#128000 From: "azita" wrote: > > > > Dear group, > > I heard a nice one: > > "We want to know a lot, but we don't understand the present moment." > > phil > #128001 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > > 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: (BTW, could not find this passage in either of the translations of MN22 on the ATI website.) > > H: I got it from here: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html > =============== J: Then it's not surprising I couldn't find it in MN22 :-)) > =============== > > J: I'm not familiar with the expression "the ceasing of doing", > > H: 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. > =============== J: There's a lot to discuss here :-)) First, there's the concept of `voluntary activity', as an example of which you give `looking'. In ordinary speech, the (positive act of) looking is more than (mere) seeing, just as we also distinguish between `listening to' and `hearing'. Are you making that distinction here, or do you count all seeing and hearing as `voluntary activities'? What about breathing, coughing, blinking? Secondly, you seem to be defining samatha as any ceasing of voluntary activity. That is not a definition I've come across elsewhere. To my understanding, samatha is the calm that is associated with any moment of kusala, whether or not of a `ceasing of voluntary activity' kind. The ceasing of voluntary activity could be kusala or it could of course be akusala. Finally, if there is the closing of eyelids in order to cease looking, I don't see how this isn't simply replacing one voluntary activity (looking) with another (closing one's eyes). In what sense do you see the latter as being qualitatively different from the former? > =============== > > J" but I am pretty sure that it is certainly not the present reality for anyone here. > > H: I'd be interested to know by which means you gain such certainty. > =============== J: I mistook your meaning of "the ceasing of voluntary activity". As you've explained it, that expression means nothing more than, for example, closing one's eyes. So yes, that could be the present reality for someone. > =============== > H: 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. > =============== J: To my understanding, the reference in the suttas to "having put away covetousness and grief" is a reference to moments of kusala, not to (physically) blocking a sense-door. > =============== > J: With apologies for the delay in replying (blame it on recent travels). > > H: No, travels are foisted on no-one. I blame you, squarely :-) > =============== J: I should have known better than to try such a lame excuse on you, Herman :-)) Jon #128003 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon (and Herman), > > you wrote: > > 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. > > D: just an additional comment : > > yes, enlightened beings have broken the series of connections set out in D.O. . . . > =============== J: As far as I know, the texts do not talk about `breaking' the chain of DO. The chain is either going one way (anuloma = with the flow) by virtue of the occurring of ignorance, leading to further existence, or the other way (patiloma = against the flow) by virtue of the occurring of panna, leading to release from samsara. In other words, ignorance is either being accumulated or destroyed. There is no scenario in the texts of `interrupting' the chain that leads to further existence part way through. > =============== > D: Nyanatiloka's presentation of Paticca-samuppada , 4 pages in the dictionary , is recommended to be read ...besides many elaborations of other scholars. > > The Venerable wrote in the preface of his dictionary : > "The expositions concerning the true nature of the 8-fold Path, the 4 Noble Truths, the paticca-samuppada and the 5 groups of existence - doctrines which, with regard to their true nature, have been often misunderstood by Western authors - are sure to come to many as a revelation.On the doctrine of anatta, or 'egolessness', i.e. the impersonality and emptiness of all phenomena of existence, the author repeatedly felt the necessity of throwing light from every possible point of view, for it is exactly this doctrine which, together with the doctrine of the conditionality of all phenomena of existence, constitutes the very essence of the whole Teaching of the Buddha without which it will be by no means possible to understand it in its true light. Thus the doctrine of impersonality runs like a red thread right through the whole book." > > unquote > =============== J: I am quite an admirer of Ven Nyanatiloka, based on his `Buddhist Dictionary' and `Word of the Buddha' publications, and I particularly like his description above of anatta as "the impersonality and emptiness of all phenomena of existence". > =============== > D: The Law of Dependent Orgination , showing the " whole mass of the orgination of suffering" , i.e. the background of the first and second > Noble Truth and is fundamental to understand the proposition of the anatta doctrine. > > Like kamma , as you pointed out , D.O. is not imponderible , and it is not said so , though the understanding of the latter , as the Buddha pointed out to Ananda, isn't easy... > =============== J: Right, not easy :-)) Jon #128004 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > On 21 November 2012 00:34, jonoabb wrote: > > H: 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. > =============== J: To my understanding, kamma as action and kamma as intention mean the same, the difference being solely in the manner of expression. If we talk about action as being kamma, we need to know what aspect of the action in particular it is that constitutes the kamma. And the answer is, the accompanying intention. But either form of reference is OK. > =============== > H: Do you agree that this is the appropriate reading here? > =============== J: As indicated above, I'm fine with kamma as action :-)) Jon #128005 From: "sarah" wrote: > One pervasive feature of a view is that it is speculative - <....> > An example of a view is: > > All dhammas arise by conditions. .... S: How else could seeing now, visible object now, attachment now, arise? Metta Sarah ===== #128006 From: "sarah" wrote: > you wrote .... S: Pls note, these extracts were given by Tam, not me. (see subject heading). As she had some difficulty posting, I just helped f/w the post. ... > > Achaan: Are you interested in life? > Answer: Yes > Achaan: What is it? You are interested in what? You can say that I am interested in life, but what is life? If there is no seeing right now, can there be life? If there is no hearing, no thinking, can there be life? > 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!But if we begin to understand just one word at a time, then we can get more understanding of another word and another word on and on, then we can understand what we are saying in a day > > To be continued.... > > Life is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking with or without right understanding... > What appears now? ... S: Tam, excellent quotes. Yes, please share any more of your hard work. ... > > 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 ? ;-) ... S: Just seeing 'going along', hearing and other dhammas:-) Life now - just these elements, no self at all. "One's own experience" - again just understanding's experience of what the reality, life, really is. So back to what is dhamma now? Thx for your interest. Metta Sarah ===== #128007 From: "sarah" wrote: > > 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 a story all about "me being tiresome":-) Back to the citta now.... ... > > >S: 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. .... S: Well certainly not to nibbana. As for the factors of the path, these are dukkha and can be objects of clinging except when they arise with lokuttara magga cittas. ... > > 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.) .... S: It's obvious that any dhammas arising now can be the object of clinging. I think that's about as far as the obviousness goes. Even the dukkha lakkhana of conditioned dhammas can only be properly understood when there is the direct understanding of the arising and falling away of dhammas, so not even at the first stages of insight. Metta Sarah ==== #128008 From: "sarah" wrote: > >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. .... S: So you are saying that viriya is anatta, conditioned, but doesn't arise? How can a dhamma which is conditioned not arise? What does conditioned mean? What does 'produced' mean? ... > > 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. .... S: Many people before the Buddha developed great dana and "other merit making things". Did these lead to the 8-fold path without the Teachings of a Samma-sambuddha? ... > >S: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? > > >A: True understanding requires lots of factors. Merely thinking and reading is not enough. IMHO. ... S: Without hearing/reading and careful consideration of what is heard, can understanding develop? Can anyone understand about present realities as anatta without the Teachings of the Buddha? Metta Sarah ==== #128009 From: "sarah" wrote: > 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. ... > Antony: So I've been visualizing getting rid of sloth and torpor as standing up out of bed with everything else in the world remaining equal (when in reality this long post has resulted). .... S: I think this is a good example of "me" trying to get rid of the hindrances - no understanding of presently appearing realities. It's still "me" who has sloth and torpor - a story of getting up and so on. And now, there's no "standing up out of bed", so what are the realities appearing now? Otherwise, we're always thinking of another time, another situation and forgetting about the dhammas now. ... >There is a great sutta AN6:17 p873 of NDB. Here is the metta.lk/tipitaka translation: ... S: Thx for sharing the good sutta. ><....> We will protect our mental faculties, know the right amount to partake, will be reflective of meritorious things, we will develop the enlightenment factors, in the early and late hours of the night. Bhikkhus, it is in this manner, that you should train." > http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara4/6-chakkanipa\ ta/002-saraniyavaggo-e.html ... S: Anytime at all - no enlightenment factors without the development of understanding now. ... > > Antony: I have a slightly swollen foot from years of limping in the mid 2000's (we met up in the city in August 2005). I managed three expeditions to the city in October including donating an Anguttara Nikaya and a meeting with the patron of the Buddhist Library. (I have another copy to donate to a monk in Lewisham when I have confidence with my foot.) What is Pt short for? Will it be a large gathering? .... S: If you are interested in coming we can try to coordinate something off-list with Pt. He may be able to pick you up somewhere on his route, for example. I believe Pt is short for Russian/serbian Peter - something like Pyetr or Pyotr as in Pyotr Tchaikovsky. I was told once but may have got it wrong. It'll be a small gathering, don't worry. Metta Sarah ===== #128010 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > [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.] > ... J: Yes, my thanks to Jagkrit for supplying the missing section (missing because I forgot to off-pause my recorder after a short break in the discussion!). All the material recorded in Poland is now up on the website. In addition I have corrected a problem (weak voice) with track #3 of the discussion on the morning of Thursday 13 September (file name: 2012-09-13-am-00-c), so if you've previously downloaded that track you may wish to re-download. Jon #128011 From: "sarah" > Achaan: Are you interested in life? > Answer: Yes > Achaan: What is it? You are interested in what? You can say that I am interested in life, but what is life? If there is no seeing right now, can there be life? If there is no hearing, no thinking, can there be life? > 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!But if we begin to understand just one word at a time, then we can get more understanding of another word and another word on and on, then we can understand what we are saying in a day > > To be continued.... #128012 From: "truth_aerator" .... > > S: So you are saying that viriya is anatta, conditioned, but doesn't arise? How can a dhamma which is conditioned not arise? What does conditioned mean? What does 'produced' mean? > ... Viriya arises, of course. > S: Many people before the Buddha developed great dana and "other >merit making things". Did these lead to the 8-fold path without the >Teachings of a Samma-sambuddha? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After them he was able to discover N8P, and if there is such thing as kamma, then good kamma helps the path. A starving kid caught in tribal warfare in Africa cannot even hear the Dhamma... >S: Without hearing/reading and careful consideration of what is >heard, can understanding develop? Can anyone understand about >present realities as anatta without the Teachings of the Buddha? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are right. With metta, Alex #128013 From: Nina van Gorkom ---------- Nina. #128014 From: "Dieter Moeller" =============== J: As far as I know, the texts do not talk about `breaking' the chain of DO. The chain is either going one way (anuloma = with the flow) by virtue of the occurring of ignorance, leading to further existence, or the other way (patiloma = against the flow) by virtue of the occurring of panna, leading to release from samsara. D: breaking the chain ( by its weakest links ..) and going the way of cessation against the flow.. I recall vaguely sutta sources .. but you may be right, that the texts are not directly saying 'breaking the chain'. D.O. provides the background of the first 2 Noble Truth and hints where the chain can be broken. The (Know) How is of course the 8fold Noble Path. J:In other words, ignorance is either being accumulated or destroyed. D: ignorance can be replaced gradually by insight .. no more fuel for the fire , ignorance will cease too J:There is no scenario in the texts of `interrupting' the chain that leads to further existence part way through. D: the scenario concerns magga phala which is lokuttara .. an interruption for the 3 first types of the Noble Ones at the moment of path consciousness. J: I am quite an admirer of Ven Nyanatiloka, based on his `Buddhist Dictionary' and `Word of the Buddha' publications, and I particularly like his description above of anatta as "the impersonality and emptiness of all phenomena of existence". D: me too .. a good source of mediation for further discussion ;-) with Metta Dieter , #128015 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:54 am Subject: Re: Fw: The Storm kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ---- > > 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. >> > S: Well certainly not to nibbana. As for the factors of the path, these are dukkha and can be objects of clinging except when they arise with lokuttara magga cittas. --------- KH: That's disappointing, I thought I had learnt something new. :-) At the risk of wasting anyone's time with another of my original theories, let me briefly suggest that the four noble truths *categorise* everything the Buddha taught. In that case, the first category would be as I have suggested above - except I should have said it excluded all three other categories, not just the third and fourth. Ken H #128016 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Friends, > > > 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. > > This, too, is merely the statement of a view. It is a particularly self-defeating statement of a view, at that. A more concise paraphrase of it would be: This is a statement (about x, y, z). But in fact, there are no statements. > Metta > > Sarah > ======. > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128017 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? > > > .... > >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? > > Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do not exhaust what is real. Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon: 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. ======== My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also reality 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. > ... > As you and I both know, stating a view about how things really would be in the absence of thinking, does nothing to end thinking. Only ceasing thinking ends thinking, and that is also when notions of daily life cease. > > > >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. > Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you are doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational" (making futures). > What is seen now? > > Metta > > Sarah > ====_,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128018 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > One pervasive feature of a view is that it is speculative - <....> > > > > An example of a view is: > > > > All dhammas arise by conditions. > .... > S: How else could seeing now, visible object now, attachment now, arise? > I agree that it is an interesting question. I wouldn't agree that it is wholesomely answered by adopting a position of which there can be no certainty. What we can be sure of is that thoughts about "all dhammas" are necessarily speculative, because the only dhammas that are there are "these dhammas", or "this dhamma". If there is no understanding of what led to the arising of "this dhamma" (that applies to all of us), why bother to make claims about dhammas that have not arisen? > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128019 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: From: han tun Subject: [dsg] A passage from Anguttara Nikaya To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, November 25, 2012, 3:46 AM Dear Friends, Dukanipaatapaa.li, 2. Adhikara.navaggo §19 [AN 2.2.9. Abandon Evil: translated by Venerables Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] [AN 2.19 Kusala Sutta: Skillful: in Access To Insight] 19. "Akusala.m, bhikkhave, pajahatha. Sakkaa, bhikkhave, akusala.m pajahitu.m. No ceda.m, bhikkhave, sakkaa abhavissa akusala.m pajahitu.m, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m 'akusala.m, bhikkhave, pajahathaa'ti. "Abandon evil, O monks! One can abandon evil, monks. If it were impossible to abandon evil, I would not ask you to do so. But as it can be done, therefore I say, "Abandon evil!" --------------- "Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, sakkaa akusala.m pajahitu.m tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami 'akusala.m, bhikkhave, pajahathaa'ti. Akusala~nca hida.m, bhikkhave, pahiina.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya sa.mvatteyya naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m 'akusala.m, bhikkhave, pajahathaa'ti. Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, akusala.m pahiina.m hitaaya sukhaaya sa.mvattati tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami 'akusala.m , bhikkhave, pajahathaa'"ti. "If this abandoning of evil would bring harm and suffering, I would not ask you to abandon it. But as the abandoning of evil brings well-being and happiness, therefore I say, "Abandon evil!" =============== "Kusala.m, bhikkhave, bhaavetha. Sakkaa, bhikkhave, kusala.m bhaavetu.m. No ceda.m, bhikkhave, sakkaa abhavissa kusala.m bhaavetu.m, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m 'kusala.m, bhikkhave, bhaavethaa'ti. "Cultivate the good, O monks! One can cultivate the good, monks. If it were impossible to cultivate the good, I would not ask you to do so. But as it can be done, therefore I say, "Cultivate the good!" --------------- "Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, sakkaa kusala.m bhaavetu.m tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami 'kusala.m, bhikkhave, bhaavethaa'ti. Kusala~nca hida.m, bhikkhave, bhaavita.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya sa.mvatteyya, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m 'kusala.m, bhikkhave, bhaavethaa'ti. Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, kusala.m bhaavita.m hitaaya sukhaaya sa.mvattati tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami 'kusala.m, bhikkhave, bhaavethaa'"ti. "If this cultivation of the good would bring harm and suffering, I would not ask you to cultivate it. But as the cultivation of the good brings well-being and happiness, therefore I say, "Cultivate the good!" [Note 14] [Note 14] This text proclaims, in simple and memorable words, the human potential for achieving the good, thus invalidating the common charge that Buddhism is pessimistic. But since human beings have, as we know only too well, also a strong potential for evil, there is as little ground for unreserved optimism. Which of our potentialities, that for good or for evil, becomes actual, depends on our own choice. What makes a human being, is to have choices and to make use of them. The range of our choices and our prior awareness of them will expand with the growth of mindfulness and wisdom. And along with the growth of these two qualities, those forces that seem to "condition" and even compel our choices into the wrong direction will become weakened. It is, indeed, a bold and heartening assurance of the Buddha - a veritable "lion's roar" - when he said, in such a wide and deep sense, that the good can be attained and the evil can be conquered. --------------- Han: I like [Note 14]. with metta, Han #128024 From: "colette_aube" > > > 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? > > > > > Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do not > exhaust what is real. > > Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon: > > 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. > ======== > > My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also reality > > colette: I got down to here and had to STOP. Last night,as I began to become lost in meditation, I know that I was at the point of having to define: WHAT ART IS in the context of artistic expression used as a vehicle of COMMUNICATION. The first objective is to establish what ART is which has always been a way to communicate one thought to another person, BUT WHERE DID THE WAY OF EXPRESSING THE THOUGHT COME FROM i.e. the most ancient pictures of the caves in France depicting animals and nature or maybe even the art of depicting enclosures such as the solar calender in Germany, Stonehenge/Woodhenge, etc,. How did they establish themselves as being existent? EIGHT CONSCIOUSNESSES using the ALAYA VIJNAYA AS THE FOUNDATION (the storehouse consciousness). Where such a pauper like myself is commonly standing there befuddled and amused by the contradiction of REALITY: How is it that "consciousness" exists? What does, what performs, the COGNITIVE ACT? Admittedly, the WAVE or VIBRATION existed and exists whether your MIND is there to cognize it or not i.e. I do not have to be there to know that the tree made a sound when it fell. HOW CAN I BE SO SURE? Does the WAVE make a sound or does the vibration make the sound? Does the sound or vibration create my mind so that my mind can cognize it? Is it possible that I am the lower intelligence created by, manifestation, a RUPA and that my person, that my body, that I am nothing more than a robot to what I have always considered as being RUPA? What is NAMA? Isn't more probable that NAMA actually is RUPA? If so, then how can there be a difference between THOUGHT (Mind Only) and EXPERIENCE (the external world)? How is there a real difference between EXTERNAL and INTERNAL between NAMA and RUPA? My, this is a most spectacular THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY for me! Thank you all for your gifts! What a game! Roll those dice and lets play some more. <...