjalita.m pavisanti. > > Sn 668. [The hell keepers] when they speak do not speak pleasantly. [The hell dwellers] do not hasten towards them; they are not arriving at a refuge. They lie on scattered coals; they enter a blazing mass of fire. > ---------- > Han: And the sutta tells about the Paduma hell, with the verses from which you have quoted some. It is a great reminder for me not to say or think ill about others. ... S: Thanks for sharing this too, Han. It was interesting that even though the Buddha warned him, he would not listen. We see the conditioned accumulations for such harmful speech and the almost immediate results. Also how the accumulated kamma resulted in birth in the Paduma hell. As you say, a good reminder of the harm of saying or thinking ill of others, especially the wise! Thanks again for your sutta series - I'm often behind with my reading, but always appreciate them. Metta Sarah ==== #127983 From: "sarah" wrote: > There is a way I want to approach this but I think it would be unskillful in an open forum. But what it would involve is asking you a series of questions until we reach some agreement. Its lovely in a one-on-one setting, but in a forum I fear someone would read a question I ask & not realize its a question-with-a-purpose & not something I'm personally trying to figure out. .... S: Just try! Never mind if anyone misunderstands - ... >If I don't do it like that & simply list the questions outright it seems to me to be a little more confrontational than I'd like. Without tone of voice & facial expressions, a lot of written stuff can come off as way more confrontational than is tasteful. ... S: Don't worry - your posts come across as being very polite and respectful:) ... > > So here goes: > > "Consciousness without surface" is "vinnanam anidassanam". > > The great Gotama Buddha was even so thoughtful as to add, in the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11), the statement > > vinnanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti. .... S: In case you haven't delved into "Useful Posts" in the files section, here's your chance! If you look under the headings: - Vinnana & Nibbana, vinnana anidassaana - Kevatta Sutta - Udana - Nibbana You'll find lots and lots of detail.... Metta Sarah p.s Josh, I thought you wrote #127871 very well - good points made. What the Buddha taught was not a re-hash of what was already taught. Btw, how did you come to be so interested in the Dhamma in Kansas? ===== #127984 From: "ptaus1" S: All dhammas are anatta and not within anyone's control. Conditioned dhammas, even those we refer to as the arahat's or Buddha's are still uncontrollable by any being. This applies to the indriyas, the balas, jhana cittas, enlightenment factors, path cittas, cittas prior to and post nirodha samapatti - all conditioned dhammas. No one can ever make seeing arise or stop it arising when there are conditions. > > What is true about dhammas as anatta now will always be true. > > No one can avoid the death of cittas now or death at the end of this life when time is up due to kamma. Thanks. I take it you are equating anatta with lack of control. I.e. as an ultimate term (and then control has to equate to atta). In the context of the discussion so far though, control was found to be a vague term, so imo of conventional usage. E.g. looking at powers - for the skilled, resolving to enter jhana for exactly 46 seconds - that's control to me, conventionally. Ultimately, it can be interpreted as a self capable of entering jhana for a set time, or interpreted as sufficiently developed panna, sati and other mental factors performing their functions, all anatta. How would you qualify the issue of powers, resolving this or that in a kusala manner, etc? Conventionally, I'd call it control. Is there another conventional term you'd prefer to use before we discuss further? Best wishes pt #127985 From: Nina van Gorkom not yet really clear to me..is there greed/lobha/kama-tanha without > any company of wrong view, besides sakkaya-ditthi? > Samma ditthi-assumed as a counter part of avijja - excludes lobha, > doesn't it? Now, not all what is not right is wrong too (Chanda > comes into my mind).. but I seem to missing something .. > Does the definition of the 8 aspects help further ? ----- N: They are basic. Sakkayadi.t.thi is also wrong view, and it does not arise with citta rooted in lobha every time. But cittas with wrong view and without it can alternate very quickly. When we consider citta we have to remember that they last for an extremely short time. They are very momentary. ------ Nina. #127986 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:15 pm Subject: Re: A Quick Question about Digest Format upasaka_howard Hi, pt (and Ann & Sarah & all)- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Ann, Howard and all, > > > Sarah: For other recently FAQ let me also mention: > > > > Most the time when people are having trouble posting to the list, it is because they are using a different email address to the one they originally joined with. It must be the same email address - your member address. Otherwise, you need to join again with the new email address. > > > Yahoo also gives an option to go into your Yahoo account settings and change your primary email address. So, for example, if you joined dsg some time ago by creating a Yahoo account and a Yahoo email address, but nowadays prefer to use a different email address for your online correspondence, you can now go into your Yahoo account settings and enter the new email address and mark it as the main one. Yahoo will then drive all traffic to and from dsg through this new email address and you won't have to use or remember the old email address anymore. > > Best wishes > pt > ================================== Thanks for this info, pt! BTW, I have switched my settings to read the mails at the web site. I find that it is perfectly convenient, and I no longer have my inbox so full. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #127987 From: "sarah" wrote: > If you can't access the website and want to start a new thread, just send your message to: > //groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/ > I use the nickname dsg for it in my address book and then just send to 'dsg'. Simple! ... S: Oops! Not correct. To send an email to the group to start a new thread, send the message to: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com (the address above is the website, of course). Sarah ====== #127988 From: "jrg493" wrote: > S: In case you haven't delved into "Useful Posts" in the files section, here's your chance! > > If you look under the headings: > > - Vinnana & Nibbana, vinnana anidassaana > > - Kevatta Sutta > > - Udana - Nibbana > > You'll find lots and lots of detail.... > I'll do so. I must admit that many times I've done a search in the archive & got the response "over 5,000 results!" I have noticed that these same themes seem --- & these same portions of sutta --- seem to be a kind of perennial set of talking points all throughout the English internet when it comes to nibbana, although they're easily & efficiently settled as *not* equivalent to any pre-existing sects. > > Btw, how did you come to be so interested in the Dhamma in Kansas? > ===== > Kansas has quite a reputation. :) I've only lived in Kansas three years now, but I had a working knowledge of Theravada a long time ago (although with barely any interest in Abhidhamma). I've studied a lot of different schools of Indian thought (Buddhist & non-Buddhist) & I think I came to appreciate a more exacting analysis of things only over time. I decided, practically, on Theravada & figured I needed to get a handle on Abhidhamma & at least a functional awareness of Pali terms if I was going to do that. And I happened to be in Kansas. - in Dhamma Josh #127989 From: Nina van Gorkom D: no nit- picking intended , just noted that the classifications > citta and cetasika seem to be distinct from Abhidhamma in some > aspects.. > ------- N: I do not see it that way. What aspects are you referring to? ------- > > D: I think it depends : to develop mindfulness the mind needs to be > directed to the mentioned objects of the 4 application (Satipatthana). > By that the foundation is laid (a 'map 'comes into my mind) which > leads to awareness , perfection of sati. > ------ N: Sati is anattaa, uncontrollable and it depends entirely on sati what object it takes. Who can direct citta? ------ > > D: as I see it : the citta is conditioned by previous kamma , the > strongest impuls of the senses media arises as the main object of > sati. > About that we cannot do anything but there is interaction with nama > (cetasika) and rupa , which leads to new kamma. > -------- N: Naama, cetasikas, are result, and conascent with vi~n~naa.na which is vipaakacitta. ------ D: > And there the quality > - wholesome ,neutral and unwholesome- actions takes place by > volition/intention. > Within the path training it is 'right effort' , the 6xt link , to > be practised in order to achieve a wholesome direction. > -------- N: There are no neutral actions, they are kusala or akusala. Right effort is a path factor only when accompanied by right understanding of naama and ruupa. When hearing the word effort we are inclined to think of a situation, of a whole. Effort is a cetasika and very momentary. It arises and then falls away immediately. Not easy to penetrate its characteristic. It is anattaa, and 'we' cannot do anything about it. -------- > D:By practise of the 7th link , satipatthana , we are perfecting > sati . > In respect to anatta , a note by a translator of DN 16 : "the third > and final stage in satipatthana practice: > "or his mindfulness that 'There is a body (feeling, mind, mental > quality)' is maintained [simply] to the extent of knowledge & > recollection. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not > clinging to) anything in the world.This stage corresponds to a mode > of perception that the Buddha in MN 121 terms "entry into > emptiness":Thus he regards it [this mode of perception] as empty of > whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: > "there is this." > ----- N:The co. elaborates (see: Way of Mindfulness by Soma Thera): So we see that anattaness is stressed here. This goal cannot be reached unless we "study" with awareness and understanding any reality appearing now, such as seeing, hearing. ------ > D:What we can and have to do is to learn by study and practise > right understanding /view.. I think we agree on that. > ------ N: Yes, not clinging to words, knowing characteristics of realities, any reality that presents itself now. In that way understandinjg develops, it develops by its own conditions. It is always now. Otherwise we get lost in heory, in names. ------ > > D: yes, avijja /moha are company , always latent ... conditioning > kusala and akusala kamma ( exempted lokuttara citta). > That indifferent feeling turns to lobha seems to me more the > exception than the rule. > ----- N: The indifferent feeling does not turn to lobha, lobha can be accompanied (conascent with) indifferent feeling and this occurs very, very often, even now. ------ Nina. #127990 From: "Dieter Moeller" akusala javanacittas with attachment are bound to arise. The > attachment may be accompanied by indifferent feeling and then it is > not noticed that there is lobha already, it arises so soon. > > D: why bound to arise ? Most sensations of our daily consciousness > pass without special attention. > It is emotion of a certain impression which turns to lobha or dosa, > doesn't it? N: The indifferent feeling does not turn to lobha, lobha can be accompanied (conascent with) indifferent feeling and this occurs very, very often, even now. D: by 'turn to' I have D.O. in mind: passa -vedana- tanha -upadana, i.e. .. contact/impression conditions feeling... conditions thirst conditions clinging, , because we may comprehend the course. From the point of experience, lobha as a synonym for tanha (the metaphor 'thirst' is used to describe the urge, the craving) is recognized as a hot or burning feeling, isn't it? Pleasant feeling (vedana) conditions the strong desire (tanha/lobha). Due to experience , I cannot comprehend another than : lobha can not be accompanied by indifferent feeling..because lobha is perceived as emotion(al feeling). Indifferent or neutral (( adukkha-m-asukha vedana = upekkha, q.v. B.Dict. ) feeling -if I recall correctly - may be related with moha.. if it is not upekkha . D:What we can and have to do is to learn by study and practise > right understanding /view.. I think we agree on that. > ------ N: Yes, not clinging to words, knowing characteristics of realities, any reality that presents itself now. In that way understandinjg develops, it develops by its own conditions. It is always now. Otherwise we get lost in heory, in names. D:you are right : a rose is a rose..is a rose (G.Stein) but it is easier said ( in poesie) than done . Words and its (different) interpretations contribute much to confusion .. not to talk about different angles like conventional and absolut truth, or different context, good to recall the Pancakanga Sutta: : "The Blessed One said: "Ananda, Udayi's way of presentation, with which Carpenter Fivetools disagreed, was correct, indeed. But also Carpenter Fivetool's way of presentation, with which Udayi disagreed, was correct. I have spoken of two kinds of feelings, and in other ways of presentation I have spoken of three, of six, of eighteen, of thirty-six, and of one hundred and eight kinds of feelings.[1] So the Dhamma has been shown by me in different ways of presentation"-Pancakanga Sutta." with Metta Dieter #127991 From: "Dieter Moeller" D: I went a bit far , refering to the 3 lives interpretation of VisM. > .. leaving that part out , any question to above? Pt: Actually, I'm most familiar with the 3 lives interpretation. One-citta interpretation I think is from abhidhamma and I need to review it first (I think it's explained in detail in Vibhanga and its commentary). If I'm not mistaken, you were mostly trying to explain the one-life interpretation. Afaik, that's a more modern interpretation and I don't know much about it, I'd need to read about it first before continuing discussion. Any suggestions? D: no , not one-life interpretation ( interpreter e.g. Ven Buddhadasa) . I understand that the wheel of samsara , this wandering (kamma) in the circle of birth, death, birth ,..is running without interruption since indeterminable time and only can be stopped by enlightenment. So this life only a drop in the sea of lives. If the 3 lives interpretation is just meaning , presentwhen the wheel touches ground ,past behind future ahead , I agree . But I don't when this past is said to be finished by birth because it indicates a stop. . What to read ? First of all respective suttas , trying to get an idea oneself how the process works according to one's own experience. Very complex to seek help from Abhidhamma .Commentaries , essays may help for some questions . Seeing D.O. as the background of the first and second Noble Truth (" the whole mass of the the origination of suffering") is to me crucial for an understanding or better: the devopment of understanding. There is hardly any wellknown Dhamma teacher to find without elaboration of D.O. To mention only 2 examples from Thailand : Ven Buddhadasa provided nice examples .. though insisting of an only moment to moment interpretation in this life..( see http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm ) his disagreement with Ven. Buddhagosa quite interesting to read. You find as well discussions on DSG e.g. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/11190 ) or more scholarly Ven.Prayudh Payutto http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikkhu_Dependent_Origination.h\ tm , he considers jati in D.O. possibly to mean both from moment to moment as bírth from the mother's womb. ( I think so too , strictly speaking is the latter also only a moment of the circle , although a special one ) with Metta Dieter #127992 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:39 am Subject: Re: Fw: The Storm kenhowardau Hi Nina, ---- <. . .> > N: Because Dhamma is so very subtle. ---- KH: Thanks, Nina, I like the word subtle - requiring keen powers of understanding. Ken H #127993 From: han tun wrote: > > Hi Antony, > > Very nice to hear from you again after a long absence! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "antony272b2" wrote: > > > I sleep 12 hours a day and am looking for techniques to overcome sloth and torpor. > .... > > S: The main thing to remember is that sloth, torpor and any other dhammas are not-self. Just conditions for different dhammas to arise and fall away during the day. All are elements, dhatus, that don't last for an instant. > > I remember you were taking some medication. Perhaps this makes you sleep more than normal? > > Why not set an alarm clock for a little earlier than you usually get up and then make it 10 mins earlier each day? Have a programme of tasks for the day, such as sharing a sutta with us here or adding a comment. Time is short and precious - lots of opportunities for kusala in a day. > > I'm wondering if you're able to get around more easily these days? If so, you might like to come over to Manly when Pt next visits us (possibly the first half of Dec.) You could take the ferry over. There are lots of topics we could discuss and I think you'd enjoy it. Let me know off-list (or here) if interested. > .. > > I am consulting Nyanaponika Thera's The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html > > > > "Without having overcome these five hindrances, it is impossible for a monk whose insight thus lacks strength and power, to know his own true good, the good of others, and the good of both"; > > — AN 5:51 > > > > According to the Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta Noble Friendship and Suitable Conversation are helpful for all five hindrances. > ... > > S: I think that dhamma discussion, especially discussion about the realities now as anatta is very important and helpful. Otherwise, it's all about "me" trying to get rid of the hindrances, leading to frustration because it's all motivated by attachment to self being a particular way. > ... > > > > According to one famous teacher ill-will and sloth and torpor are both vibhava tanha so oversleeping is a form of mental suicide. And as well as being active more hours per day early risers also have a longer life expectancy. > ... > S: It all comes back to 'now'. Now, we're not sleeping and there is seeing, there is visible object which is seen and there is thinking. If we're worrying now about the sleep and sloth and torpor, it indicates there is no awareness, no understanding of what is conditioned now. > > Look forward to hearing more from you, Antony and perhaps to seeing you again. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #127996 From: "antony272b2" wrote: > > Dear group, > > I heard a nice one: > > "We want to know a lot, but we don't understand the present moment." > > phil > #127997 From: "antony272b2" wrote: > > Dear Phil, > Op 20-nov-2012, om 7:33 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > "Can there be thinking about people and things without seeing?" > ------- > N: Seeing sees visible object and sa~n~naa remembers and then we > think of stories. Atta sa~n~naa is likely to come in, wrong > remembrance of self. > Nina. > Antony: I wrote to one of my groups: "Recollection of generosity (caganussati) is not nostalgia but is wisdom regarding the true depth of the present moment, that social isolation need not be debilitating if there is the extrasensory experience not erased by momentary impermanence in one's visual and auditory fields." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dana-giving/message/443 From: The sense of dana and social inclusion over time (with mp3 audio in files section) by Antony Woods With metta / Antony. #127998 From: "philip" "I don't have any problems other than the past, present and future." The present reality is covered up by our kilesa-rooted thinking about future and past and even present when we try too hard to grasp the present reality, with greed for results. The way of understanding with detachment arises in very very very rare monenrs but there can be patience to appreciate them, and they are accumulated in a beneficial way. This is bhavana. But this goes against the way of the world, which is lobha (greed.) Thus the Buddha thought not to teach... As for the sloth and torpor, remember: "it has already arisen." If it hadn't arisen, it couldn't be understood. Fighting it will just lead to accumulating more dosa and wrong belief in the ability to control dhammas. Understanding and only understanding can lead out of it. Just understand! phil #127999 From: "philip"