> I would never have known such sarcasm if not for the generosity of Sarah and Herman. Thank you both. good to hear from you. carry on. toodles, colette #128025 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > > 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: (BTW, could not find this passage in either of the translations of > MN22 on the ATI website.) > > > > H: I got it from here: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html > > =============== > > J: Then it's not surprising I couldn't find it in MN22 :-)) > > :-) > > =============== > > > J: I'm not familiar with the expression "the ceasing of doing", > > > > H: 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. > > =============== > > J: There's a lot to discuss here :-)) > > First, there's the concept of `voluntary activity', as an example of which > you give `looking'. > > In ordinary speech, the (positive act of) looking is more than (mere) > seeing, just as we also distinguish between `listening to' and `hearing'. > Are you making that distinction here, or do you count all seeing and > hearing as `voluntary activities'? What about breathing, coughing, blinking? > > Yes, I am making that distinction. You could say that voluntary activity in my usage is activity that one can cease. Seeing and hearing occur all the time, well before volition becomes involved, and are thus not voluntary - but looking and listening are. Blinking and coughing as reflex cannot be suppressed, and breathing patterns can voluntarily be altered, but not ceased, IMO. > Secondly, you seem to be defining samatha as any ceasing of voluntary > activity. That is not a definition I've come across elsewhere. To my > understanding, samatha is the calm that is associated with any moment of > kusala, whether or not of a `ceasing of voluntary activity' kind. The > ceasing of voluntary activity could be kusala or it could of course be > akusala. > No, I didn't say that samatha IS the ceasing of voluntary activity, but that it develops BY ceasing of voluntary activity. I don't understand how the non-doing of something could be akusala. Could you explain? > Finally, if there is the closing of eyelids in order to cease looking, I > don't see how this isn't simply replacing one voluntary activity (looking) > with another (closing one's eyes). In what sense do you see the latter as > being qualitatively different from the former? > > Obviously we agree that whether the eyelids are open or closed, and therefore looking, is voluntary. We agree that looking is an act. Not-looking is certainly also an act, but that doesn't mean that looking is qualitatively similar or identical to not-looking. Far from it. The world for one who is looking is totally different to the world of one who is not looking. > > =============== > > > J" but I am pretty sure that it is certainly not the present reality > for anyone here. > > > > H: I'd be interested to know by which means you gain such certainty. > > =============== > > J: I mistook your meaning of "the ceasing of voluntary activity". As > you've explained it, that expression means nothing more than, for example, > closing one's eyes. So yes, that could be the present reality for someone. > > > =============== > > H: 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. > > =============== > > J: To my understanding, the reference in the suttas to "having put away > covetousness and grief" is a reference to moments of kusala, not to > (physically) blocking a sense-door. > To your understanding, are the references to jhana about a person with eyes open or closed? > > =============== > > J: With apologies for the delay in replying (blame it on recent travels). > > > > H: No, travels are foisted on no-one. I blame you, squarely :-) > > =============== > > J: I should have known better than to try such a lame excuse on you, > Herman :-)) > > :-) > Jon > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128026 From: Tam Bach wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > On 21 November 2012 00:34, jonoabb wrote: > > > > H: 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. > > =============== > > J: To my understanding, kamma as action and kamma as intention mean the > same, the difference being solely in the manner of expression. > > If we talk about action as being kamma, we need to know what aspect of the > action in particular it is that constitutes the kamma. And the answer is, > the accompanying intention. > > I would agree with you if we are talking about the fine material world or the immaterial world. But in the daily life world intention and action stand in no necessary relationship. Intention has no effect on the world, only on further thinking. It is action that has an effect, and therefore in this realm it is action, not intention, that counts in this realm. > But either form of reference is OK. > > > =============== > > H: Do you agree that this is the appropriate reading here? > > =============== > > J: As indicated above, I'm fine with kamma as action :-)) > Cool. Taking it one step further, you asked me to elaborate on this: > but awareness / insight also makes it impossible to hold vipaka as a support for kamma. What I meant was that in the context of the daily life world, when there is awareness/insight, whatever has been done in the past is never a reason for what one is doing now - there is no necessary connection between vipaka and action. Appeals to unknown conditions hold no water, they are lame excuses :-). If that is still not clear, feel free to ask some more. > Jon > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128028 From: Nina van Gorkom ****** Nina. #128032 From: "Dieter Moeller" 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: my former question ...quoting :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 .. All cetasikas in this or that way can /do color the citta. Why are some mentioned under cittanupassana , others under dhammanupassan? however ..not really important > > 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: there must be intention e.g. to remain focused , must it not? DN 22 : The Blessed One said this: "This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding - in other words, the four frames of reference. Which four? "There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself - ardent, alert, & mindful - putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves - ardent, alert, & mindful - putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world." ------ > > 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:In terms of D.O. the citta is given respectively conditioned (by previous kamma (sankhara 2nd.) but there is the interrelation with cetasika , especially mental formation (sankhara khandha) and so we can understand why vinnana conditions nama/rupa..nama-rupa conditions vinnana.. new kamma is here to find. ------ 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. D: how about 'kiriya' = " means just performance but not kammic force is left due to that performance". N: 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: the general definition ,e.g. DN 22 "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort. > 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: as part of Satipatthana ..like DN 22 " 3] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)" with Metta Dieter #128033 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > H: 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. > > > =============== > > > > J: To my understanding, kamma as action and kamma as intention mean the > > same, the difference being solely in the manner of expression. When Jon says that, I believe he means they are "the same" because the cetana is the same, and it's the cetana that counts, not the expression. If one is looking for the active expression of the kamma to "count," then Jon is still not agreeing with anything like that. The outer action does not count, if I read Jon correctly. > > If we talk about action as being kamma, we need to know what aspect of the > > action in particular it is that constitutes the kamma. And the answer is, > > the accompanying intention. > > > > > I would agree with you if we are talking about the fine material world or > the immaterial world. > > But in the daily life world intention and action stand in no necessary > relationship. Intention has no effect on the world, only on further > thinking. It is action that has an effect, and therefore in this realm it > is action, not intention, that counts in this realm. The word "action" is very dicey in this discussion, because it is not being used at all the same way. It is one of those words that causes trouble in talking about kamma. When you say intention is only significant in a non-physical realm, you are using intention as a fine-material element that will impact the actual doings of such a realm, and you are thinking of action as being the physical expression that only applies to the physical world. All movement of anything is a form of action, regardless of whether the movement is material or immaterial. If one has a thought, that thought is an action on the level of thought. Your thesis is that such an "internal" or non-material action has no effect on the world of daily life in a physically embodied world, but it would in an arupa world. But I think in the intention-based theory of kamma the energetic or spiritual forces put into play by intention do cause action on the arupa level, even if we are living in a plane of physical manifestation. So rather than being a choice between planes, I think it's more of a choice between theories. If one believes in a world in which physical actions are causes rather than effects, then that is the case in rupa plane or arupa plane. And if one believes that it is the conscious act that creates the kamma, then it doesn't matter if that conscious act is on the level of intention or physical action. The thought will put spiritual energy into play, just as thought connected to speech and action will put spiritual energy into play, but it is always the consciousness which causes the intention that creates kamma. In other words, accidents don't cause kamma, only intentional action does. If a wheel falls off of a cart and crushes the person underneath, no kamma. If a person sawed the wheel off because they intended to kill the other person, kamma. So it is the intention that makes the difference. The Buddha also conveniently identified three levels of kamma, mental, spoken and physical action - each though emanates from cetana. > > But either form of reference is OK. > > > > > =============== > > > H: Do you agree that this is the appropriate reading here? > > > =============== > > > > J: As indicated above, I'm fine with kamma as action :-)) But Jon does not mean physical action by this definition, I believe. > Cool. Taking it one step further, you asked me to elaborate on this: > > > but awareness / insight also makes it impossible to hold vipaka as a > support for kamma. > > > What I meant was that in the context of the daily life world, when there is > awareness/insight, whatever has been done in the past is never a reason for > what one is doing now - there is no necessary connection between vipaka and > action. Appeals to unknown conditions hold no water, they are lame > excuses :-). There are many instances in conventional life in which past actions gradually create conditions for future results. To take a simple example, every time I see you I say something annoying. You register the annoyance and a bit of irritation, but not enough to get angry at me. Every time I do this you get a little more irritated, and eventually I say something to you and you blow up and yell at me. Is there a necessary connection between this result and the former conditions that were built up? Of course. The lame excuse is when the irritating person says "Why did you yell at me?" as if they had never said anything annoying to cause this reaction. Many times the reactions or results we get are separated in time and in obvious connection from the actions that cause these results, but the connection is not obscure. It's a good metaphor for how kamma relates to vipaka. If you extrapolate this metaphor to the level of spiritual forces at play - depending on your belief system - it is very possible to imagine a similar situation. I kill insects in anger a thousand times, and the universe "owes" me an equal and opposite reaction to complete the waves caused by my actions. Eventually I break my toe or someone hits me in the nose, or I get kidney stones, or I'm born into a family of philosophers - various tortures are possible in the future. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #128034 From: Tam Bach To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:40 PM Subject: [dsg] Poland. Just now (3). Dear friends, Just now (3). Acharn: ****** Nina. ------------------------------------ #128035 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > So, is there seeing now? > > -- > Cheers > > Herman > > > I do not know what I do not know > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128042 From: Herman wrote: > So, is there seeing now? > > -- > Cheers > > Herman > > > I do not know what I do not know > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128043 From: "philip" wrote: > ** > > > > > Hi Sarah > > Thanks, but don't worry about rushing on Kk12 just for me. It sounds like > the Vietnam discussions could come first. The way you've all been talking > about that trip has been fairly ecstatic! > > Really, no need to rush to PHIL that order :) > > Phil > > Is there seeing now? Ha ha ha ;-) -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128045 From: "sarah" wrote: > Thanks, but don't worry about rushing on Kk12 just for me. It sounds like the Vietnam discussions could come first. The way you've all been talking about that trip has been fairly ecstatic! ... S: Not just for you - I remember we were all "ecstatic" after the KK talks too:-) Also, much easier editing to do, so we already have them ready to go! Minimalist editing these days, though still a lot of work. I assure you that I see all these edited sets as my 'pension', so lots of 'me' in there too! Metta Sarah ===== #128046 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > you wrote: > > Thanks for coming in on this thread. > > > D: long time no talk ;-) > =============== J: Good to have you back :-)) > =============== > D: breaking the chain ( by its weakest links ..) and going the way of cessation against the flow.. > I recall vaguely sutta sources .. but you may be right, that the texts are not directly saying 'breaking the chain'. D.O. provides the background of the first 2 Noble Truth and hints where the chain can be broken. The (Know) How is of course the 8fold Noble Path. > =============== J: I think you'll find that the notion of `breaking' the chain of DO, and of there being `stronger' or `weaker' links, is a relatively modern (i.e., 20th Century) one and not part of the teachings as such. > =============== > J:There is no scenario in the texts of `interrupting' the chain that leads to further existence part way through. > > D: the scenario concerns magga phala which is lokuttara .. an interruption for the 3 first types of the Noble Ones at the moment of path consciousness. > =============== J: Magga citta can only arise if awareness and insight (being the beginning moment of the patiloma chain) have been developed to the extent that ignorance (being the beginning moment of the anuloma chain) is over-powered. It is the operation of DO in its patiloma order that achieves the `breaking/interrupting' of DO in its anuloma order. > =============== > J: I am quite an admirer of Ven Nyanatiloka, based on his `Buddhist Dictionary' and `Word of the Buddha' publications, and I particularly like his description above of anatta as "the impersonality and emptiness of all phenomena of existence". > > > D: me too .. a good source of mediation for further discussion ;-) > =============== J: Yes, fine by me. Perhaps we should see what Ven. Nyanatiloka has to say about 'breaking the chain' of DO :-)) Jon #128047 From: "sarah" 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!" ... S: That's why we have a "useful posts" section:-) ... > > 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. ... S: There's always more interest in nibbana or in finding some eternal essence than there is in understanding present realities. Why? Ignorance and wrong view always take us away from what can be experienced and known now. Also the idea of self is so deeply rooted that there are always efforts to look for some esoteric support for the wrong views in the Buddha's teachings. .... > 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. ... S: Thanks for your summary. I'm glad you found us here. You can contribute a lot whilst getting "a handle on Abhidhamma":-) What does it mean to get such a "handle"? It means just beginning to understand what appears now, seeing, visible object, attachment, thinking and so on - all anatta. Metta Sarah ===== #128048 From: "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > So, next time you travel to Poland or Vietnam or Antarctica, in order to be > asked the question: > > Is there seeing now? > > Just answer NO, even if you don't undertsand that, and save yourself the > plane fare to Peru :-) > > Ciao ============================ Herman, maybe I've missed prior, more detailed posts of yours on this topic, but I would like to read something a bit less cryptic than this. What are you asserting exactly, and what are the details that are your basis for it? I may be being more than a bit dense on this, but I'm missing your point, and I would really like to understand it. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128050 From: Eileen Iseman Dear Nina, > > continue.. > > you wrote: > > D: no nit- picking intended , just noted that the classifications > > citta and cetasika seem to be distinct from Abhidhamma in some > > aspects.. > > > ------- > > > 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: there must be intention e.g. to remain focused , must it not? > DN 22 : .. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental > qualities in & of themselves - ardent, alert, & mindful - putting > aside greed & distress with reference to the world." > ------ N: The translation of remain focussed can lead us astray. Sati is not concentration. Soma Thera: he lives contemplating feelings in the feelings... vedanaasu vedanaanupassii viharati. Moreover intention is not the Path, it is not a Path factor. > > ------ > 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. > > D: how about 'kiriya' = " means just performance but not kammic > force is left due to that performance". > ------ N: Only for the arahat. > --------- > Nina. #128052 From: Nina van Gorkom > 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 . > ------ N: You like a glass of water, but this may not be accompanied by pleasant feeling. So many moments that we like something but that there is not a strong liking, and then there can be indifferent feeling. ------ Nina. #128053 From: Nina van Gorkom ***** Nina. #128054 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > The answer is no, by the way :-) Actually, the answer is 'yes.' ;-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > On 26 November 2012 18:14, Herman wrote: > > > So, is there seeing now? > > > > -- > > Cheers > > > > Herman #128055 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi, Herman - > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > So, next time you travel to Poland or Vietnam or Antarctica, in order to > be > > asked the question: > > > > Is there seeing now? > > > > Just answer NO, even if you don't undertsand that, and save yourself the > > plane fare to Peru :-) > > > > Ciao > ============================ > Herman, maybe I've missed prior, more detailed posts of yours on this > topic, but I would like to read something a bit less cryptic than this. > What are you asserting exactly, and what are the details that are your > basis for it? I may be being more than a bit dense on this, but I'm missing > your point, and I would really like to understand it. > > Yes, you are right - sorry for being cryptic, and thanks for asking for clarification. My understanding of a common DSG view is that there is such a thing as "seeing now". By that is meant a bare seeing, a seeing at paramattha dhamma level, a seeing that is entirely without any conceptual framework but still knowable / experienced. Not only do I deny on behalf of everyone that there is any such seeing happening now, I also deny it as a possibility. I deny it mainly on the basis of neuroscience, in which it is well understood that only processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are represented in awareness. It is well established that most, if not all visual pre-processing occurs in neural pathways outside of the cerebral cortex, and therefore those "seeing" processes are outside of awareness, or unconscious. In a more concise form, on the basis of neuroscience, there is no such thing as a non-conceptual seeing of which there is awareness. Unless we are talking about mind-made seeing, as in meditation, but I never got the idea that this is what the common DSG view is referring to. I hope that clarifies somewhat :-) Cheers > With metta, > Howard > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > __._ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128056 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman and Jon. > This is a subject of some interest to me, so if you don't mind, I will > jump in. > With a little luck, I can find areas to disagree with both of you. :-) > > :-) Thanks for coming in on this. If you don't mind I'll wait to read what Jon has to say, if anything, and we'll take it from there. Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128057 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Sarah and Herman, > > THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. > > I had a thought of an AVENUE, a rue, of exploration last night as I was > meditating and because of the depth of the meditation (I guess), I forgot, > > UNTIL NOW > > Until I read this disparity: > I am sorry, but I just don't follow your train of thinking, but in the meantime, it sure is good to "see you around" :-) Feel free to clarify if you wish. > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do not > > exhaust what is real. > > > > Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon: > > > > 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. > > ======== > > > > My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also > reality > > > > > colette: I got down to here and had to STOP. > > Last night,as I began to become lost in meditation, I know that I was at > the point of having to define: WHAT ART IS in the context of artistic > expression used as a vehicle of COMMUNICATION. The first objective is to > establish what ART is which has always been a way to communicate one > thought to another person, BUT WHERE DID THE WAY OF EXPRESSING THE THOUGHT > COME FROM i.e. the most ancient pictures of the caves in France depicting > animals and nature or maybe even the art of depicting enclosures such as > the solar calender in Germany, Stonehenge/Woodhenge, etc,. How did they > establish themselves as being existent? > > EIGHT CONSCIOUSNESSES using the ALAYA VIJNAYA AS THE FOUNDATION (the > storehouse consciousness). Where such a pauper like myself is commonly > standing there befuddled and amused by the contradiction of REALITY: > > How is it that "consciousness" exists? What does, what performs, the > COGNITIVE ACT? > > Admittedly, the WAVE or VIBRATION existed and exists whether your MIND is > there to cognize it or not i.e. I do not have to be there to know that the > tree made a sound when it fell. HOW CAN I BE SO SURE? Does the WAVE make a > sound or does the vibration make the sound? Does the sound or vibration > create my mind so that my mind can cognize it? Is it possible that I am the > lower intelligence created by, manifestation, a RUPA and that my person, > that my body, that I am nothing more than a robot to what I have always > considered as being RUPA? What is NAMA? Isn't more probable that NAMA > actually is RUPA? If so, then how can there be a difference between THOUGHT > (Mind Only) and EXPERIENCE (the external world)? How is there a real > difference between EXTERNAL and INTERNAL between NAMA and RUPA? > > My, this is a most spectacular THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY for me! Thank you all > for your gifts! > > What a game! Roll those dice and lets play some more. > <...> > > I would never have known such sarcasm if not for the generosity of Sarah > and Herman. Thank you both. good to hear from you. > > carry on. > > toodles, > colette > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128058 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi, My name is Eileen. I appreciate being accepted into your group. My > search for > inter-peace has expanded past religious dogma and into soul awakening as > I explore > a new path. I have a lot to learn and a lot of changes to make. > Thanks for > having me. > Eileen > __,_._ > Welcome to the group, and I sincerely hope you find what you are looking for :-) -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128059 From: "sarah" wrote: > > 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. ... >PT: 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). ... S: Yes. Conditioned dhammas are never in anyone's control. ... >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. .... S: Right. As you say, control was being discussed as a "vague term" easily interpreted as a self capable of entering jhana and so on. I was just stressing that in truth, any dhamma at all is never in anyone's control. .... > > 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? ... S: I would just stress that when certain dhammas become indriyas (faculties) or balas (powers) that they condition other dhammas accordingly. They have developed to the degree that they can have a leading function. When they are balas the saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi and panna are unshakeable. With regard to the path, when panna is a power, it completely understands the realities. Seeing is understood as a nama, visible object as a rupa, no doubt or question at all. This is how the vipassana nanas are realised and the bojjhangas (enlightenment factors) developed. In the development of samatha and attainment of jhanas, it depends on the level of skill, particularly the degree of panna and the jhana factors, as to whether there is one moment of rupa jhana or more such cittas arising in succession. Panna must accompany the javana cittas. The first of these is the parikamma (preparatory citta) which is the condition for appana (absorption cittas). Without the parkikamma citta, there cannot be any jhana cittas. Further cittas are conditioned to arise. After the jhana citta arises for the first time, there are no conditions for it to be succeeded by further jhana cittas. However, when the reviewing processes of cittas arise subsequently (paccavekkhana cittas), the various jhana factors are known by panna, one at a time. By understanding the disadvantage of vitakka, then vicara, (which usually experience sense objects), the jhana cittas can be understood to be even more refined without these. Depending on whether the five masteries (vasii) have been attained, the factors of the lower stages can be abandoned. These masteries include skills such as mastery in adverting to the first jhana, entering into jhana, resolving the duration of the jhana cittas, emerging and reviewing of the factors at anytime. Yes, we can use 'mastery', 'contol' or any terms, but the important point to stress is always that these are all just conditioned dhammas, not in anyone's power or control and that they are all just impermanent elements which do not lead to the removal of the bricks of samsara unless there is right understanding of them as anicca, dukkha and anatta. I'm sure I'm not saying anything new and was only adding an emphasis, rather than a different view. Metta Sarah ==== #128060 From: "sarah" wrote: > > 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. AdChoices #128061 From: "sarah" wrote: > > 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.... ... S: B.Bodhi has quite a good appendix chapter on different conditions at the end of his translation of the Mahanidana Sutta and commentaries. I can't find it on line, so will type out a couple of paragraphs (p. 119) that are relevant: "One final example illustrating a different aspect of conditionality is the statement: 'With clinging as condition there is existence.' The commentary says that clinging is a condition for existence under the headings of both decisive support and conascence. As we saw, 'existence' is explained by the commentators as the kamma leading to renewed existence, and kamma is identified as mundane wholesome and unwholesome volition. Clinging, in turn, is equated with two mental factors: clinging to sense pleasures with greed, the other three kinds of clinging with views. Thus the original sutta statement, reformulated in terms of specific mental factors entering into the Abhidhamma system, expresses the conditionality of sensual greed and views for the volitions they arouse and influence. volition must be present on any occasion of greed or views, and as mental factors they must arise simultaneously; thus clinging is a condition for existence as a conascence condition. "The sub-commentary explains that, as a 'heading', conascence her includes along with itself the mutuality, support, association, presence, and non-disappearance conditions. Since greeed and views are unwholesome mental factors, they pass on their unwholesomeness to their conascent volition. Thus the kamma generated simultaneously with the arising o clinging is necessarily unwholesome. This holds whether the volition expresses itself in bodily or verbal action or remains unexpressed as bare mental action. "In any of its four forms, clinging can also function as a condition for kamma following it after an interval of time. It then becomes a decisive support condition for existence. As a natural decisive support condition for volition occurring at a later time, clinging can motivate volition with an ethical quality opposite to its own; that is, the uwnwholesome greed and views comprised under clinging can induce wholesome kamma leading to favourable forms of rebirth....." S: I would also stress that avijja and lobha can also be considered as indirect causes of kusala. Because of avijja and lobha, there is kamma performed leading to birth. Thus they are the indirect causes of all kusala performed during life as well. We can consider both direct and indirect causes. Without past avijja, no sankhara at all. Even now, kusala cittas are conditioned by many causes - again most important to understand them as conditioned dhammas, not belonging to anyone. With no seeing or hearing, no kusala or akusala at all either. Metta Sarah ====== #128062 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: So you are saying that viriya is anatta, conditioned, but doesn't arise? How can a dhamma which is conditioned not arise? What does conditioned mean? What does 'produced' mean? > > ... > >A: Viriya arises, of course. ... S: Before, you wrote "it is anatta and fully conditioned. but if it is not produced, it doesn't arise." What did this mean? What is the difference between 'conditioned' and 'produced'? ... > > S: Many people before the Buddha developed great dana and "other >merit making things". Did these lead to the 8-fold path without the >Teachings of a Samma-sambuddha? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > After them he was able to discover N8P, and if there is such thing as kamma, then good kamma helps the path. ... S: Only the good kamma at moments of right understanding of realities "helps the path", leading to the stages of insight. ... > > A starving kid caught in tribal warfare in Africa cannot even hear the Dhamma... ... S: Therefore, no chance to develop the path, because no opportunity to understand realities as anatta. ... > >S: Without hearing/reading and careful consideration of what is >heard, can understanding develop? Can anyone understand about >present realities as anatta without the Teachings of the Buddha? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > You are right. ... S: Glad to find some agreement. Metta Sarah ===== #128063 From: "sarah" wrote: > > So, next time you travel to Poland or Vietnam or Antarctica, in order to be > asked the question: > > Is there seeing now? > > Just answer NO, even if you don't undertsand that, and save yourself the > plane fare to Peru :-) .... S: The reason I travel to Poland, Vietnam (or maybe Antarctica if invited!) is because there are people who would like to hear and consider more about what are the realities making up daily life. We could travel for sight-seeing (and many do) or to chat about other topics such as the weather and the food (which we do of course as well), but sharing an understanding of dhammas in these places or here is far more interesting and far more precious. Dhamma friends are to be treasured as well. We spend a lot of time in the company of people with no interest in understanding life better, so it's good to appreciate the company of those that help us consider more deeply what is right and what is meaningful in life. Yes, there is seeing now which sees visible object. No me, no Herman at all. If there's any doubt about what seeing is, what visible object is, it shows we need to hear and consider a lot more. If we try to 'work it out' in scientific terms, we'll never get closer to the truth, never directly understand what appears now. I highly recommend you consider joining us in Thailand in January! You'd be made very welcome and you would not regret it. You'd also meet many friends you've been corresponding with here for years. Metta Sarah ===== #128064 From: Herman <...> Welcome to the group, and I sincerely hope you find what you are looking for :-) <...> #128066 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Hi, My name is Eileen. I appreciate being accepted into your group. My search for > inter-peace has expanded past religious dogma and into soul awakening as I explore > a new path. I have a lot to learn and a lot of changes to make. Thanks for > having me. .... S: You're very welcome. Where do you live? I look forward to any more introduction you care to share. "Past religious dogma....", so are you interested in understanding more about life at this moment? What is life at this moment? What is real now? Is there any self to make changes? Metta (loving kindness) Sarah ===== #128067 From: Nina van Gorkom <...> S: You're very welcome. Where do you live? I look forward to any more introduction you care to share. "Past religious dogma....", so are you interested in understanding more about life at this moment? What is life at this moment? What is real now? Is there any self to make changes? <...> #128069 From: "truth_aerator" S: Before, you wrote "it is anatta and fully conditioned. but if it is >not produced, it doesn't arise." > >What did this mean? What is the difference between 'conditioned' and >'produced'? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Produced = arisen due to causes for it to arise. With best wishes, Alex #128070 From: sprlrt@... Date: Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:54 am Subject: Re: Poland 2 sprlrt Hi Sarah, Jagkrit, & all, > J: > How many silas are there? There are 3 kind of silas, kusala sila, > akusala sila and avyakata sila. This is common to all being in the > world. Kusala is sila. Akusala is sila. Avyakata is sila. > > And the commentary goes on that > > "All Achant (masters) refers to sila that this is sukka sila, sukka > (pleasant is sila). This is dukka sila, dukka (unpleasant) is sila. > This is kalaha sila, wrangle is sila. This is mantana sila, > decoration is sila." ... > S: > I'm wondering if Alberto or anyone else can help us find the Pali and > the reference for the above. Sorry for the late follow-up, Visuddhimagga (Ch. 1 - Virtue - par. 38.) also quotes the PtsA passage in question. Alberto (Here is Ven. ~Nn transl:) [25. (v) Now, here is the answer to the question, HOW MANY KINDS OF VIRTUE ARE THERE? [ 1. (...) (...) (fifth triad:) [13. As that of the trainer, that of the non-trainer, and that of the neither-trainer-nor-non-trainer.] (...) 37. 13. In the fifth triad the virtue associated with the four paths and with the [first] three fruitions is that of the trainer. That associated with the fruition of Arahantship is that of the non-trainer. The remaining kinds are that of the neither- trainer-nor-non-trainer. So it is of three kinds as that of the trainer, and so on. 38. But in the world the nature of such and such beings is called their “habit†(sìla) of which they say: “This one is of happy habit (sukha-sìla), this one is of unhappy habit, this one is of quarrelsome habit, this one is of dandified habit.†Because of that it is said in the Patisambhidá figuratively: “Three kinds of virtue (habit): profitable virtue, unprofitable virtue, indeterminate virtue†(Patis I 44). So it is also called of three kinds as profitable, and so on. Of these, the unprofitable is not included here since it has nothing whatever to do with the headings beginning with the characteristic, which define virtue in the sense intended in this [chapter]. So the threefoldness should be understood only in the way already stated. (pali) [1. sÄ«laniddeso -- sÄ«lappabhedakathÄ] (...) ( par. 38.:) pa.tisambhidaaya.m pana yasmaa loke tesa.m tesa.m sattaana.m pakatipi siilanti vuccati, ya.m sandhaaya ``aya.m sukhasiilo, aya.m dukkhasiilo, aya.m kalahasiilo, aya.m ma.n.danasiilo''ti bha.nanti, tasmaa tena pariyaayena ``tii.ni siilaani, kusalasiila.m akusalasiila.m abyaakatasiilanti. Eva.m kusalaadivasenapi tividhanti vutta.m. Tattha akusala.m imasmi.m atthe adhippetassa siilassa lakkha.naadiisu ekenapi na sametiiti idha na upaniita.m, tasmaa vuttanayenevassa tividhataa veditabbaa. #128071 From: Nina van Gorkom ******** Nina. #128072 From: Nina van Gorkom My life at this moment is very financially stressful and also very > stressful because of health reasons. > I believe that G-d allows crisis into our lives as a wake-up > call. Change is needed! ------ N: I sympathize with you. Yes, we all need wake up calls. There are also audio talks you can listen to. It is good to consult with Sarah which you could listen to first. There are so many uploaded in and you have to scroll just to the bottom. I find the last ones, the Poland talk very helpful. Also the ones with Eric are good to begin with. Nina. #128073 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: To the clientele of Sujin Boriharnwanaket upasaka_howard Hi, Stephen - I understand. Thank you for explaining! :-) With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Howard, RobE and all, > > On 26 November 2012 23:23, wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Hi, Herman - > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > So, next time you travel to Poland or Vietnam or Antarctica, in order to > > be > > > asked the question: > > > > > > Is there seeing now? > > > > > > Just answer NO, even if you don't undertsand that, and save yourself the > > > plane fare to Peru :-) > > > > > > Ciao > > ============================ > > Herman, maybe I've missed prior, more detailed posts of yours on this > > topic, but I would like to read something a bit less cryptic than this. > > What are you asserting exactly, and what are the details that are your > > basis for it? I may be being more than a bit dense on this, but I'm missing > > your point, and I would really like to understand it. > > > > > Yes, you are right - sorry for being cryptic, and thanks for asking for > clarification. > > My understanding of a common DSG view is that there is such a thing as > "seeing now". By that is meant a bare seeing, a seeing at paramattha dhamma > level, a seeing that is entirely without any conceptual framework but still > knowable / experienced. > > Not only do I deny on behalf of everyone that there is any such seeing > happening now, I also deny it as a possibility. > > I deny it mainly on the basis of neuroscience, in which it is well > understood that only processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are > represented in awareness. It is well established that most, if not all > visual pre-processing occurs in neural pathways outside of the cerebral > cortex, and therefore those "seeing" processes are outside of awareness, or > unconscious. ==================================== With metta, Howard #128074 From: "colette_aube" > Hi Sarah and Herman, > > > > THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. > > > > I had a thought of an AVENUE, a rue, of exploration last night as I was > > meditating and because of the depth of the meditation (I guess), I forgot, > > > > UNTIL NOW > > > > Until I read this disparity: > > > > I am sorry, but I just don't follow your train of thinking, but in the > meantime, it sure is good to "see you around" :-) > > Feel free to clarify if you wish. colette: what don't you follow? Is it hard to follow the Buddhist concept of VEHICLE (means to an end) or the concept of the french word Rue which, in english is an avenue and therefore like a VEHICLE nothing more than a MEANS TO AN END? What is so hard to follow and/or understand? Glad to hear from you since I had begun to consider the DSG as nothing more than a corpse that was/is UNRESPONSIVE to stimuli. Well, you know how it is in BEjing these days, I mean, they just moved a heart and brain from one body to another body and that will last ten years. Luckily, though, it's the same heart and the same brain so we can expect NO CHANGES. toodles, colette > > > #128075 From: Tam Bach I deny it mainly on the basis of neuroscience, in which it is well > understood that only processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are > represented in awareness. It is well established that most, if not all > visual pre-processing occurs in neural pathways outside of the cerebral > cortex, and therefore those "seeing" processes are outside of awareness, or > unconscious. T: Could you please explain how awareness is measured according to science? In other words, what is the criteria to establish whether awareness is present or not? Tks #128076 From: "philip" Yes, this is a good one, and I think this is why it's so important to listen often to words like this. We heard a lot of talk like this in Vietnam. > Here is some more from that time: > > At the moment of experiencing hardness a citta arises and experiences the hardness - a rupa- followed by other cittas which also have that hardness as object. At those moments there is no seeing so it has to be dark. And yet it seems like we are seeing all the time when our eyes are open. That is because panna has not been developed enuff to see the realities as they are. Citta is dark. Fascinating. Of course, we can't realize ourselves that the citta that is seeing is dark, but we can understand in theory, and logically, really, that only the visible object that is colour is bright, and seeing must be dark, as dark as all other cittas. Panna will not develop to the degree that that is realized directly, but there can be a gradual graduall little by little again and again development of the understanding of dhamma. "We don't understand what dhammas are", I heard Acharn say, but we want to know so much about deep deep teachings like D.O. You may know that I was really impressed by hearing Acharn say that rupa is more apparent and less subtle than nama, and in Poland apparently stressed "visible object" a lot, includking her final words to Lukas. I really really dislike making personal theories so I won't expand on this, but I have a hunch there is something important there to reflect on, when there are conditions for reflecting in an unforced, natural way. (those conditions don't arise for me when I am writing at DSG, I think things are too forced here, trying to make points, trying to convince people although others would disagree.) > > There is so much debate about having book knowledge and 'practicing'. But the question must be asked who has book knowledge and who is practicing. > Yes, "who is meditating" is mocked and dismissed easily by people in the same way "is there seeing now?" is mocked and dismissed. but until it clicks with people that both are important questions and until it clicks that "practice" in the modern corrupted sense is thoroughly driven by cittas rooted in greed and wrong view, there is really no way to convince someone. I listened to the Poland talks, and there is that very earnest and likeable young Polish guy who posted here a couple of times (I forget his name, kind of difficult) but it clearly didn't click with him and all the listening was for nought. (He also made a mocking joke about seeing in one of his two or three posts here.) But of course it can sink in and it can "click", as it did with me, so it is of course admirable that Acharn keeps patiently and energetically making the effort to get it across to people, as do so many other patient people like Sarah, Nina, Jon etc... No such accumulations for me! > In reality there is no 'who' only citta, cetasika and rupa arising and falling away. These realities have to be known when they arise e.g. now there is seeing, now there is visible object but who knows it - only right understanding and only when it arises to experience either the seeing or the visible object. Visible object more likely to be the object of awareness? Probably. But no rules. > Growing understanding is likened to the young growing child, little is known in the beginning but slowly, slowly things are learnt. But understanding can only develop when it arises; just like seeing - visible object can only be seen when seeing citta arises. I like and would like to ask about some Thai expression I came across, tam tam mahk mahk, or something like that. little by little, often often, something like that. Anyone who thinks that the approach to Dhamma that we appreciate is about laziness and not making an effort doesn't understand what kusala virya means. >Now who can control any of this, if we think we can we are going the wrong way. Until it clicks people don't realize that they are completely and fully believing in self that can control cittas, it has to click. Thanks Azita, hope you are coming on the 1/15 to 1/18 trip so we can catch up on more hippy days nostalgia... Phil > > > patience, courage and good cheer > azita > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear group, > > > > I heard a nice one: > > > > "We want to know a lot, but we don't understand the present moment." > > > > phil > > > #128077 From: "philip" Panna will not develop to the degree that that is realized directly, I take this back. It was self trying to control what will *not* happen, which is actually self trying to control what will happen. (Yuck, that sounds like one of Herman's awe-inspiringly profound pronouncements.) No rules. phil #128078 From: "sarah" wrote: > I heard: "There is no end to seeing; seeing is a burden." ... S: So true! If there were no seeing, no attachment, no aversion, no ignorance on account of what's seen..... Tam gave a good transcript of a discussion in Vietnam about attachment. It's obvious when there's attachment to the sweets or fruit on the table, for example, but what about the attachment that arises as soon as visible object is experienced, long before there's any idea of sweets or fruit? Metta Sarah ==== #128079 From: Nina van Gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro from Eileen  Dear Eileen, Op 27-nov-2012, om 12:30 heeft Eileen Iseman het volgende geschreven: > My life at this moment is very financially stressful and also very > stressful because of health reasons. > I believe that G-d allows crisis into our lives as a wake-up > call. Change is needed! ------ N: I sympathize with you. Yes, we all need wake up calls. There are also audio talks you can listen to. It is good to consult with Sarah which you could listen to first. There are so many uploaded in and you have to scroll just to the bottom. I find the last ones, the Poland talk very helpful. Also the ones with Eric are good to begin with. Nina. #128082 From: "philip" > I heard: "There is no end to seeing; seeing is a burden." > ... > > S: So true! If there were no seeing, no attachment, no aversion, no ignorance on account of what's seen..... > > Tam gave a good transcript of a discussion in Vietnam about attachment. It's obvious when there's attachment to the sweets or fruit on the table, for example, but what about the attachment that arises as soon as visible object is experienced, long before there's any idea of sweets or fruit? > I have been reading favourite passages from Abhdhamma in Daily Life onto audio and recently read about the baby that likes the red balloon long before he or she (it? sorry...) cannot possibly know about "red" or "balloon." The first javana cittas in life are also rooted in lobha. I like hearing a lot these days about things like "there is no end to seeing; seeing is a burden." I think some people look at the "turban on fire" metaphor and get a twisted idea about what samvega is all about. To people who don't listen to her, it might seem that A.Sujin is not supporting the conditioning of samvega, because there isn't that emphasis on a technique to practice intensely. But again and again she encourages us to consider the danger in and unsatisfactory nature of dhammas, such as seeing. There is no use having that turban on fire if it is self trying to put it out. There has to be understanding of samvega, with detachment. It is very subtle and goes against the way of the world, which is lobha. phil #128083 From: "philip" > > > I heard: "There is no end to seeing; seeing is a burden." > > ... > > > > S: So true! If there were no seeing, no attachment, no aversion, no ignorance on account of what's seen..... > > Tonight re-reading Nina's book on rupa, and by chance came across this: "The eye is compared to an ocean, because it cannot be filled. We are attached to the eyesense and we want to go on seeing, it never is enough" (23) phil #128084 From: "ptaus1" The non-issue of control as somehow being self-view is doing the rounds > again. > > It's a non-issue because the notion of control is being misrepresented or misunderstood. Like with most discussions here, my take is that the problems stem from investing different meanings into the same term. E.g. the term 'control'. I guess ideally a term is a tool that aids discussion, but it can also be a block when there's no willingness to try to understand what the other person is actually trying to say. Best wishes pt #128085 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: In ordinary speech, the (positive act of) looking is more than (mere) > > seeing, just as we also distinguish between `listening to' and `hearing'. > > Are you making that distinction here, or do you count all seeing and > > hearing as `voluntary activities'? What about breathing, coughing, blinking? > > H: Yes, I am making that distinction. You could say that voluntary activity in > my usage is activity that one can cease. Seeing and hearing occur all the > time, well before volition becomes involved, and are thus not voluntary - > but looking and listening are. > > Blinking and coughing as reflex cannot be suppressed, and breathing > patterns can voluntarily be altered, but not ceased, IMO. > =============== J: As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach the distinction between activities that can be ceased (and would this include, for example, sitting down, crossing one's legs, etc.) and activities that cannot. One distinction he did teach, however, was the difference between vipaka citta, on the one hand, and kusala and akusala citta, on the other. Vipaka citta/consciousness is the moment of actual experiencing of a sense-door object through one of the sense-doors (e.g., seeing, hearing), before there is any liking or disliking of, or assigning of meaning to, or `making sense of', what is being experienced. That citta moment is said to be the result of past kamma. The subsequent functions of liking or disliking, or assigning of meaning to, or `making sense of', what has just been experienced through a sense-door are performed by the cittas that `run through' the object, and these are either kusala or akusala. The mental factor of intention that accompanies such cittas is what is meant by the term `kamma' (or `action'). > =============== > H: No, I didn't say that samatha IS the ceasing of voluntary activity, but > that it develops BY ceasing of voluntary activity. > =============== J: If there are other factors apart from the ceasing of voluntary activity that are involved in samatha, that begs the question as to what exactly the role of the ceasing of voluntary activity is. > =============== > H: I don't understand how the non-doing of something could be akusala. Could > you explain? > =============== J: A person could cease doing an activity for any number of akusala reasons: - out of fear that doing the activity could lead to undesirable consequences (punishment, rebirth in an unhappy plane, ridicule by others, etc.) - in the (mistaken) belief that doing the activity would be a hindrance to the development of samatha and/or awareness/insight; - in order to gain something for him/herself To echo your own comment and question, I don't understand how the (mere) closing of one's eyes could be kusala (i.e., dana, sila, samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana). Could you explain? > =============== > H: Obviously we agree that whether the eyelids are open or closed, and > therefore looking, is voluntary. We agree that looking is an act. > Not-looking is certainly also an act, but that doesn't mean that looking is > qualitatively similar or identical to not-looking. Far from it. The world > for one who is looking is totally different to the world of one who is not > looking. > =============== J: The Buddha did not classify folks according to whether they were doing or not doing what you call a voluntary activity (such as looking). He spoke about understanding the world (specifically, the world of dhammas) as it is at the present moment. > =============== > > J: To my understanding, the reference in the suttas to "having put away > > covetousness and grief" is a reference to moments of kusala, not to > > (physically) blocking a sense-door. > > > > H: To your understanding, are the references to jhana about a person with eyes > open or closed? > =============== J: I've no idea whether in jhana the eyes are likely to be, or must be, closed, but even if they are that wouldn't mean that closing the eyes was the way to develop samatha (if that's what your (cryptic and rhetorical) question is suggesting :-)). While it's true that in jhana the sense door consciousnesses are temporarily suppressed, it would be a mistake to deduce from that that the proper `practice' for developing samatha involved the closing of one's eyes. Jon #128086 From: "ptaus1" S: B.Bodhi has quite a good appendix chapter on different conditions at the end of his translation of the Mahanidana Sutta and commentaries. I can't find it on line, so will type out a couple of paragraphs (p. 119) that are relevant: Thanks for typing it out. I leave below the 2 bits I found most interesting: Best wishes pt >...Thus the original sutta statement, reformulated in terms of specific mental factors entering into the Abhidhamma system, expresses the conditionality of sensual greed and views for the volitions they arouse and influence. volition must be present on any occasion of greed or views, and as mental factors they must arise simultaneously; thus clinging is a condition for existence as a conascence condition. >... Since greeed and views are unwholesome mental factors, they pass on their unwholesomeness to their conascent volition. Thus the kamma generated simultaneously with the arising o clinging is necessarily unwholesome. This holds whether the volition expresses itself in bodily or verbal action or remains unexpressed as bare mental action. #128087 From: "ptaus1" The following below is an example of what could be contained in our simple Techie FAQ with a link from the home page. So, probably best if the FAQ page is in fact a simple text page/document with text info, rather than being a page with a collection of links to various posts on tech issues? Best wishes pt #128088 From: "ptaus1" >PT: 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). > ... > S: Yes. Conditioned dhammas are never in anyone's control. pt: Yes but (and you probably knew there was a 'but' in the works :) is 'anyone' a dhamma? If not, then it doesn't really seem to belong in the statement about dhammas. I mean the statement itself seems a bit strange, mixing ultimate and conventional. The only reason I know what you are trying to say is because I am acquainted with how you use the terms. If I was a newcomer, or not really interested in what you're trying to say, I'd be very confused. Either way, we'd need to examine in each case what the other person means by 'control'. You give it ultimate definition (=dukkha, atta). For many though, it doesn't seem to relate to dhammas, but to people and activities, hence conventional. > > pt: 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? > ... > S: I would just stress that when certain dhammas become indriyas (faculties) or balas (powers) that they condition other dhammas accordingly. They have developed to the degree that they can have a leading function. When they are balas the saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi and panna are unshakeable. With regard to the path, when panna is a power, it completely understands the realities. Seeing is understood as a nama, visible object as a rupa, no doubt or question at all. This is how the vipassana nanas are realised and the bojjhangas (enlightenment factors) developed. pt: Again, you give an ultimate terminology explanation. No problems. Conventionally, to me at least, I'd summarise the above as exercising control. Perhaps, exercising 'mastery' would be less suggestive of atta. > S: Yes, we can use 'mastery', 'contol' or any terms, but the important point to stress is always that these are all just conditioned dhammas, not in anyone's power or control and that they are all just impermanent elements which do not lead to the removal of the bricks of samsara unless there is right understanding of them as anicca, dukkha and anatta. pt: I don't really disagree with that (other than perhaps with mixing up 'anyone' into an ultimate terminology statement). The main issue of the discussion though (that interested me at least) was what would be the daily life indicators that mental factors which stand for powers "have developed to the degree that they can have a leading function", or as I'd say - when there's control, and it is kusala, not akusala. So far, we've all just been arguing about terminology. And on an unrelated matter: > S: In the development of samatha and attainment of jhanas... I was wondering, in the development of samatha, long before jhana arises, samatha could be said to develop with each kusala citta, regardless of whether the citta (and cetasikas) classify as dana, sila or bhavana. I was wondering, if it is bhavana (so not sila nor dana), but not yet jhana (nor vipassana), what would be a daily-life example of that, and is there such an animal in the first place? Best wishes pt #128089 From: "ptaus1" To mention only 2 examples from Thailand : Thanks for the links and discussion so far. Best wishes pt #128090 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > The answer is no, by the way :-) > > Actually, the answer is 'yes.' ;-) > > What is seen, now? > Best, > Rob E. > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128092 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman > > H: > > > I deny it mainly on the basis of neuroscience, in which it is well > > understood that only processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are > > represented in awareness. It is well established that most, if not all > > visual pre-processing occurs in neural pathways outside of the cerebral > > cortex, and therefore those "seeing" processes are outside of awareness, > or > > unconscious. > > T: Could you please explain how awareness is measured according to > science? In other words, what is the criteria to establish whether > awareness is present or not? Tks > Thank you for your interest. There is no short way to answer your question, as neuroscience is very complex. So it should be, too, because the human brain is the most complex structure known in the universe. I kindly refer you to post 111146, which gives headings for only some of the aspects of seeing. Given the above, do you believe you can tell when there is seeing and where there is thinking? > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128093 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > I am a mother to 3 daughters and a grandmother to Julia (17 yrs old) > Harrison (9 yrs old) Haley (1 mo. old) > and Nina (to be born around Dec 18). > Life has been financial difficult since Walt (husband) had to close his > office due to economical hardship. > Walt has not been well (colon cancer) but the operation recommended is so > extremely for a small > clustor of cancer cells that we are going the holitic route. > I am an animal lover and animal advocate. > I am Jewish and Walt is a Christian. Our marriage is the 2nd for both of > us. > My goal now extends beyond religion to spirituality. I have read books on > reincarnation and that > along with Ram Dass has started me on this journey. > We live in South Jersey--between Atlantic City and Philadelphia Pa. I was > born and riased in > Philadelphia and most of my relatives still live in the Philadelphia area. > My life at this moment is very financially stressful and also very > stressful because of health reasons. > I believe that G-d allows crisis into our lives as a wake-up call. > Change is needed! That is where > I am right now. > G-d bless, Eileen > > > You are in good company, in so far as the Buddha's path also came from the realisation that we are heading for a precipice on a freight train without brakes. It is unstoppable. You mentioned earlier that you were going beyond religious dogma, which I second. A little warning - do not discard the dogma of your heritage only to pick up new dogma :-) The other thing is, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is plenty in your heritage worth considering again and again. For example: Phil helpfully posted: the eye is compared to an ocean, because it cannot be filled. We are attached to the eyesense and we want to go on seeing, it never is enough. Compare that to Ecclesiastes 1:8 All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. No criticism of Phil intended, but personally I prefer the version from the Bible. > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128094 From: Tam Bach -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128095 From: "philip" and seeing that it is a conditioned reality. We do not mind whether it is sadness or whatever else. We can learn to understand a characteristic of dhamma, although we do not know yet precisely at what moment there is sadness, or what is this or that. Just now there are different realities. Sound, for example is real, it is a reality. What is seen now is real, it is a reality. Thinking is a reality. This is the beginning to see that they are not self. No one can condition the arising of anything at all. We understand just little by little. If we want to know many things we do not understand anything about this moment. If we are wondering what is this, what is sadness, what is its root and things like that, we do not know anything now. At the moment of listening there can be some understanding of realities and this can be accumulated so that we really understand what is appearing now, what is seen and what is that which sees. Then we can understand sadness when time comes. If we want to know a great deal without understanding ignorance about realities right now, there is no way to eliminate ignorance. #128096 From: "azita" Hi Azita > > Thanks for posting the below and sorry for my slow response. Grateful to have people participating here who actually listen to A.S. > > > Thanks Azita, hope you are coming on the 1/15 to 1/18 trip so we can catch up on more hippy days nostalgia... Azita; :) yes given the right conditions I will be attending all the Jan discussion sessions. See ya there Patience, courage and good cheer azita #128097 From: "salaflowers" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: As indicated above, I'm fine with kamma as action :-)) > > > > > H: Cool. Taking it one step further, you asked me to elaborate on this: > > > but awareness / insight also makes it impossible to hold vipaka as a > support for kamma. > > > What I meant was that in the context of the daily life world, when there is > awareness/insight, whatever has been done in the past is never a reason for > what one is doing now - there is no necessary connection between vipaka and > action. Appeals to unknown conditions hold no water, they are lame > excuses :-). > > If that is still not clear, feel free to ask some more. > =============== J: Not much clearer, if at all, I'm afraid :-)) I broadly agree with the notion that `whatever has been done in the past is never a reason for what one is doing now', in this sense: that what one is doing now (for example, an angry reaction to something another person says or does) is done because of one's accumulated tendencies (i.e., of dosa) and cannot be attributed to the other person's conduct. When I said that the 3 `vatta' each supported the other, I meant that because of accumulated defilements there is bound to be attachment or aversion arising following sense-door experiences (which are vipaka) and such attachment or aversion is bound to lead to the commission of further akusala kamma, and so the cycle is perpetuated. Hoping this clarifies. Jon #128099 From: "truth_aerator" N: Seeing, for example, is not visible object Visible object, unless taken in abstract sense, IS seeing. Without seeing, we cannot talk about anything visible. With best wishes, Alex #128100 From: "jrg493" wrote: > Visible object, unless taken in abstract sense, IS seeing. Without seeing, we cannot talk about anything visible. Some questions: Would you agree with the statement "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness." ? And, in this regard, are you defining "visible object" as form & "seeing" as eye-consciousness? Also, if I were to put a red ball by a blue chair & look at it, then look away, why is it that when I look away I do not still see the red ball & blue chair? Or, more accurately, how do you account for the fact that the things we see change but the fact of seeing & being able to see doesn't change (as quickly, that is)? In Dhamma - Josh #128101 From: "truth_aerator" Some questions: Would you agree with the statement > "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness." ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if by "form" we take electromagnetic radiation (390-750 nm, 400–790 THz) in such and such a range. Otherwise, I don't agree with the quoted naive realism. > And, in this regard, are you defining "visible object" as form & >"seeing" as eye-consciousness? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visible object is brain's interpretation of electromagnetic radiation that travels to the eye, interpreted in retina which sends the signal by optic nerve. >Also, if I were to put a red ball by a blue chair & look at it, >then look away, why is it that when I look away I do not still see >the red ball & blue chair? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do not see because electromagnetic radiation don't reach your eyes, retina, optic nerve, brain. >Or, more accurately, how do you account for the fact that the things >we see change but the fact of seeing & being able to see doesn't >change (as quickly, that is)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seeing, like swimming, is a function dependent on many causes and conditions. Individual trees may change, but the forest can remain the "same". These things belong to different hierarchy. Seeing is higher order process than light wave. With best wishes, Alex #128102 From: Nina van Gorkom SLF: Is patthana in satipatthana any concern with patthana which > are 24 paccaya? > ------ N: It helps us to have more intellectual understanding of anattaa. ------- > > S: Is that possible sati not only of nama/rupa arises and passes > away but with the understanding about causual relationship for that > nama/rupa to arise? > ------- N: The second stage of insight is direct understanding of conditionality of naama and ruupa, but not by way of thinking. It is not necessary to think of all the details of all the different conditions. But direct understanding that whatever arises is conditioned helps on the long way to detachment. ------ Nina. #128103 From: Nina van Gorkom >N: Seeing, for example, is not visible object > > Visible object, unless taken in abstract sense, IS seeing. Without > seeing, we cannot talk about anything visible. > ---- > N: If there were no seeing we could not talk about what is visible, colour. But colour does not know anything, it does not know that it is seen by seeing-consciousness. Colour is a condition for seeing, it conditions it by way of being the object. How could seeing and the object that is seen be the same? Nina. #128104 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:16 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Nina)- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Nina, all, > > > >N: Seeing, for example, is not visible object > > > Visible object, unless taken in abstract sense, IS seeing. Without seeing, we cannot talk about anything visible. -------------------------------- HCW: Seeing and visible object (a.k.a. "a sight") are mutually dependent, but are not one and the same. Seeing is a form of consciousness, and the seen sight is not: It is the material object-content of that seeing. ------------------------------ > > > With best wishes, > > Alex > ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128105 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula HCW: > Seeing and visible object (a.k.a. "a sight") are mutually dependent, but are not one and the same. Seeing is a form of consciousness, and the seen sight is not: It is the material object-content of that seeing. But is there visible object without seeing? I think there is. So I don't see that it is necessary call this 'object-content'. Sukin #128106 From: "philip" Do you want to discuss personal theories of seeing and visible object > or can there now and then, or again and again, or once in a while be > development of understanding of the characteristics of seeing and > visible object without any wanting to have one's understanding be > right? (Rhetorical question on the verge of the huge outburst of pet > theorizing to come.) > Good reminder. Thanks. Sukin #128108 From: "truth_aerator" HCW: Seeing and visible object (a.k.a. "a sight") are mutually >dependent, but are not one and the same. Seeing is a form of >consciousness, and the seen sight is not: It is the material object >content of that seeing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without seeing, there is no color. Consciousness cannot be without content of consciousness. With best wishes, Alex #128109 From: "truth_aerator" Do you want to discuss personal theories of seeing No. But neither do I take personal theories from 5th century Indian conception of how sight works. It is obsolete, to speak politely. With best wishes, Alex #128110 From: Sukinder Without seeing, there is no color. Consciousness cannot be without > content of consciousness. > Consciousness cannot be without object of consciousness. But most rupa exists by conditions that do not include consciousness. Sukin #128111 From: Sukinder > Dear Phil, all, > > >Do you want to discuss personal theories of seeing > > No. But neither do I take personal theories from 5th century Indian > conception of how sight works. It is obsolete, to speak politely. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > > #128112 From: "truth_aerator" But most rupa exists by conditions that do not include consciousness. Correct. But this rupa is not color, sound, smell, taste, touch. These are interpretation in the brain. With best wishes, Alex #128113 From: Sukinder >But most rupa exists by conditions that do not include consciousness. > > Correct. But this rupa is not color, sound, smell, taste, touch. These > are interpretation in the brain. > And you know this, how? Metta, Sukin #128114 From: "truth_aerator" Sukin: And you know this, how? This is scientific knowledge in 21st century. This isn't 5th BC India. With best wishes, Alex #128115 From: "truth_aerator" Sukin: Is it not possible that the theories that you consider >up-to-date are just that, theories? Whereas what you consider obsolete >is in fact the result of direct understanding of mental and physical >phenomena? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the best that we have. When it comes to hard sciences, I take science any day over any Dhamma book. Buddha was the best Psychologist, sure. But when it comes to external matter, at least what is said in the suttas, science has advanced 2,500 thousand years since. With best wishes, Alex #128116 From: Sukinder >Sukin: And you know this, how? > > This is scientific knowledge in 21st century. This isn't 5th BC India. > So you go by what the scientist says and agree with their methods. You are not convinced by the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths? Metta, Sukin #128117 From: Sukinder >Sukin: Is it not possible that the theories that you consider > >up-to-date are just that, theories? Whereas what you consider > obsolete >is in fact the result of direct understanding of mental and > physical >phenomena? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This is the best that we have. When it comes to hard sciences, I take > science any day over any Dhamma book. > > Buddha was the best Psychologist, sure. But when it comes to external > matter, at least what is said in the suttas, science has advanced > 2,500 thousand years since. > You have more or less answered my question in the last post. Metta, Sukin #128118 From: "philip" So you go by what the scientist says and agree with their methods. You >are not convinced by the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is different. As I've said in #128115, the Buddha was the best at teaching how to eliminate suffering. This I would say is psychology, and the Buddha was the best at that. When it comes to material world, hard sciences, I go with science. With best wishes, Alex #128120 From: "truth_aerator" P:I feel that the Buddha taught the nature of phenomena as >enlightened >by the awakened mind for the purpose of developing >liberating >detachment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the Buddha was, is, and will be the best at this. >P:I think the purpose of science is different. Right. Dhamma and hard Science are two different teachings with two different goals, and should be kept that way. With best wishes, Alex AdChoices #128121 From: Sukinder >So you go by what the scientist says and agree with their methods. You > >are not convinced by the Buddha's teachings on the Four Noble Truths? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This is different. As I've said in #128115, the Buddha was the best at > teaching how to eliminate suffering. This I would say is psychology, > and the Buddha was the best at that. > > When it comes to material world, hard sciences, I go with science. > The Four Noble Truths is a statement about all that exists in reality. It is not psychology. Psychology deals only with concepts, and so does science. Metta, Sukin #128122 From: "antony272b2" The Four Noble Truths is a statement about all that exists in >reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is totally wrong. 1st Noble Truth. Truth of Dukkha (Suffering). Psychology. 2nd NT. Origin of Dukkha. Psychology again. 3rd NT. Cessation of Dukkha. Psychology. 4th NT. Path leading to cessation of Dukkha. Psychology. With best wishes, Alex #128124 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Dear Josh, > > > Some questions: Would you agree with the statement > > "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness." ? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Only if by "form" we take electromagnetic radiation (390-750 nm, 400–790 THz) in such and such a range. Otherwise, I don't agree with the quoted naive realism. The "naive realism" I quoted is a common or stock statement in many, many suttas. I don't know if that matters or not, however. :) But what you are doing in calling it naive realism is saying that the suttas --- &, therefore, the dhamma --- is naively realistic in its explanation of daily experience &, to extend it, that Buddhists are naive realists, whereas you --- & science --- are not naive realists. But If I were so inclined I could call your belief & viewpoint that there is "electromagnetic radiation" a form of naive realism, but as you might guess, I'm not that inclined. However, both the Yogacara or Vijnanavada sect would claim that any definition of anything that exists outside of what arises from the seeds (bijas) within the alaya-vijnana (storehouse or treasury consciousness) is a form of naive realism, & would back up their statements with logic & quotation from their respective sutras. [note to everyone else: I'm not recommending we get into a discussion of Yogacara, just using it as an example] The point is, there exists many viewpoints but can you give us an account of when you realized that your viewpoint was the sole correct viewpoint, & that the viewpoint of sutta was naive realism? And, if so, why would have any interest in sutta or dhamma at all, if you know deep down that you are more clever than them & exist in an age where so much mysterious to these 5th century B.C. Indians has been made clear? That anyone would be interested in the statements of any Indian sect in antiquity --- whether it still exists or not --- usually, I would say, stems from a disatisfaction with what Western Philosophy & science has to offer. Would you count yourself among these or does your interest stem from something else? > > And, in this regard, are you defining "visible object" as form & >"seeing" as eye-consciousness? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Visible object is brain's interpretation of electromagnetic radiation that travels to the eye, interpreted in retina which sends the signal by optic nerve. There is a distinction between the subjective contents of experience itself as it occurs to us as a vital reality & the explanations for how this occurs. I might appreciate a poem, for example, but this appreciation is, in experience, far removed for how it is explained objectively as an occurrence of neuro-chemistry. There are levels, also, to experience & existence above & beyond what science can currently map. > >Also, if I were to put a red ball by a blue chair & look at it, >then look away, why is it that when I look away I do not still see >the red ball & blue chair? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > You do not see because electromagnetic radiation don't reach your eyes, retina, optic nerve, brain. Also, have you ever read any writings on Idealism --- East or West? And if so, what was it that convinced you that their critique of any objective physical reality was unconvincing? In Dhamma - Josh #128125 From: Sukinder > The Four Noble Truths is a statement about all that exists in >reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This is totally wrong. > > 1st Noble Truth. Truth of Dukkha (Suffering). Psychology. > 2nd NT. Origin of Dukkha. Psychology again. > 3rd NT. Cessation of Dukkha. Psychology. > 4th NT. Path leading to cessation of Dukkha. Psychology. > 1st Noble Truth. Truth of Dukkha (Suffering). = Description of all conditioned existence, nama and rupa. Samsara. 2nd NT. Origin of Dukkha. = Tanha, a nama, conditioned and conditioning. Cause of samsara. 3rd NT. Cessation of Dukkha. = The one conditioned reality leading to the cessation of conditioned existence. 4th NT. Path leading to cessation of Dukkha. = The one unconditioned reality that exists, which becomes the object of the 3rd NT, without which there will not be the end of samsara. Metta, Sukin #128126 From: "truth_aerator" >The "naive realism" I quoted is a common or stock statement in >many, many suttas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are suttas that talk about geocentric world, fish 5,000km in length, talking animals, city existing for hundreds of thousands of years, existence as invisible flying piece of meat that is being eaten by birds etc... Which is why I believe that practical bare bones is the most important. Those other stories may have served some purpose for audience in 5th Century BC India, but not today. >But If I were so inclined I could call your belief & viewpoint that >there is "electromagnetic radiation" a form of naive realism, >>>>>>>>>>> Do you know what naive realism is? It has nothing to do with what I've said about cause of vision, for example. It is scientific realism, sure. But not the naive/common-sense version. >However, both the Yogacara or Vijnanavada sect would claim that any I did study a bit on Yogacara. At least one interpretation is what is called "epistemological idealism". This doesn't exclude physical forces existing outside of perception. "A more limited type of idealism is epistemological idealism, which argues that since knowledge of the world only exists in the mental realm, we cannot know actual physical objects as they truly are, but only as they appear in our mental representations of them. Epistemological idealists could be ontological materialists, accepting that matter exists substantially; they could even accept that mental states derived at least in part from material processes. What they denied was that matter could be known in itself directly, without the mediation of mental representations. Though unknowable in itself, matter's existence and properties could be known through inference based on certain consistencies in the way material things are represented in perception." http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm > The point is, there exists many viewpoints but can you give us an >account of when you realized that your viewpoint was the sole >correct viewpoint, & that the viewpoint of sutta was naive realism? >And, if so, why would have any interest in sutta or dhamma at all, >if you know deep down that you are more clever than them & exist in >an age where so much mysterious to these 5th century B.C. Indians >has been made clear? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I've said, the suttas are great for Psychology. When it comes to ontology, modern science is the best that we currently have. When it comes to Psychology, Buddha is the best. >Also, have you ever read any writings on Idealism --- East or West? >And if so, what was it that convinced you that their critique of any >objective physical reality was unconvincing? >>>>>>>>>>>> Intro to Yogacara, sure. Some arguments about yogacara by Vasubandhu (or Asanga, I don't remember) sure. I've read various excerpts about some western philosophies as well. With best wishes, Alex #128127 From: "truth_aerator" Sukin:The Four Noble Truths is a statement about all that exists in >reality. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >Alex: This is totally wrong. > > > > 1st Noble Truth. Truth of Dukkha (Suffering). Psychology. > > 2nd NT. Origin of Dukkha. Psychology again. > > 3rd NT. Cessation of Dukkha. Psychology. > > 4th NT. Path leading to cessation of Dukkha. Psychology. > > > >Sukin: 1st Noble Truth. Truth of Dukkha (Suffering). = Description >of all conditioned existence, nama and rupa. Samsara. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Now what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." ... And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. ... "And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. ... "And what is the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress? Just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html ============================================================= With best wishes, Alex #128128 From: "sukinderpal narula" wrote: > > Hi Sukin, all, > > > >Sukin:The Four Noble Truths is a statement about all that exists in >reality. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >Alex: This is totally wrong. > > > > > > 1st Noble Truth. Truth of Dukkha (Suffering). Psychology. > > > 2nd NT. Origin of Dukkha. Psychology again. > > > 3rd NT. Cessation of Dukkha. Psychology. > > > 4th NT. Path leading to cessation of Dukkha. Psychology. > > > > > > >Sukin: 1st Noble Truth. Truth of Dukkha (Suffering). = Description >of all conditioned existence, nama and rupa. Samsara. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > "Now what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." > ... > And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. > ... > "And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. > ... > "And what is the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress? Just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html > ============================================================= > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #128129 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Dear Josh, > > > > >The "naive realism" I quoted is a common or stock statement in >many, many suttas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > There are suttas that talk about geocentric world, fish 5,000km in length, talking animals, city existing for hundreds of thousands of years, existence as invisible flying piece of meat that is being eaten by birds etc... > > Which is why I believe that practical bare bones is the most important. Those other stories may have served some purpose for audience in 5th Century BC India, but not today. > > No dispute. > > >But If I were so inclined I could call your belief & viewpoint that >there is "electromagnetic radiation" a form of naive realism, > >>>>>>>>>>> > > Do you know what naive realism is? It has nothing to do with what I've said about cause of vision, for example. It is scientific realism, sure. But not the naive/common-sense version. I know what naive realism is & scientific realism is. But I would argue that, at root, a scientist defining blue in a way different than that of "common sense" is the same act, only with a different internal dialogue, just as someone may believe that a rain God causes rain whereas another may attribute it to weather phenomena. The fact of getting out of the rain to avoid getting wet remains the same for both --- so, in this sense, the sutta acknowledges that experience presents itself to us in such a way that what is encountered as the content or media of the senses behaves in a manner one would expect from an external rather than internal source. > > > http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm Well, Yogacara is, I think, a non-issue on a board like this --- I brought it up for example. But as an aside, if you find a statement in any classical Sanskrit Yogacara text which allows for the existence of matter in any sense other than a mere projection of mind & having no external source, let me know. ;) > > >Also, have you ever read any writings on Idealism --- East or West? >And if so, what was it that convinced you that their critique of any >objective physical reality was unconvincing? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > Intro to Yogacara, sure. Some arguments about yogacara by Vasubandhu (or Asanga, I don't remember) sure. I've read various excerpts about some western philosophies as well. And you haven't stated whether you considered them valid or not, nor, if you consider them invalid, why. in Dhamma - Josh #128130 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > > > > > Dear Herman, > > H: I kindly refer you to post 111146, which gives headings for only some of > the aspects of seeing. > T: Unfortunately I don't have direct access to DSG, due to internet > issues, so impossible to search for posts. > > Here is the body of that post 111146: If there is any seeing now, then all of the below play a role. Sorry, KenH, it is not from the Atthasalini, and no, I am not trying to disprove the Abhidhamma. I post it only because in any understanding there is always room for greater and greater precision. The following is a listing of the contents from a book titled Seeing and it is Edited by Karen K. De Valois (2000). 1 Formation and Sampling of the Retinal Image Larry N. Thibos I. Introduction 1 II. Formation of the Retinal Image 2 A. Optical System of the Eye 2 B. Physics of Image Formation 4 C. Linear Systems Description of Image Formation 17 D. Empirical Evaluation of the Eye as an Imaging System 21 E. Schematic Models of the Eye 31 III. Neural Sampling of the Retinal Image 33 A. Retinal Architecture 33 B. Functional Implications of Neural Sampling 37 C. Evidence of Neural Sampling in Perception 41 IV. Optical versus Sampling Limits to Vision 46 References 49 2 The Receptive Fields of Visual Neurons Robert Shapley I. Introduction 55 II. Receptive Fields of Retinal Ganglion Cells 56 A. The Two-Mechanisms Model: Center and Surround 58 B. A Third Mechanism: Nonlinear Subunits 62 v C. Measuring Receptive Fields—Systems Analysis 64 D. Lateral Geniculate Nucleus Cell Receptive Fields 66 III. Visual Cortex 66 A. Simple and Complex Cells 67 B. Orientation Selectivity 68 C. Direction Selectivity 70 D. Orientation Dynamics 74 References 76 3 Spatial Vision Wilson S. Geisler and Duane G. Albrecht I. Introduction 79 II. Single Neurons and Behavior 80 A. Levels of Analysis 80 B. Linking Hypotheses 83 III. Window of Visibility 84 A. Space and Time: Retinal Coordinates 84 B. Space and Time: Environmental Coordinates 85 C. Naturalistic Viewing Conditions 85 D. Retinal Eccentricity, Luminance, and Color 86 IV. Optics and Photon Noise 88 V. Retina and Lateral Geniculate Nucleus 89 A. Selectivity 89 B. Performance 96 VI. Primary Visual Cortex 99 A. Selectivity 99 B. Performance 111 VII. Implications for Object Recognition and Scene Interpretation 121 References 123 4 Color Vision Karen K. De Valois and Russell L. De Valois I. Introduction 129 A. Trichromacy 129 B. Color Spaces and the Representation of Color 131 II. Physiology 135 A. Photopigments and Spectral Sensitivity 135 B. Retino-Geniculate Processing 139 C. Cortex 145 III. Chromatic Discriminations and Their Physiological Bases 151 A. Chromatic Discrimination of Uniform Stimuli 151 B. Spatial Contrast Sensitivity 155 vi Contents C. Temporal Contrast Sensitivity 158 D. Color Vision Defects 159 IV. Color Appearance and Its Physiological Bases 160 A. Opponency 160 B. Hue 161 C. Saturation 163 D. Brightness or Lightness 164 E. Similitude and Contrast 165 F. Adaptation and Afterimages 166 V. The Role of Color in Spatial Vision 167 A. Color Motion 169 References 170 5 Binocular Vision Clifton Schor I. Perceived Visual Direction 177 A. Oculocentric Direction 177 B. The Cyclopean Eye 177 C. Egocentric Direction 178 D. Visual Directions of Disparate Images 179 E. Visual Direction of Partially Occluded Objects 179 F. Violations of Hering’s Laws of Visual Direction 179 II. Binocular Correspondence 180 A. Binocular Disparity 181 B. Corresponding Retinal Points 181 C. The Horizontal Horopter 182 D. The Vertical Horopter 184 E. Coordinate Systems for Binocular Disparity 187 F. Monocular Spatial Distortions and the Empirical Binocular Disparity Map 189 III. Binocular Sensory Fusion 191 A. Panum’s Fusional Areas 191 B. Allelotropia 192 C. Spatial Constraints 193 D. Spatial Frequency 193 E. Retinal Eccentricity 195 F. Disparity Gradient Limits 195 G. Temporal Constraints 197 H. Color Fusion 197 IV. Encoding Disparity: The Matching Problem 197 A. Classes of Matchable Tokens 200 B. Matching Constraints 202 C. Computational Algorithms 205 Contents vii D. Interocular Correlation 208 E. Off-Horopter Interocular Correlation Sensitivity 211 F. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Noise and Interocular Correlation 212 G. Estimating Disparity Magnitude 214 H. Disparity Pools or Channels 216 V. Stereoscopic Depth Perception 217 A. Depth Ordering and Scaling 217 B. Hyperacuity, Superresolution, and Gap Revolution 219 C. Stereo-Acuity 223 D. Relative Disparity 224 E. Stereo-Depth Contrast 224 F. Position and Phase Limits 226 G. Off-Horopter and Eccentric Depth Discrimination 230 H. Spatial Interactions 231 I. The Contrast Paradox 231 J. Temporal Constraints 232 K. Upper Disparity Limit for Stereopsis 234 L. Sustained and Transient Stereopsis 234 M. Transient Vergence 237 VI. Occlusion Stereopsis 237 A. Discriminating between Monocular and Binocular Features 238 B. Occlusion Geometry 239 C. Depth Ambiguity 241 VII. Binocular Suppression 241 A. Interocular Blur Suppression 242 B. Suspension 243 C. Binocular Retinal Rivalry 243 D. Binocular Percept Rivalry 246 E. Permanent-Occlusion Suppression 248 References 249 6 Seeing Motion Andrew Derrington I. Overview 259 II. Representing Image Motion 260 A. Movies 261 B. Space–Time Images 262 C. Frequency Domain Representations 263 D. Second-Order Motion 264 E. Representing Motion in 2-D Velocity Space 266 III. Analyzing Direction of Motion along a Given Axis 268 A. Principles and Approaches 268 B. Experimental Data 274 viii Contents IV. Integrating Motion Signals from Different Axes: Two-Dimensional Vectors 285 A. What Is the Problem in Going from 1-D to 2-D Motion? 285 B. How Does the Visual System Compute 2-D Motion from 1-D Motion Vectors? 287 V. Second-Order Motion Mechanisms 296 A. Importance of Second-Order Motion Signals 296 B. What Sort of Mechanism Analyzes the Motion of Contrast Variations? 298 VI. Conclusions 306 References 306 7 The Neural Representation of Shape Jack L. Gallant I. Introduction 311 II. Organization of the Ventral Pathway 312 III. Physiological Properties 315 A. Area V1 315 B. Area V2 316 C. Area V4 318 D. Posterior Inferotemporal Cortex 319 E. Central and Anterior Inferotemporal Cortex 319 IV. Attention, Learning, Memory, and Motor Signals 321 A. Area V1 321 B. Area V4 322 C. Central and Anterior Inferotemporal Cortex 323 V. Computational Principles 324 A. Area V1 324 B. Area V2 325 C. Area V4 325 D. Central and Anterior Inferotemporal Cortex 327 VI. Current Research in the Neurobiology of Form Vision 329 References 329 8 Visual Attention Jeremy M.Wolfe I. Introduction 335 A. Other Resources 336 II. Vision before Attention 337 A. The Uses and Interpretation of Visual Search Experiments 337 B. Typical Conditions and Pitfalls in Visual Search Tasks 341 C. Texture Segmentation and Visual Search 343 Contents ix D. Preattentive Features 344 E. The Preattentive Processing of Objects 354 F. Preattentive Summary 358 III. Vision with Attention 358 A. Attention Enables Other Visual Processes 358 B. How and What Does Attention Enable? 358 IV. Vision after Attention 364 A. Repeated Search 365 B. Change Blindness 366 V. Vision without Attention 367 A. The Problem 367 B. How Unattended Can You Get? 368 C. All Inattention Is Not Created Equal 369 VI. Conclusion 369 References 370 > H: Given the above, do you believe you can tell when there is seeing and > where > there is thinking? > T: Inasmuch as you are skeptical about the Buddha's teaching on seeing and > thinking, I am skeptical about science's understanding of awareness. I am > open to find out more what they say, but as science goes on denying past > discoveries, how can you be sure that their current answer to the subject > is not at fault? > I really don't believe that I am sceptical about what the Buddha taught - but I use his own test when it comes to the plethora of views put forward by all and sundry: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. "...don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them. With regards to science, it serves to recommend the scientific method, not un-recommend the scientific method, that all hypotheses and theories are forever subject to review. In the context of our lives, the quest for absolute certainty is actually a symptom of our disease. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128131 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > So, next time you travel to Poland or Vietnam or Antarctica, in order to > be > > asked the question: > > > > Is there seeing now? > > > > Just answer NO, even if you don't undertsand that, and save yourself the > > plane fare to Peru :-) > .... > > S: The reason I travel to Poland, Vietnam (or maybe Antarctica if > invited!) is because there are people who would like to hear and consider > more about what are the realities making up daily life. > We know each other long enough now, no need for these stories. Reasons and conditions are unrelated. > We could travel for sight-seeing (and many do) or to chat about other > topics such as the weather and the food (which we do of course as well), > but sharing an understanding of dhammas in these places or here is far more > interesting and far more precious. Dhamma friends are to be treasured as > well. > Seeking out situations of maximum lobha is fine by me, no need to make up stories about it to cover that up. > We spend a lot of time in the company of people with no interest in > understanding life better, so it's good to appreciate the company of those > that help us consider more deeply what is right and what is meaningful in > life. > > > Yes, there is seeing now which sees visible object. > What is visible object? > No me, no Herman at all. If there's any doubt about what seeing is, what > visible object is, it shows we need to hear and consider a lot more. > We need to hear about visible object to see it? > If we try to 'work it out' in scientific terms, we'll never get closer to > the truth, never directly understand what appears now. > > If you are saying that you don't need to first understand all there is to know about cancer before one can give up smoking, I agree. But Theravada is certainly guilty of straying into the domain of science, and many willingly continue to follow them their - that is the ongoing problem of much of science and Theravada - it is unrelated to the problem of human suffering. > I highly recommend you consider joining us in Thailand in January! You'd > be made very welcome and you would not regret it. You'd also meet many > friends you've been corresponding with here for years. > > Thank you for the invitation. I fully accept that it would be a lovely experience. > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128132 From: "salaflowers" wrote: > > Dear salaflowers, > Op 29-nov-2012, om 11:19 heeft salaflowers het volgende geschreven: > > > SLF: Is patthana in satipatthana any concern with patthana which > > are 24 paccaya? > > > ------ > N: It helps us to have more intellectual understanding of anattaa. > ------- > > > > S: Is that possible sati not only of nama/rupa arises and passes > > away but with the understanding about causual relationship for that > > nama/rupa to arise? > > > ------- > N: The second stage of insight is direct understanding of > conditionality of naama and ruupa, but not by way of thinking. It is > not necessary to think of all the details of all the different > conditions. But direct understanding that whatever arises is > conditioned helps on the long way to detachment. > ------ > Nina. > #128133 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:42 pm Subject: Re: To the clientele of Sujin Boriharnwanaket kenhowardau Hi Herman, and all, I am often struck by how hard the Dhamma is to understand. Even though it can be expressed in simple words, it is completely unintelligible to most of the people who hear it. ----- (Herman to Sarah): > We know each other long enough now, no need for these stories. <. . .> Seeking out situations of maximum lobha is fine by me, no need to make up stories about it to cover that up.> ----- KH: No matter how long Herman converses with Sarah I doubt he will ever understand a single word of what she is saying. -------------- >> S: > Yes, there is seeing now which sees visible object. >> > H: What is visible object? -------------- KH: Amazing, isn't it? The Dhamma is that hard for the average meditation adherent to understand. No matter how many times a conditioned dhamma is described (and Herman has seen them described hundreds, or thousands, of times) even in the most simple and straightforward terminology, the Dhamma will never sink in to the mind of a meditator. It's just not possible! --------------- >> S:No me, no Herman at all. If there's any doubt about what seeing is, what visible object is, it shows we need to hear and consider a lot more. >> > H: We need to hear about visible object to see it? ------------- KH: Some people might think Herman is being deliberately obtuse. I used to think that too, but he isn't. For as long as there is the idea of a controlling self the "vipassana-meditator" cannot help but remain totally ignorant of the Dhamma. ---------------------- >> S: If we try to 'work it out' in scientific terms, we'll never get closer to the truth, never directly understand what appears now. >> > H: If you are saying that you don't need to first understand all there is to know about cancer before one can give up smoking, I agree. ----------------------- KH: But that is not what Sarah is saying, and there is no agreement. -------------- > H: But Theravada is certainly guilty of straying into the domain of science, and many willingly continue to follow them their - that is the ongoing problem of much of science and Theravada - it is unrelated to the problem of human suffering. --------------- KH: Admittedly, the Tipitika often uses contemporary scientific theories as similes in explaining conditioned dhammas. And I suspect many keen Abhidhamma students take those theories too literally. But I am sure they will all agree there are no Dhamma-consistent reasons for doing so. Perhaps they just like to show loyalty, but I wish they wouldn't. It makes them look like meditators. :-) Ken H #128134 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, and all, > > I am often struck by how hard the Dhamma is to understand. > Just a preliminary question/ remark. Do you speak as one who understand the Dhamma? > Ken H > __,_._ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128135 From: "sarah" wrote: > If there is understanding of the relevant conditions, then a being can > light a fire..... .... S: It's an illusion, Herman. Actually, there is no being, no lighting and no fire, just conditioned realities or elements. Metta Sarah ===== #128136 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: To the clientele of Sujin Boriharnwanaket kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- > H: Just a preliminary question/ remark. Do you speak as one who understand the Dhamma? --- KH: I speak "according to my understanding of the Dhamma." Is that what you mean? Ken H #128137 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > I am a mother to 3 daughters and a grandmother to Julia (17 yrs old) Harrison (9 yrs old) Haley (1 mo. old) > and Nina (to be born around Dec 18).  > Life has been financial difficult since Walt (husband) had to close his office due to economical hardship. <...> #128139 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- > > H: Just a preliminary question/ remark. Do you speak as one who > understand the Dhamma? > --- > > KH: I speak "according to my understanding of the Dhamma." > > I doubt there is anyone here whose position is different. So, understanding that, why come on with a presupposition of a superior understanding? > Is that what you mean? > > Ken H > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128140 From: "sarah" (Here is Ven. ~Nn transl:) > > [25. (v) Now, here is the answer to the question, HOW MANY KINDS OF > VIRTUE ARE THERE? [ 1. (...) > (...) > (fifth triad:) > [13. As that of the trainer, that of the non-trainer, and that of the > neither-trainer-nor-non-trainer.] (...) > 37. 13. In the fifth triad the virtue associated with the four paths > and with the [first] three fruitions is that of the trainer. That > associated with the fruition of Arahantship is that of the non-trainer. > The remaining kinds are that of the neither- trainer-nor-non-trainer. > So it is of three kinds as that of the trainer, and so on. > > 38. But in the world the nature of such and such beings is called their > "habit" (siila) of which they say: "This one is of happy habit > (sukha-siila), this one is of unhappy habit, this one is of quarrelsome > habit, this one is of dandified habit." Because of that it is said in > the Patisambhidaa figuratively: "Three kinds of virtue (habit): > profitable virtue, unprofitable virtue, indeterminate virtue" (Patis I > 44). So it is also called of three kinds as profitable, and so on. Of > these, the unprofitable is not included here since it has nothing > whatever to do with the headings beginning with the characteristic, > which define virtue in the sense intended in this [chapter]. So the > threefoldness should be understood only in the way already stated. > > (pali) > [1. siilaniddeso -- siilappabhedakathaa] > (...) > ( par. 38.:) pa.tisambhidaaya.m pana yasmaa loke tesa.m tesa.m > sattaana.m pakatipi siilanti vuccati, ya.m sandhaaya ``aya.m > sukhasiilo, aya.m dukkhasiilo, aya.m kalahasiilo, aya.m > ma.n.danasiilo''ti bha.nanti, tasmaa tena pariyaayena ``tii.ni > siilaani, kusalasiila.m akusalasiila.m abyaakatasiilanti. Eva.m > kusalaadivasenapi tividhanti vutta.m. Tattha akusala.m imasmi.m atthe > adhippetassa siilassa lakkha.naadiisu ekenapi na sametiiti idha na > upaniita.m, tasmaa vuttanayenevassa tividhataa veditabbaa. > #128141 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: To the clientele of Sujin Boriharnwanaket kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- <. . .> > H: So, understanding that, why come on with a presupposition of a superior understanding? --- KH: I don't think it's a matter of being superior. According to my understanding, right understanding is completely incompatible with wrong understanding. Ken H #128142 From: "sarah" wrote: >PT:.... Either way, we'd need to examine in each case what the other person means by 'control'. You give it ultimate definition (=dukkha, atta). For many though, it doesn't seem to relate to dhammas, but to people and activities, hence conventional. .... S: Isn't that the point? We're used to thinking in terms of people, activities and control, but here we're learning that there are only dhammas. You were speaking 'conventionally', but I was just indicating that in actuality, there never is any control of dhammas - they are all (apart from nibbana) conditioned and always will be. I'm sure there's no disagreement here. I think 'newcomers' and many 'oldcomers' will misunderstand whatever is said .... > pt: Again, you give an ultimate terminology explanation. No problems. Conventionally, to me at least, I'd summarise the above as exercising control. Perhaps, exercising 'mastery' would be less suggestive of atta. ... S: Anyway, there will be misunderstandings! ... > > S: Yes, we can use 'mastery', 'contol' or any terms, but the important point to stress is always that these are all just conditioned dhammas, not in anyone's power or control and that they are all just impermanent elements which do not lead to the removal of the bricks of samsara unless there is right understanding of them as anicca, dukkha and anatta. > > pt: I don't really disagree with that (other than perhaps with mixing up 'anyone' into an ultimate terminology statement). The main issue of the discussion though (that interested me at least) was what would be the daily life indicators that mental factors which stand for powers "have developed to the degree that they can have a leading function", or as I'd say - when there's control, and it is kusala, not akusala. So far, we've all just been arguing about terminology. ... S: (We could put 'anyone's' in apostrophes, but the point is that it is a very common belief that though dhammas are considered to be conditioned, it's still assumed that they are in 'someone's', 'anyone's' power or control.) Are you talking here about balas (powers) in the development of satipatthana or jhana development? If you're talking about the development of insight, the powers of saddha, viriya, sati and samadhi can only become powers when panna is unshakeable and clearly understands seeing, visible object and all kinds of namas and rupas. There is no change in the outer appearance - daily life as usual, but clear comprehension, no question of "what would it be like?" If you're talking about jhana attainment, can we imagine what it is like not to wish to see or to hear now? ... >pt: And on an unrelated matter: > > > S: In the development of samatha and attainment of jhanas... > >pt: I was wondering, in the development of samatha, long before jhana arises, samatha could be said to develop with each kusala citta, regardless of whether the citta (and cetasikas) classify as dana, sila or bhavana. I was wondering, if it is bhavana (so not sila nor dana), but not yet jhana (nor vipassana), what would be a daily-life example of that, and is there such an animal in the first place? .... S: Like now, if there is wise consideration of dhammas such as seeing, visible object and attachment, there is panna and there is calm. Panna can begin to become more familiar with its nature. At such moments, no attachment, no restlessness, but these can follow immediately of course, such as as soon as there's an idea of focussing on, labelling or trying to be aware of the calm or to have more of it. Metta Sarah ==== #128143 From: "truth_aerator" Thank you. You have verified my position with the quote. ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that? "sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful." This is clearly psychology as clear as it can be. Same with: "The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." And lets not forget the N8P, as 4th Truth. Nothing to say about: "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress." - MN22 Also note that Dependent Origination starts with Ignorance (Avijja) and ends with Dukkha. Another instance of religious psychology. With best wishes, Alex #128144 From: "truth_aerator" But as an aside, if you find a statement in any classical Sanskrit >Yogacara text which allows for the existence of matter in any sense >other than a mere projection of mind & having no external source, >let me know. ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In their list of 100 dharmas, they don't reject rupa (#60-70). They still have Citta-viprayukta-samskara-dharma (#71-94)Dharmas dis-associated from Mind (Citta) (taken from the end of Buddhist Phenomenology pg 544. >And you haven't stated whether you considered them valid or not, >nor, if you consider them invalid, why. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want, I will. Very briefly for now: If external world is only projection of my mind, then whatever my mind projects is the external world. Therefore I could imagine piece of gold in my hand, and since it is projection of my mind, it would appear in my hand, and I could sell it and be rich... :) In the dream, this can occur with my conscious control, but not in the waking reality. Why? Because material gold in the hand requires material causes rather than purely mental. This is one of reasons why I don't take ontological idealism seriously. With best wishes, Alex #128145 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 1, 2012 6:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > HCW: > > Seeing and visible object (a.k.a. "a sight") are mutually dependent, but > are not one and the same. Seeing is a form of consciousness, and the seen > sight is not: It is the material object-content of that seeing. > > But is there visible object without seeing? I think there is. So I don't > see that it is necessary call this 'object-content'. -------------------------------- HCW: Well, we can believe there is a consciousness-independent "thing" that is the basis for the sight or we can believe not, but all that we are actually conscious of is the content of consciousness. It does seem to me that the Buddha does not teach of an unseen sight. For example, in the Kalaka Sutta, he teaches "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer." ------------------------------- > > Sukin ================================== With metta, Howard /In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself./ (From the Bahiya Sutta) #128146 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Herman and Jon. > RE: This is a subject of some interest to me, so if you don't mind, I will jump in. > With a little luck, I can find areas to disagree with both of you. :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > H: 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. > > > > =============== > > > > > > J: To my understanding, kamma as action and kamma as intention mean the > > > same, the difference being solely in the manner of expression. > > RE: When Jon says that, I believe he means they are "the same" because the cetana is the same, and it's the cetana that counts, not the expression. If one is looking for the active expression of the kamma to "count," then Jon is still not agreeing with anything like that. The outer action does not count, if I read Jon correctly. > =============== J: `Action' is the literal meaning of `kamma'. From Nyanatiloka's `Buddhist Dictionary', entry for `karma': ******************************** 'action', correctly speaking denotes the wholesome and unwholesome volitions (kusala- and akusala-cetanaa) and their concomitant mental factors, causing rebirth and shaping the destiny of beings. These karmical volitions (kamma cetanaa) become manifest as wholesome or unwholesome actions by body (kaaya-kamma) speech (vacii-kamma) mind (mano-kamma) "Volition (cetanaa), o monks, is what I call action (cetanaaham bhikkhave kammam vadaami), for through volition one performs the action by body, speech or mind. ....." (A.VI.63). ******************************** Kamma is a very complicated area. For example, in the case of the akusala kamma of killing, the virtue of the person killed has a bearing on the severity of the kamma. Yet factors such as this are said to be reflected in the intention. So I hesitate to agree with the proposition that 'the outer action does not count' :-)) Jon #128147 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > you wrote: > J: I think you'll find that the notion of `breaking' the chain of DO, and of there being `stronger' or `weaker' links, is a relatively modern (i.e., 20th Century) one and not part of the teachings as such > Perhaps we should see what Ven. Nyanatiloka has to say about 'breaking the chain' of DO :-)) > > D: well, are we here a bit too fast with conclusion.. ? ;-) > Nyanatiloka Buddhist Dictionary > =============== J: Thanks for the excerpts from NBD. However, none of the references to breaking (the chain) are in the context of DO. (If talking about the round of rebirths then, yes, the texts do refer to breaking the chain. But that's a different context.) > =============== > UpasamÄnussati: 'recollection of the peace of NibbÄna', ... detachment virÄga i.e. ... the breaking through the round of rebirths, ... > > Paccavekkhana-ñÄna: 'retrospective knowledge', ... Then, breaking off the stream of existence, mental directing manodvÄrÄvajjana arises at the mind-door, ... > > see: ariya-puggala the mental chains and other evil things cannot continue any longer, just like a tree destroyed by lightning, ... > > 4: When, after the disappearing of the mental chains at the entrance into the paths, the mental chains, from the moment of fruition phala onwards, are forever extinct and stilled, ... > > D: well, he didn't say it directly ..but certainly wouldn't object such expression. > =============== J: Well I see it differently :-)) If breaking (the chain) is mentioned in other contexts but not in respect of DO, the inference is that there's a good reason why it's not mentioned. > =============== > D: Below some examples > > ( B.T.W. Google provides 2310000 ! entrees of 'Buddhism Breaking the Chains' ) > ================ J: Sorry, but I don't recognise Google as part of the Theravadin texts :-)). Of the examples you've given, only 2 refer to breaking the chain of DO, namely, Basic Buddhism by Dr. V.A.Gunasekara and Ron Wijewantha The Wheel Publication No. 450/452. Jon > The Foundations of Mindfulness Satipatthana Sutta translated by Nyanasatta Thera http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanasatta/wheel019.html > > The attainment of perfect happiness, the breaking of the chain of rebirths and suffering through the realization of Nibbana, is possible only through the utter extirpation of that threefold craving. This is the truth of suffering's cessation > > A Call to Buddhist Monkhood > An Essay, and Letters on Buddhism by Sumana Samanera > > he who knows the laws of deliverance can purposefully take into his hands the work of their unfolding; he can loosen, and finally break, the chains of slavery. > >   > > Basic Buddhism by Dr. V.A.Gunasekara http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha104.htm > > The Truth of the Cause of Suffering. > > The proximate cause of suffering is craving (tanh), but the root cause of ignorance (avijj). The objects of craving are manifold: sensual pleasure, material possessions, glory, power, fame, ego, craving for re-birth, even craving for nibbna (nirvna). There are various degrees of craving from a mild wish to an acute grasping (updna). Craving is the proximate cause of suffering and is itself caused by other conditioning factors. The full formula of causation is contained in the Buddhist formula of dependent origination, where the causes for existence and suffering are traced back through a chain of twelve links, back to ignorance. > > The Doctrine of Dependent Origination > > This is one of the cardinal discoveries of the Buddha during his enlightenment. It is presented as a list of twelve bases which are causally linked to each other. Since the links from a closed circle we can break into the chain at any point. The order in the traditional list is as follows: (1) Ignorance, (2) Volitional formations (sankhra), (3) consciousness, (4) mind-and-form, (5) sense-bases, (6) contact, (7) feeling, (8) craving, (9) clinging, (10) becoming, (11) birth, (12) old-age-and-death > > > > Ron Wijewantha The Wheel Publication No. 450/452 http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha239.htm > > In the doctrine of dependent origination, we refer to three periods of time: the past, the present and the future. This is in order to exemplify how the twelve factors act upon the consecutive sequence of lives. Ignorance and volitional formations belong to the previous birth, the next eight links to the present, and the last two links, birth and ageing and death belong to the next existence. Now, how can this chain of cause and effect be broken in order to reach liberation? Unless we can break the chain, we will surely drift forever in samsra, in a stream of birth, death and rebirth. > > > > (To Be Seen) Here and Now by Sister Ayya Kema http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khema/herenow.html > > If we are concerned with our next rebirth, we are really living in a dream. The person who is making the kamma now is not the one who's going to reap the results. The only connection will be the kammic residue, the result (vipaka). Even this connection is very tenuous, because we can break the chain. If a person has made a lot of bad kamma and in the next rebirth makes much good kamma, the bad resultants may never fruit, and vice versa > #128148 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > On 28 November 2012 13:55, Tam Bach wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Dear Herman > > > > H: > > > > > I deny it mainly on the basis of neuroscience, in which it is well > > > understood that only processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are > > > represented in awareness. It is well established that most, if not all > > > visual pre-processing occurs in neural pathways outside of the cerebral > > > cortex, and therefore those "seeing" processes are outside of awareness, > > or > > > unconscious. > > > > T: Could you please explain how awareness is measured according to > > science? In other words, what is the criteria to establish whether > > awareness is present or not? Tks > > > > H: Thank you for your interest. There is no short way to answer your question, > as neuroscience is very complex. So it should be, too, because the human > brain is the most complex structure known in the universe. > =============== J: In your original post you say that, according to neuroscience, 'only processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are represented in awareness' and that since 'most, if not all visual pre-processing occurs in neural pathways outside of the cerebral cortex' this means that 'those "seeing" processes are outside of awareness' that is to say, occur unconsciously. I don't see how this has any bearing on the teachings regarding: - seeing consciousness as consciousness arising at the eye-door that experiences visible object - mind-door consciousness as including processes of cittas that 'run through' the visible object so experienced by seeing consciousness. Could you explain further the perceived contradiction? Thanks. > =============== > H: I kindly refer you to post 111146, which gives headings for only some of > the aspects of seeing. > > Given the above, do you believe you can tell when there is seeing and where > there is thinking? > =============== J: The question, surely, is not whether you or I can tell the difference between moments of seeing and moments of thinking, but whether there is the possibility of there being 2 such kinds of consciousness each with a distinct inherent characteristic. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here :-)) Jon #128149 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi all, > > SLF: Is patthana in satipatthana any concern with patthana which are 24 paccaya? > =============== J: As I understand it, 'patthana' in satipatthana means something like 'foundation'. I am not familiar with 'patthana' in the context of the 24 paccaya (except as the name of an Abhidhamma text that deals with the subject). > =============== > Is that possible sati not only of nama/rupa arises and passes away but with the understanding about causual relationship for that nama/rupa to arise? > =============== J: To my understanding, as sati develops to higher levels, the relationships between dhammas become clearer (to panna). Does this help? Jon PS Would be interested to see a short self-introduction! #128150 From: "Robert E" wrote: > Kamma is a very complicated area. For example, in the case of the akusala kamma of killing, the virtue of the person killed has a bearing on the severity of the kamma. Yet factors such as this are said to be reflected in the intention. > > So I hesitate to agree with the proposition that 'the outer action does not count' :-)) Well, according to this formula, if the nobility of the person killed, for instance, is "reflected in the intention" it is once again the 'severity' of the volition that ultimately counts to increase the kamma, not the external nobility itself. You could say, by way of analogy, that if I steal a diamond, knowing its value, it is a more severe act than if I steal a peanut, a minor infraction as there are many peanuts and it is sort of a minor impulse to do something slightly wrong. It is not the value of the diamond per se that makes the act more serious, but the understanding of the much larger consequence of the act. Same with the severity of the kamma, which as I understand it, would not exist at all if I killed someone of nobility by accident. Without the cetana, no kamma. So the cetana rule seems to apply throughout, as it does to some extent in law. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - AdChoices #128151 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > J: In ordinary speech, the (positive act of) looking is more than > (mere) > > > > seeing, just as we also distinguish between `listening to' and > `hearing'. > > > Are you making that distinction here, or do you count all seeing and > > > hearing as `voluntary activities'? What about breathing, coughing, > blinking? > > > > H: Yes, I am making that distinction. You could say that voluntary > activity in > > > my usage is activity that one can cease. Seeing and hearing occur all the > > time, well before volition becomes involved, and are thus not voluntary - > > but looking and listening are. > > > > Blinking and coughing as reflex cannot be suppressed, and breathing > > patterns can voluntarily be altered, but not ceased, IMO. > > =============== > > J: As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach the distinction between > activities that can be ceased (and would this include, for example, sitting > down, crossing one's legs, etc.) and activities that cannot. > I think that makes sense - I would hesitate to refer to something that cannot be ceased as an act, If I am doing something, it is implicit that I can also not do it. Jon > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128152 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > J: In ordinary speech, the (positive act of) looking is more than > (mere) > > > > seeing, just as we also distinguish between `listening to' and > `hearing'. > > > Are you making that distinction here, or do you count all seeing and > > > hearing as `voluntary activities'? What about breathing, coughing, > blinking? > > > > H: Yes, I am making that distinction. You could say that voluntary > activity in > > > my usage is activity that one can cease. Seeing and hearing occur all the > > time, well before volition becomes involved, and are thus not voluntary - > > but looking and listening are. > > > > Blinking and coughing as reflex cannot be suppressed, and breathing > > patterns can voluntarily be altered, but not ceased, IMO. > > =============== > > > One distinction he did teach, however, was the difference between vipaka > citta, on the one hand, and kusala and akusala citta, on the other. > > If we could keep our focus on kamma-patha, then we could usefully distinguish between acting/doing and thinking (about acting/doing). > Vipaka citta/consciousness is the moment of actual experiencing of a > sense-door object through one of the sense-doors (e.g., seeing, hearing), > before there is any liking or disliking of, or assigning of meaning to, or > `making sense of', what is being experienced. That citta moment is said to > be the result of past kamma. > > The subsequent functions of liking or disliking, or assigning of meaning > to, or `making sense of', what has just been experienced through a > sense-door are performed by the cittas that `run through' the object, and > these are either kusala or akusala. The mental factor of intention that > accompanies such cittas is what is meant by the term `kamma' (or `action'). > No, sorry, I don't buy that. Like I said - kamma patha, There is a world of difference between actually killing, stealing or lying, and thinking about it. Thinking about killing, stealing or lying has no consequence, other than for thinking. Actually killing, stealing or lying has actual consequences for other beings (something your darling wife needs to come to terms with :-)). > Jon > Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128153 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > =============== > > H: No, I didn't say that samatha IS the ceasing of voluntary activity, > but > > > that it develops BY ceasing of voluntary activity. > > =============== > > J: If there are other factors apart from the ceasing of voluntary activity > that are involved in samatha, that begs the question as to what exactly the > role of the ceasing of voluntary activity is. > > > =============== > > H: I don't understand how the non-doing of something could be akusala. > Could > > you explain? > > =============== > > J: A person could cease doing an activity for any number of akusala > reasons: > - out of fear that doing the activity could lead to undesirable > consequences (punishment, rebirth in an unhappy plane, ridicule by others, > etc.) > - in the (mistaken) belief that doing the activity would be a hindrance to > the development of samatha and/or awareness/insight; > - in order to gain something for him/herself > > To echo your own comment and question, I don't understand how the (mere) > closing of one's eyes could be kusala (i.e., dana, sila, samatha bhavana or > vipassana bhavana). Could you explain? > > A number of points - sorry if it is all higgledy - piggledy. There is no point in attempting to cease something you are not doing - therefore, it helps to know the difference between kamma and vipaka. I realised within about three seconds of hitting the "send" button, literally, that it was a mistake to engage you about a/kusala. A/kusala is irrelevant to ceasing - ceasing is not about hanging on to good bits, while abandoning bad bits. The whole lot goes, that's it. Kusala, schmusala :-) > =============== > > H: Obviously we agree that whether the eyelids are open or closed, and > > > therefore looking, is voluntary. We agree that looking is an act. > > Not-looking is certainly also an act, but that doesn't mean that looking > is > > qualitatively similar or identical to not-looking. Far from it. The world > > for one who is looking is totally different to the world of one who is > not > > looking. > > =============== > > J: The Buddha did not classify folks according to whether they were doing > or not doing what you call a voluntary activity (such as looking). He spoke > about understanding the world (specifically, the world of dhammas) as it is > at the present moment. > > No, sorry, wrong, wrong, wrong. The Buddha found folks who put down one life, only to pick up another one, highly blameworthy. So, what are doing now, Jon? :-) > > > =============== > > > J: To my understanding, the reference in the suttas to "having put away > > > covetousness and grief" is a reference to moments of kusala, not to > > > (physically) blocking a sense-door. > > > > > > > H: To your understanding, are the references to jhana about a person > with eyes > > open or closed? > > =============== > > J: I've no idea whether in jhana the eyes are likely to be, or must be, > closed, but even if they are that wouldn't mean that closing the eyes was > the way to develop samatha (if that's what your (cryptic and rhetorical) > question is suggesting :-)). > > Sometimes I am cryptic, sometimes people refuse to understand a point. While it's true that in jhana the sense door consciousnesses are > temporarily suppressed, it would be a mistake to deduce from that that the > proper `practice' for developing samatha involved the closing of one's eyes. > Don't come the raw prawn with me, squire. :-) My bullshit meter is going off the charts with this one, Jon, :-) while you are literally drowning in a sea of seeing :-( > > Jon > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128154 From: Nina van Gorkom > I read in a transcript that there can be right thinking and wrong > thinking. I might ordinarily think of right thinking as defined in > some sutta or other, I forget. Perhaps MN 19 or 20, thoughts of ill- > will, thoughts of > cruelty, etc. But here it seems different, there is something like, > when there is seeing usually there is instantly thinking of a > concept based on what is seen but instead there can be studying of > the reality instead. Is this what is meant by "right thinking" > here, "studying" the reality (e.g visible object) instead of > thinking of person or thing? > ------ N: Right thinking, sammaaasankappa, of the eightfold Path, that accompanies right understanding and right mindfulness of the eightfold Path. It leads citta to the right object, the naama or ruupa appearing at this very moment. It hits the object so that understanding can know it. In Poland Acharn often spoke about vitakka, leading the citta to the object. ------ Nina. #128159 From: Nina van Gorkom SLF: What I wonder is the meaning of the word 'Patthana'in > 'Satipatthana', what Buddha wanted us to know when using > 'satipatthana' ----- N: pa.t.thaana: setting forth, putting forward, from pa.t.thahati. Satipa.t.thaana: this has several meanings, actualy three. The objects of mindfulness, sati of the level of satipa.t.thaana, and the way the Buddha and his disciples went: not being cast down when people would not listen, nor having attachment when they would listen, but being evenminded no matter they would listen or not. -------- > > SLF: If sati of rupa or nama, it seems to be sati of the result > only. And characteristic of rupa/nama may seem to be the 'soul' of > that rupa or nama, if so, that will be the atta. We all agree that > 'sabbe Dhamma anattati', now we may not have the idea of someone, > but may still have the idea of something. ------- N: Result us usually used in the sense of result of kamma, vipaaka and this does not pertain here. No soul in naama and ruupa, they are not someone, nor something. They have no core. They arise and then fall away. ------ > > SLF: Thus, satipatthana may be sati of the patthana (of all Dhamma) > which seems to be the rule for nama and rupa to arise, one after > another. Can that be the meaning of satipatthana? ----- N: See above. Nina. #128161 From: "philip" Dear salaflowers, > Op 30-nov-2012, om 4:46 heeft salaflowers het volgende geschreven: > > > SLF: What I wonder is the meaning of the word 'Patthana'in > > 'Satipatthana', what Buddha wanted us to know when using > > 'satipatthana' > ----- Prasad: My understaing is as follows: In the Satipattana... actually one read at Sati + Upatthana.. Upatthana is like 'upasthita' in sanskrit... Which means firm estblishment... Satipattana means firm foundation of mindfulness (in four ways). ... Other meaning patthna is "setting forth"... leads meaning of conditionality...so patthana in abhidhamma is translated as conditional relations.. Prasad #128163 From: "sukinderpal narula" >Thank you. You have verified my position with the quote. ;-) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > How is that? > > "sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful." > > This is clearly psychology as clear as it can be. S: What is psychology? According to those who study it, psychology is the study of mind and human behavior. But is it not in fact about inference based on conventional / conceptual observation? Therefore in studying it, could the process be akin to that of the Dhamma namely, pariyatti-->patipatti-->pativedha? On reading or hearing the Dhamma, understanding of any level can arise, the object at which time is the present moment reality. And it is only when this happens, that there is real study of the Dhamma. Were the Buddha's teachings reducible to psychology, then studying it as one does any other field of study, would be O.K. But is studying the Dhamma about thinking in the abstract and then seeking to apply the theory, which in fact is just more thinking about concepts? I don't think so. Can the study of psychology condition pariyatti understanding? No, because only a teaching on the nature of present moment realities can. And one reason for this is because realities are anicca, dukkha and anatta. Psychology is based on atta and presupposes something lasting in time to which one can return in order to examine. The Dhamma tells us otherwise from the very beginning. And how the Sutta you cited verified my position? Because it is all about nama and rupa as confirmed by the statement: "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." == Alex: > Same with: "The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." S: Well, is not craving a reality which can and must be understood only when it appears and not just thought about in the abstract? Can the process of panna knowing the characteristic of a present moment reality be considered psychology? == Alex: > And lets not forget the N8P, as 4th Truth. S: What about it? Is this not reference to a conditioned reality which arises at the end of a long, long time development over many lifetimes and not the result of a few years of academic study where in the end one receives a degree and then go out and "practice"? == Alex: > Nothing to say about: > > "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress." - MN22 > > Also note that Dependent Origination starts with Ignorance (Avijja) and ends with Dukkha. Another instance of religious psychology. S: "Religious psychology?!" The Four Noble Truths are "Noble" by virtue of the fact that they are known clearly by the wisdom of the Ariyan. Before that, it is development through pariyatti, patipatti and different levels of pativedha. And as I said, these all conform by virtue of the fact that it is the reality "now" which is the object of study. Can the path of development where a present moment reality is object of study be considered psychology? The Ariyan Truths are that which applies not only to human beings, but all beings in all realms of existence. The first two are description of the cycle of existence and the latter two are the release from the cycle. Dependent Origination describes the former in more detail and the reverse process is what the latter involves. So is all this psychology, or is it description of reality? Metta, Sukin #128164 From: han tun S: What is psychology? According to those who study it, psychology >is the study of mind and human behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. Suffering is in the mind, and only in the mind can it be removed. Under the influence of lobha/dosa/moha, which are mental, a person can engage in harmful behavior to himself and others. >But is it not in fact about inference based on conventional / >conceptual observation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about inference about lobha/dosa/moha? >Were the Buddha's teachings reducible to psychology, then studying >it as one does any other field of study, would be O.K. But is >studying the Dhamma about thinking in the abstract and then seeking >to apply the theory, which in fact is just more thinking about >concepts? I don't think so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dhamma is all about application to avoid creating Suffering, if not, then what is the point of it? >Psychology is based on atta and presupposes something lasting in >time to which one can return in order to examine. The Dhamma tells >us otherwise from the very beginning. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Modern psychology does not believe in Atta. > > And how the Sutta you cited verified my position? Because it is all about nama and rupa as confirmed by the statement: > > "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also deals with "not getting what one wants" and "getting what one doesn't want". Also, puggala (which is Anatta) is not denied. > Alex: >And lets not forget the N8P, as 4th Truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >S: What about it? Is this not reference to a conditioned reality >which arises at the end of a long, long time development over many >lifetimes and not the result of a few years of academic study where >in the end one receives a degree and then go out and "practice"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if one studies incorrectly does it take a long time, and it takes long time because for that long time one was actively obstructing the progress in Dhamma. If a path requires multiple lifetimes, then it is hard to establish "cause and effect". Within that huge time something else, a correct understanding of Dhamma, might have done it all. A good simile: Lets say that person keeps going up and down parallel to the goal which is to the right. A Person under mistaken understanding can go up and down for a long long time, but if that person had correct understanding, he could step to the right and reach the goal. >S:"Religious psychology?!" >>>>>>>>> Yes. Salvation by not producing anymore Dukkha. Ultimately Dhamma is religion. 1) We can't prove beyond any doubt that Buddha as historical person even existed. 2) We can't prove beyond any doubt that even if Buddha did exist that He was fully Awakened. 3) We can't prove beyond any doubt that even if Buddha did exist and that He was fully Awakened, that He didn't use skillful means. 4) We can't prove beyond any doubt that such and such tradition accurately carried his message. IMHO, I believe that practical results is what matters. With best wishes, Alex #128168 From: Nina van Gorkom Thanks for the explanation. I guess it best not to think much about > sammasankappa or vitekka that is kusala or this or that. When there > is listening to Dhamma and reflecting when reflecting arises due to > cobditions, sammasankappa might possibly arise. But as soon as we > want to have it or try to have it, obviously the dome of lobha > (cemented by wrong view) is built again and any openings to > understanding cannot be. Does that sound right to you? (And if it > sounds right, it is thinking about a concept therefore it can be a > kind of correct thinking in a sense but not sammasankappa which > must have paramattha dhamma as object?) > ----- N: Yes, it must have a paramattha dhamma as object. It arises already at a moment of direct awareness and right understanding of a naama or ruupa. ----- Nina. #128169 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi SLF > > Welcome to the list from me. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "salaflowers" wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > SLF: Is patthana in satipatthana any concern with patthana which are 24 paccaya? > > =============== > > J: As I understand it, 'patthana' in satipatthana means something like 'foundation'. > > I am not familiar with 'patthana' in the context of the 24 paccaya (except as the name of an Abhidhamma text that deals with the subject). > > > =============== > > Is that possible sati not only of nama/rupa arises and passes away but with the understanding about causual relationship for that nama/rupa to arise? > > =============== > > J: To my understanding, as sati develops to higher levels, the relationships between dhammas become clearer (to panna). > =============== J: Now that I've seen the replies from Nina, Prasad and Han Tun I understand better the point you're raising. You are wondering if the 'patthana' part of 'satipatthana' in the Satipatthana Sutta signifies that the awareness being described in that sutta is (or involves) awareness of the conditions pertaining between dhammas as dealt with in the Abhidhamma text. I suspect that the answer is, as explained by the other members, that the term 'patthana' has a different meaning in each context. This seems to be supported by the fact that in the Satipatthana Sutta the 4 patthanas there mentioned are described as follows: "1. a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief; "2. he lives contemplating the feelings in the feelings, ardent...; "3. he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent ...; "4. he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending (them) and mindful (of them), having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief." I think the key expressions here are: contemplating the body in the body, ... the feelings in the feelings, ... consciousness in consciousness, mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending (them) and mindful (of them). So while the relations between dhammas are part of the understanding that is developed, that is not the specific meaning of 'patthana' in the context of satipatthana. Jon #128171 From: "sarah" wrote: > > > 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. ... >H: This, too, is merely the statement of a view. > > It is a particularly self-defeating statement of a view, at that. A more > concise paraphrase of it would be: > > This is a statement (about x, y, z). But in fact, there are no statements. .... S: Right, no statements, just realities. Exactly what was being said. Metta Sarah ==== #128172 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > > J: Kamma is a very complicated area. For example, in the case of the akusala kamma of killing, the virtue of the person killed has a bearing on the severity of the kamma. Yet factors such as this are said to be reflected in the intention. > > > > So I hesitate to agree with the proposition that 'the outer action does not count' :-)) > > RE: Well, according to this formula, if the nobility of the person killed, for instance, is "reflected in the intention" it is once again the 'severity' of the volition that ultimately counts to increase the kamma, not the external nobility itself. > =============== J: Yes and no :-)) The 'virtue' factor applies even if the person doing the killing was unaware of the virtue of the other. So the analogy you give (below) is not quite on all fours. > =============== > RE: You could say, by way of analogy, that if I steal a diamond, knowing its value, it is a more severe act than if I steal a peanut, a minor infraction as there are many peanuts and it is sort of a minor impulse to do something slightly wrong. It is not the value of the diamond per se that makes the act more serious, but the understanding of the much larger consequence of the act. Same with the severity of the kamma, which as I understand it, would not exist at all if I killed someone of nobility by accident. Without the cetana, no kamma. So the cetana rule seems to apply throughout, as it does to some extent in law. > =============== J: There are many factors; it's difficult to generalise. Jon #128173 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > > H: Yes, I am making that distinction. You could say that voluntary activity in my usage is activity that one can cease. Seeing and hearing occur all the time, well before volition becomes involved, and are thus not voluntary - but looking and listening are. > > > =============== > > > > J: As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach the distinction between activities that can be ceased (and would this include, for example, sitting down, crossing one's legs, etc.) and activities that cannot. > > H: I think that makes sense - I would hesitate to refer to something that cannot be ceased as an act, If I am doing something, it is implicit that I can also not do it. > =============== H: My point was that while you make a distinction between what you refer to as voluntary activity and other activity that is not voluntary, in that the former (only) should be ceased as part of the development of the path, no such distinction is made in the teachings themselves. There are however other distinctions that are made in the teachings. For example: - the distinction between kusala consciousness and akusala consciousness, and between these 2 kinds of consciousness and vipaka consciousness - the distinction between citta and its accompanying mental factors - the distinction between nama dhammas and rupa dhammas. To my understanding, these are all differences that have to be known, by direct experience, as part of the development of the path. Jon #128174 From: "philip" I heard: "If one does not hear about the > development of satipa.t.thaana how can there be conditions for > awareness to be aware?" > > I don't really understand this. > ------- N: How could there be awareness of naama and ruupa without pariyatti, intellectual understanding of what the objects of awareness are, paramattha dhammas, not concepts. One has to know the difference between concepts and realities. And also, one has to know that sati is aware, not a self. There has to be association with the right friend in Dhamma, listening and considering a great deal. One has to understand that the goal is detachment and the eradication of defilements. One has to know what defilements are, what wrong view is. ----- Nina. #128176 From: "philip" wrote: > > Some part of dhamma discussion by Than Acharn Sujin Boriharnvanaket > Sobhanadhamma 06 session 2481 > > T.A. Sujin: There are some people who rarely listen to dhamma teaching but have a feeling that everything is impermanent. Everything changes and it is never stable. Therefore, no one should hold to anything with pleasure and satisfaction. > > There is someone, some moment, sometimes, having this kind of feeling. > But this simply knowledge is so shallow. > Because it is merely thinking about the impermanent. > It is not panna understanding and experiencing the characteristic of arising and falling away of reality at the moment. > > Therefore, someday, someone will have this kind of thinking about state of impermanent. > But if he or she doesn't study and develop Panna, no one can abolish any of Kilesas at all. > > Because the duty to eradicate Kilesas is not the duty of Lobba or wrong view about self that can drop Kilesas. > But it is the duty of Panna which is capable of understanding and experiencing the characteristic of reality more and more and unhesitatingly aware that there is no self at all. > > All dhamma teaching where the Lord Buddha kindly explained is for everyone to understand that each person is full of Kilesas. Don't get it wrong that we've already decreased a lot of kilesas because if it is not actually Panna, Kilesas can not be reduced. > > And if there is no action through body and speech, Kilesas do not present themselves to show that how massive we have accumulated them throughout the past. > ========== > > Anumodhana > > Jagkrit > #128178 From: sarah abbott From: Tam Bach >Dear friends, > > > >Why these cetasikas are mentioned in pair such as Kaya passadhi and citta passadhi, (with kaya standing for vedana, sanna, sankhara?), why this emphasis, why not just say "passadhi cetasika" like we say lobha cetasika or dosa cetasika? > > >Any input is welcome. > > >Tam #128179 From: "jagkrit2012" Ph: Nina's post is about how only panna is truly helpful when we are in trouble. This post is about how there can be a lot of thinking about impermanence, but it is only when panna develops that there is an understanding that is more meaningful towards the weaking of and eventual eradication of kilesas. JJ: It is so true that panna is invaluable especially when one is in any kind of trouble. Trouble of kilesas. T.A. Sujin gave a simile that an ordinary person who is full of kilesas falls and traps in a deep canyon. The only way out is through climbing with a rope. Climbing with a rope is like developing of panna for the purpose of getting out of the canyon of kilesas. If we are keeping on climbing, at last we will eventually reach the edge. If we let go the rope, we eternity stay with trouble of kilesas. ============= > Ph: I think we should be honest and admit that even for us, who value patience and detachment in the development of panna, there is still a lot of lobha for panna, attachment to having panna, and probably finding comfort in the idea of having panna, finding comfort with attachment. JJ: Exactly, lobha clings to anything even panna (only nivarana lobha can not cling to). When we develop more understanding until realising nature of lobha, panna knows lobha. Lobha will be gradually eradicated by understanding. In the book of 10 perfections in daily life, T.A. Sujin mentioned that panna is the opponent of lobha because panna brings twilight to lobha. When seeing and there is no panna, lobha is ardent, bright and dramatically arises. But when there is panna, lobha is in twilight and can not arise. ============== > Ph: But that is ok, we are aware of it, and honest about it, we are saved from being on the path of ambition for fast results that is so deeply rooted in lobha and moha and ditti that there is no seeing through the central presence of those kilesas in their "practice" for almost all people (cittas) lost on it.. And panna does work its way, when there is an appreciation that it can only work its way at those rare moments of kusala, with is always accompanied by (rooted in?) alobha. JJ: I totally agree. Honesty is the best policy after all. When studying dhamma, we should be honest to ourselves otherwise lobha and wrong view again comes to play its role. ================ Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128180 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: The mental factor of intention that accompanies such cittas is what is meant by the term `kamma' (or `action'). > > H: No, sorry, I don't buy that. Like I said - kamma patha, There is a world of > difference between actually killing, stealing or lying, and thinking about > it. Thinking about killing, stealing or lying has no consequence, other > than for thinking. > =============== J: There appears to be a misunderstanding between us regarding the use of intention/intending to. Because I agree with your observation that there is a difference between intending to do something (as a prelude to doing the act) and actually doing it. No argument on that point at all. However, in the teachings the term 'intention' denotes a specific mental factor that accompanies all moments of consciousness, including those at the 'intending to do' stage as well as those at the time of the actual doing. In both cases the (mental factor of) intention is considered to be 'kamma', but not necessarily kamma-patha. Of course, not all actual doing is kamma-patha. And while most kinds of kamma-patha require some act of body or speech, there are some kinds of kamma-patha that are purely mental 'conduct' requiring no act of body or speech. So returning to the analysis of different classes of consciousness, these include vipaka citta as one kind and kusala and akusala citta as another (or 2 others). Vipaka citta/consciousness is the moment of actual experiencing of a sense-door object through one of the sense-doors (e.g., seeing, hearing), before there is any liking or disliking of, or assigning of meaning to, or `making sense of', what is being experienced. That citta moment is said to be the result of past kamma. The subsequent functions of liking or disliking, or assigning of meaning to, or `making sense of', what has just been experienced through a sense-door are performed by the cittas that `run through' the object, and these are either kusala or akusala. The mental factor of intention that accompanies such cittas is what is meant by the term `kamma' (or `action'). Thus, rather than speak about 'actions that can be ceased' and actions that cannot, the Buddha spoke about these different classes of consciousness. Moments of actual seeing are vipaka citta, while the kusala or akusala moment of consciousness that 'run through' the visible object are, technically, moments of kamma. Kamma-patha is, in terms of dhammas, the mental factor of intention that accompanies certain kinds of conduct through body, speech or mind. Jon AdChoices #128181 From: Tam Bach wrote: > Prasad: My understaing is as follows: > In the Satipattana... actually one read at Sati + Upatthana.. Upatthana is like 'upasthita' in sanskrit... Which means firm estblishment... > > Satipattana means firm foundation of mindfulness (in four ways). ... S: Yes, I understand the same way. ... > Other meaning patthna is "setting forth"... leads meaning of conditionality...so patthana in abhidhamma is translated as conditional relations.. ... S: Glad to see you posting again, Prasad. I just remembered when I saw your name that before you asked me to let you know if there were any more Dhamma meetings/gatherings with Ajahn Sujin. We have several trips and gatherings arranged in Thailand during January. I posted some details before on DSG but you may not have seen. Could you send me an email off-list if you'd like to find out more detail. It would be a good chance to listen to Ajahn and to meet many of us from DSG, but let me know very soon as places have already been booked. SLF, are you one of our dear friends from Hanoi? Very welcome here and hope you'll introduce yourself a little sometime. Glad to read your good questions. Metta Sarah ==== #128183 From: "sarah" wrote: > What is visible object? ... S: Just that reality which is seen now. ... > We need to hear about visible object to see it? ... S: It is seen whenever there is seeing. However, this isn't usually known. Usually there's the idea that objects and people are seen, shapes and patterns. There is usually the idea that it's "I" or someone that sees too, so no idea of realities, no understanding of anatta. ... > >S: If we try to 'work it out' in scientific terms, we'll never get closer to > > the truth, never directly understand what appears now. > > > > > > If you are saying that you don't need to first understand all there is to > know about cancer before one can give up smoking, I agree. ... S: I'm saying that an understanding of science doesn't help in the slightest when it comes to an understanding of realities - of those realities which can experience an object, such as seeing, and those realities which cannot experience anything, like visible object. ... > > But Theravada is certainly guilty of straying into the domain of science, > and many willingly continue to follow them their - that is the ongoing > problem of much of science and Theravada - it is unrelated to the problem > of human suffering. ... S: Whatever is read or said, all that matters is the understanding now of the reality appearing. ... Metta Sarah ==== #128184 From: "sarah" wrote: > I've had a selfish tendency to only think about myself, assuming that my visual and auditory fields refer back to permanent eyes and ears as if there was a little man inside my head "here" looking out the windows. ... S: Atta view is there for all until eradicated. It's not 'your' tendency, just a wrong view of atta, a dhamma arising again and again. Just a lot of proliferations and wrong thinking again and again. ... > > I'm wondering if the suggestion to understand realities of the present moment isn't implying a "here" and "now", that perceptions of other places and occasions are not necessarily a distraction from the real practice? ... S: The only "real practice" is just the understanding of the reality which appears now. At such moments, there is no concern or thougt about "other places and occasions". Thinking can think of any ideas and concepts - there can be awareness and understanding of thinking too. Metta Sarah ====== #128185 From: Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Antony, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "antony272b2" wrote: > > > I've had a selfish tendency to only think about myself, assuming that my visual and auditory fields refer back to permanent eyes and ears as if there was a little man inside my head "here" looking out the windows. > ... > S: Atta view is there for all until eradicated. It's not 'your' tendency, just a wrong view of atta, a dhamma arising again and again. Just a lot of proliferations and wrong thinking again and again. > ... > > > > I'm wondering if the suggestion to understand realities of the present moment isn't implying a "here" and "now", that perceptions of other places and occasions are not necessarily a distraction from the real practice? > ... > S: The only "real practice" is just the understanding of the reality which appears now. At such moments, there is no concern or thougt about "other places and occasions". Thinking can think of any ideas and concepts - there can be awareness and understanding of thinking too. > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > #128188 From: Nina van Gorkom ***** Nina. #128190 From: "jagkrit2012" T: Can we say honesty is the manifestation of Kayujjukata & cittujjukata? JJ: Kayujjukata means the cetasika which is honest and has a duty to bring about other accompanying cetasikas to arise with firm, not deceptive and straight to kusala dhamma. Cittujjukata means the cetasika which brings about a citta straight to kusala dhamma. Therefore, you can say that honesty in kusala dhamma is the manifestation of kayujjukata and cittujjukata which always arise with all kusala citta in a sense of bringing about duty. However, in kusala citta, there is tattramachatatta cetasika. Tattramachatatta cetasika is the cetasika which is equitable, not swaying and deprived of prejudice. Therefore, honesty can be tattramachatatta cetasika as well. Anumodhana Jagkrit #128191 From: "salaflowers" wrote: > > Dear Prasad & SLF, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Prasad Praturi" wrote: > > > Prasad: My understaing is as follows: > > In the Satipattana... actually one read at Sati + Upatthana.. Upatthana is like 'upasthita' in sanskrit... Which means firm estblishment... > > > > Satipattana means firm foundation of mindfulness (in four ways). > ... > S: Yes, I understand the same way. <...> #128192 From: Nina van Gorkom Thank you all for your information and sharing. Your inputs give me > more understanding and open some thing new to research more :) #128193 From: Nina van Gorkom Why these cetasikas are mentioned in pair such as Kaya passadhi and > citta passadhi, (with kaya standing for vedana, sanna, sankhara?), > why this emphasis, why not just say "passadhi cetasika" like we say > lobha cetasika or dosa cetasika? ------- N: Indeed, body stands for he mental body of cetasikas. I quote from my Visuddhimagga studies, Ch XIV, 144: In the following paragraphs, the Visuddhimagga deals with six pairs of sobhana cetasikas that arise with each sobhana citta. Of each pair one cetasika is a quality pertaining to the accompanying cetasikas (kaaya or the mental body), and one a quality pertaining to citta. They perform their functions so that kusala citta and cetasikas can apply themselves to daana, siila or bhaavana. They are indispensable for the performing of kusala, they support the kusala citta, each in their own way. The first pair is tranquillity of body, kaaya-passaddhi, and tranquillity of citta, citta-passaddhi. Tranquillity or calm is not only necessary for samatha, but it has to accompany each kusala citta. Calm is opposed to restlessness, uddhacca, which prevents the arising of kusala citta. When there are conditions for kusala citta, calm performs its function while it accompanies kusala citta. There is no need to aim for calm first as a condition for kusala citta. It arises already when kusala citta arises. The Commentary to the ‘Abhidhammattha Sangaha’ (T.A. p 64) mentions that calm of cetasikas also conditions bodily phenomena: ------- The Tiika summarizes the six pairs of tranquillity, lightness, mallleability, wieldiness, proficiency and rectitude. They all assist sobhana citta and its accompanying cetasikas so that citta and cetasikas are alert, healthy and efficient in performing kusala. They are classified as six pairs, one pertaining to citta and one pertaining to the mental body, cetasikas. ---------- Nina. #128194 From: Tam Bach To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 2:19 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Fw: Question on passadhi, lahuta, muduta, kammannata, pagunnata, ujjukata cetasikas. Dear Tam Bach, Op 4-dec-2012, om 4:11 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven, fwrd from Tam Bach: > Why these cetasikas are mentioned in pair such as Kaya passadhi and > citta passadhi, (with kaya standing for vedana, sanna, sankhara?), > why this emphasis, why not just say "passadhi cetasika" like we say > lobha cetasika or dosa cetasika? ------- N: Indeed, body stands for he mental body of cetasikas. I quote from my Visuddhimagga studies, Ch XIV, 144: In the following paragraphs, the Visuddhimagga deals with six pairs of sobhana cetasikas that arise with each sobhana citta. Of each pair one cetasika is a quality pertaining to the accompanying cetasikas (kaaya or the mental body), and one a quality pertaining to citta. They perform their functions so that kusala citta and cetasikas can apply themselves to daana, siila or bhaavana. They are indispensable for the performing of kusala, they support the kusala citta, each in their own way. The first pair is tranquillity of body, kaaya-passaddhi, and tranquillity of citta, citta-passaddhi. Tranquillity or calm is not only necessary for samatha, but it has to accompany each kusala citta. Calm is opposed to restlessness, uddhacca, which prevents the arising of kusala citta. When there are conditions for kusala citta, calm performs its function while it accompanies kusala citta. There is no need to aim for calm first as a condition for kusala citta. It arises already when kusala citta arises. The Commentary to the ‘Abhidhammattha Sangaha’ (T.A. p 64) mentions that calm of cetasikas also conditions bodily phenomena: ------- The Tiika summarizes the six pairs of tranquillity, lightness, mallleability, wieldiness, proficiency and rectitude. They all assist sobhana citta and its accompanying cetasikas so that citta and cetasikas are alert, healthy and efficient in performing kusala. They are classified as six pairs, one pertaining to citta and one pertaining to the mental body, cetasikas. ---------- Nina. ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links #128196 From: Tam Bach wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > 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. > ... > >H: This, too, is merely the statement of a view. > > > > > It is a particularly self-defeating statement of a view, at that. A more > > concise paraphrase of it would be: > > > > This is a statement (about x, y, z). But in fact, there are no > statements. > .... > S: Right, no statements, just realities. Exactly what was being said. > > So, there is something "being said", is there? Sending out an emails like this is just so self-defeating, Sarah. You should be very careful who you write this sort of babble to, some out there lack the discernment to realise you don't actually believe it at all. > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128199 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > > > > J: Kamma is a very complicated area. For example, in the case of the akusala kamma of killing, the virtue of the person killed has a bearing on the severity of the kamma. Yet factors such as this are said to be reflected in the intention. > > > > > > So I hesitate to agree with the proposition that 'the outer action does not count' :-)) > > > > RE: Well, according to this formula, if the nobility of the person killed, for instance, is "reflected in the intention" it is once again the 'severity' of the volition that ultimately counts to increase the kamma, not the external nobility itself. > > =============== > > J: Yes and no :-)) The 'virtue' factor applies even if the person doing the killing was unaware of the virtue of the other. But the killer must have the intention to kill, yes? If he accidentally kills a noble person, that doesn't count, does it? Is there any kamma without some intention to do something wrong? > So the analogy you give (below) is not quite on all fours. Perhaps not; but perhaps it can stand up and bark. In law, as I understand it, if someone drives the getaway car in a bank robbery, they are held responsible for the murder of a guard committed by someone else involved in the robbery. Why? Because once they signed on for a criminal activity, they have facilitated whatever happens, even that which they did not personally intend. But they did have the intention to commit a crime. If I raise my hand in a rage and kill someone, the fact that I did not know they were a noble, virtuous person does not let me off the hook. I have killed someone of special status, and so I take the consequence of my act of rage, even if I did not particularly intend to kill someone of that sort. I think that a person who kills takes on the kamma of whatever factors exist in that situation, but they still must have akusala cetana or the kamma is not activated. Would you disagree? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = =