#130200 From: han tun Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina update, was:Thank you very much hantun1 Dear Sarah, Ā Thank you very much for your update on Nina's condition. I know she is very brave. I pray for her speedy recovery. Ā with metta and respect, Han ________________________________ From: sarah Ā Dear Han & all, S: Glad to hear you're home and slowly recovering. No escape from old age, sickness, death and murderers whilst travelling in samsara. Thank you for the good reminders. *** We just spoke to Nina briefly. She's sounding more cheery and laughing too. She expects to be in the Rehab centre for another 6 -8 wks. She still experiences quite a lot of pain and finds it difficult being so dependant on others, such as needing help washing and so on. She can now walk a few steps and can get around in a wheelchair. She's especially enjoying being with others at meal times, which doesn't happen when she's at home. She said she's becoming more like my (very sociable) mother day by day, chatting and laughing:-) I had said to Jon that this might be a welcome break for her in this regard. The other good news is that she's now able to listen to Dhamma. She has the tapes from Thailand which she made in January and can listen to these again and again. I joked and suggested she'd better write a second series from them! Talking of which, she's sent me the file of the series that she was posting extracts from on the list. Jon plans to continue posting the extracts soon. Of course, I sent her everyone's best wishes and she sent hers to you all as well. Metta Sarah ====== #130201 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:41 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Dear Tep, Jon, all, >T:A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no >progress. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe you are right. Also, I don't think that one needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130202 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Alex, > >RE:This disparaging characterization of all meditators is > presumptuous, >and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot > engage with >meditation without indulging self-view....It is stated > over and over >that "formal meditation" is an expression of self-view > and control, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > How come living in the daily life isn't also an expression of self-view? > What do you think, are these expressions of self-view? Wake up, think about what to do next, go to the bathroom, drink a glass of water, brush teeth, make coffee, open the computer and read DSG. Of all the cittas rooted in ignorance, only four are conditioned by wrong-view. Besides in a day, not only akusala cittas arise, but there must be kusala cittas as well. > You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or > someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes... > You appear to be confusing self-view with other akusala dhammas, such as dosa, lobha and mana. > At least meditation is supposed to be higher kusala activity and can > even lead to Dhamma wisdom. > Wrong View is further away from Right View than any other kind of akusala. Meditation leading to wisdom is an impossibility. > Being perfect in order to reach perfection seems like "God's grace" or > something like that. > What is suggested is the development of understanding, starting with pariyatti and not the idea of achieving perfect right view before "doing" anything. Sukin #130203 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Right View sukinderpal Hi Tep, Your questions. > 1. Is "formal meditation" the same as samatha-vipassana? Please > elaborate a little. > 2. Is this Right View you are talking about same as described in Vism > XVI, 76? If not, what is it? > > Vism XVI, 76: "Briefly (see Ch. XXII, 31 for details), when a > meditator is progressing towards the penetration of the four truths, > his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the > inherent tendency to ignorance, and that is right view. It has right > seeing as its characteristics. Its function is to reveal elements. It > is manifested as the abolition of the darkness of ignorance." > 1. Samatha bhavana is the development of kusala of particular kinds. Vipassana bhavana is the development of understanding with regard to nama and rupa. Formal meditation is neither of these. It is something done in the name of Dhamma practice involving sitting a particular way, concentrating on some chosen object, at a particular time and place and the idea that down the road, certain desired states will be achieved. Whats more is that, the practice is maintained as a result of the impression by the meditator, that something positive is happening / being gained. 2. Yes, if what you are referring to is the basic characteristic and function of Right View and not the penetrative power of this particular level of wisdom. Sukin #130204 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Tue Apr 23, 2013 11:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Thank you very much tadaomiyamot... Dear Han Please take a good care of yourself. I look forward to reading your exposition. Mettaaya, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Khun Tadao, > Ā > Thank you very much once again. > I will write more when I amĀfit. > Ā > with metta andĀrespect, > Han > Ā > > ________________________________ > From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." > ĀDear Han > It's nice to hear that you've been getting stronger. > I look forward to reading your thought on Nandi-raaga, which is to a certain degree > under my control. > Mettaaya, > tadao > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #130205 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! truth_aerator Dear Sukin, all, >Suk:What do you think, are these expressions of self-view? Wake up, >think about what to do next, go to the bathroom, drink a glass of >water, brush teeth, make coffee, open the computer and read DSG. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If daily life activities do not have to be rooted in self-view, then why can't meditation not be rooted in self view? >Suk:You appear to be confusing self-view with other akusala dhammas, >such as dosa, lobha and mana. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For stream entry one doesn't remove or weaken those fetters. So in the beginning, a meditator isn't expected to remove those fetters either. Later on, yes. One has to start where one can, even if it is in delusion. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130206 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:23 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head tadaomiyamot... Dear Tep The actual spelling, which requires a super- and sub-script, is slightly different from "panini". But your look up of the term is correct. He is the greatest Sanskrit grammarian, whose grammatical framework has traditionally been used not only for Sanskrit but also for Pali and other Indic languages. As for Rinzai Zen, a sad reality is that most of its practitioners do not understand the essence of Rinzai-roku. Daisetsu Suzuki had a good grasp of the Zen teaching, but he was too stingy in explaining its essence. The weakest point of the Zen teaching is the misunderstanding or distorted idea that finding the starting line is tantamount to reaching the goal line. At any rate, don't depend on Wikipedia, which must have been written by someone who has no idea of the essence of Rinzai Zen. Each individual are different; and even each arahatta is different. Some or most of them are well versed in the Buddha's teaching and at least one arahatta is the polar opposite. Here I'm referring to the handkerchief monk. (I assume that you know the sutta.) Even Kun Sujin says that each one has different accumulation and she cannot expect that everyone is like Kun Nina. (I'm very much like the handkerchief monk sans his wisdom.) Mettaaya, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hello Tadao, - > > >Tadao: Have you studied Panini's Grammar? It's sophistication is in the realm of Super Computers. > > T: I did not know that term! The Wickipedia shows that it is the classical Sanskrit. Maybe the Wickipedia is inaccurate. > > >Tadao: My interest in what Kun Sujin has been preaching originated in my study of (Rinzai) Zen. These two schools perfectly match. In Zen, there are hardly any words or explanations of nama and rupa, but it still pinpoints where one can find the essence of Buddhism, i.e., "here and now." > > T: The Britannica Encyclopedia explains that Rinzai "stresses the abrupt awakening of transcendental wisdom, or enlightenment". What this Dictionary describes does not sound like Khun Sujin's ideas. ["Among the methods it practices are shouts (katsu) or blows delivered by the master on the disciple, question-and-answer sessions (mondo), and meditation on paradoxical statements (koan), all intended to accelerate a breakthrough of the normal boundaries of consciousness and to awaken insight that transcends logical distinctions."] > > >Tadao: The point is that (many) Japanese prefer a simple/simpler teaching to the highly elaborated description of the teaching; and I am one of them and I cannot help. > > T: I see your point now. Simple teachings are found in the Itivuttaka too. For example, Iti 2.2: "Endowed with two things, a monk lives in ease in the present life --untroubled, undistressed, & unfeverish-- and at the break-up of the body, after death, a good destination can be expected. Which two? A guarding of the doors of the sense faculties, and knowing moderation in food." > .......... > Knowing moderation in food (and drinks) alone results in good health and freedom from several diseases. > > Be well, > Tep > === > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > > > > > (Being exposed to the Grammar was my initial interest in Linguistics.) > > > > The same with the Abhidhamma, whose sophistication can only be appreciated by > > those with highly developed left brains. > > > #130207 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:32 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Dear Alex (Jon & others) - Thanks for the comment : > Alex: I don't think that one needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. > Alex: The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. T: Whenever one wants to believe what he/she thinks is right (a ditthi), then that can be a cause of misapprehension. ........... Allow me to elaborate how a Buddhist should practice to develop right view at the mundane level that progresses towards the supramundane right view of a Stream-winner. There are two levels of right view: mundane- and supramundane- right views. Prior to attaining the mundane right view (lokiya samma ditthi), there are wrong views (including views about Self and the Cosmos) of an uninstructed person who must be educated by the Buddhist mundane right view in order to remove those views about permanent Self; disbelief in kamma and vipaka; disbelief/not-knowing that there are Ariyans/Buddhas in the world, and so on . Thus the uninstructed outsider has to be taught about the mundane right view; he does not have "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" to remove his own thick-set wrong views. And, importantly the Buddha said, "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. etc.". The ignorant outsider now must try to abandon and abstain from his prior wrong views mainly through Saddha, not through "wisdom" or "insight" or "understanding" which he has none. He has to exercise mundane right effort and mundane right mindfulness with the mundane right view that he applies, although he does not yet have the wisdom to understand it. So the instructed disciple, who now has conviction (saddha), follows the following training scheme to develop higher mundane right view further: "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities -right view, right effort, & right mindfulness- run & circle around right view." [MN 117] This practice/training procedure continues over and over again through time to develop higher right view, higher right mindfulness and higher right effort towards supramundane right view of the Sotapattimagga. At the fruition of Stream-entry the wrong views are completely destroyed, then and only then, the right view becomes Ariyan right view (lokuttara samma-ditthi). ............ Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Jon, all, > > > >T : A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no progress. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #130208 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:08 am Subject: Re: Meditation and Right View t.sastri Hi Sukin, (others) - Many thanks for the kind reply to my questions. [Sukin:] 1. Samatha bhavana is the development of kusala of particular kinds. Vipassana bhavana is the development of understanding with regard to nama and rupa. Formal meditation is neither of these. It is something done in the name of Dhamma practice involving sitting a particular way, concentrating on some chosen object, at a particular time and place and the idea that down the road, certain desired states will be achieved. Whats more is that, the practice is maintained as a result of the impression by the meditator, that something positive is happening / being gained. 2. Yes, if what you are referring to is the basic characteristic and function of Right View and not the penetrative power of this particular level of wisdom. ----------- [Tep:] 1. I am also of the opinion that kusala dhammas and pa~n~na do arise through "development" (bhavana). The "formal meditation" as you described is not my interest either, since it is neither samatha nor vipassana for the cessation of dukkha. 2. This mundane right view is near the supramundane samma-ditthi of the Sotapanna. Carefully note the words: "his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to ignorance". By the way, what are you referring to as "the penetrative power of this particular level of wisdom"? Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > Your questions. > > > 1. Is "formal meditation" the same as samatha-vipassana? Please > > elaborate a little. > > 2. Is this Right View you are talking about same as described in Vism > > XVI, 76? If not, what is it? > > > > Vism XVI, 76: "Briefly (see Ch. XXII, 31 for details), when a > > meditator is progressing towards the penetration of the four truths, > > his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the > > inherent tendency to ignorance, and that is right view. It has right > > seeing as its characteristics. Its function is to reveal elements. It > > is manifested as the abolition of the darkness of ignorance." > > #130209 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:50 am Subject: Abrupt vs Gradual truth_aerator Dear Tep, Tadao, all, >T:The Britannica Encyclopedia explains that Rinzai "stresses the >abrupt awakening of transcendental wisdom, or enlightenment". What >this Dictionary describes does not sound like Khun Sujin's ideas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well in some things it does sound like KS's views as how they appear to me. A kusala moment can arise abruptly after akusala. No gradual stages in between. It doesn't appear the some people here accept the idea that the mind might be partially deluded, and partially correct. It seems that it is either only kusala or only akusala, thus either meditation is totally wrong (which has only wrong results) or it is totally right (which they correctly claim that we can't have right now). It kinda seems too black-and-white to me. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130211 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:04 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Dear Tadao, (Alex, Rob E.) - [I deleted the same message posted earlier because of an error.] The more I use Wickipedia the less I believe it; yet it is free and often useful. >Tadao: The weakest point of the Zen teaching is the misunderstanding or distorted idea that finding the starting line is tantamount to reaching the goal line. T: That misunderstanding is indeed unforgivable ! It is similar to the claim I often heard that a non-ariyan can understand and "see" right now the ultimate reality without the ariyan's right view (of the path). >Tadao: Here I'm referring to the handkerchief monk. (I assume that you know the sutta.) > T: Is he the one who rubbed on a handkerchief (while chanting something) till it got dirty? > Tadao: Even Kun Sujin says that each one has different accumulation and she cannot expect that everyone is like Kun Nina. (I'm very much like the handkerchief monk sans his wisdom.) T: That's true; even two cats do not have same intelligence. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Dear Tep > ... .... > As for Rinzai Zen, a sad reality is that most of its practitioners do not understand > the essence of Rinzai-roku. Daisetsu Suzuki had a good grasp of the Zen teaching, but he was too stingy in explaining its essence. At any rate, don't depend on Wikipedia, which must have been written by someone who has no idea of the essence of Rinzai Zen. > > Each individual are different; and even each arahatta is different. Some or most of them are well versed in the Buddha's teaching and at least one arahatta is the polar opposite. > > Mettaaya, > > tadao > #130212 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:15 am Subject: Re: Abrupt vs Gradual .. Or Both ... t.sastri Dear Alex, (Tadao, others), - >Alex: It doesn't appear the some people here accept the idea that the mind might be partially deluded, and partially correct. It seems that it is either only kusala or only akusala, thus either meditation is totally wrong (which has only wrong results) or it is totally right (which they correctly claim that we can't have right now). It kinda seems too black-and-white to me. T: Although there are plenty of discrete binary (digital, 0-1) variables in this world, most of the quantitative variables take continuous (analog) values. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in his book, The Noble Eightfold Path, that defilements can manifest by (abruptly) surging up -- a discrete behavior, or they can lie dormant and accumulating strength (continuously) before showing up in the form of bodily or verbal actions. ..................... "The Buddha teaches that the defilements are stratified into three layers: the stage of latent tendency, the stage of manifestation, and the stage of transgression. The most deeply grounded is the level of latent tendency (anusaya), where a defilement merely lies dormant without displaying any activity. The second level is the stage of manifestation (pariyutthana), where a defilement, through the impact of some stimulus, surges up in the form of unwholesome thoughts, emotions, and volitions. Then, at the third level, the defilement passes beyond a purely mental manifestation to motivate some unwholesome action of body or speech. Hence this level is called the stage of transgression (vitikkama)." Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Tadao, all, > > >T:The Britannica Encyclopedia explains that Rinzai "stresses the >abrupt awakening of transcendental wisdom, or enlightenment". What >this Dictionary describes does not sound like Khun Sujin's ideas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Well in some things it does sound like KS's views as how they appear to me. A kusala moment can arise abruptly after akusala. No gradual stages in between. > #130213 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Hi Alex and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Sukin, Robert E, all, > > >RE:This disparaging characterization of all meditators is presumptuous, >and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot engage with >meditation without indulging self-view....It is stated over and over >that "formal meditation" is an expression of self-view and control, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > How come living in the daily life isn't also an expression of self-view? You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes... I think the understanding that conventional activities have no relation to Dhamma is based on a very technical belief that such things do not really exist. Since only momentary dhammas are actual, anything that is based on conceptual understanding such as a person, killing, eating, walking, cars, animals - are all not real. They are extrapolations from actual experience of single [one-at-a-time] qualities that are apprehended directly. So we don't really see a "person" or even a "body" in front of us, just "visual object" with certain colors, etc. And we interpret it into a "person" through concept. Likewise, there's no eating actually taking place as an ongoing activity. There's hardness, nutriment, visual object, all these experiences in a single-moment series that we tie together to see it as "eating." I personally think there is a misinterpretation of "paramatha" in such a view. It assumes that "ultimate" means "only" and that the fact that we only experience dhammas means that nothing else exists. It is frowned on here, in my experience, to make a connection between dhammas and conventional objects and activities, but I don't think the Abhidhamma was meant to deny the existence of conventional doings - just to give the most accurate view of how things are experienced through the six doors. I also feel that the three characteristics of experience, dukkha, anicca and anatta apply to conventional experiences, as does attachment, clinging, aversion, etc. But those who believe in the technical view of dhammas think this is also concept and not accurate. > At least meditation is supposed to be higher kusala activity and can even lead to Dhamma wisdom. I agree, but those who differ feel that all efforts to reach enlightenment impose a concept of self that can control the path. I don't think this is true either, but "never the twain shall meet." Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #130214 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Hi Rob E., Alex (Sukin + others) - You say there are three assumptions [A1 - A3] that underlie the dogmatic idea (proposed by Sukin, for example), i.e., "one cannot engage with meditation without indulging self-view", as follows. A1. Conventional activities and anything that is based on conceptual understanding are extrapolations from actual experience of single [one-at-a-time] qualities that are apprehended directly. A2. We only see just "visual object" with certain colors, etc. And we interpret it into a "person" through concept. Likewise, there's no eating only experiences in a single-moment series that we tie together to see it as "eating." A3. The fact that we only experience dhammas means that nothing else exists. (This is because there is a misinterpretation of "paramatha" : it assumes that "ultimate" means "only".) Your rebuts [R1-R3]: R1. I don't think the Abhidhamma was meant to deny the existence of conventional doings - just to give the most accurate view of how things are experienced through the six doors. R2. (I think) the three characteristics of experience, dukkha, anicca and anatta apply to conventional experiences, as does attachment, clinging, aversion, etc. R3. Those who differ feel that all efforts to reach enlightenment impose a concept of self that can control the path. I don't think this is true. ............ T: Allow me to offer some thoughts for your consideration. My rebut to A1 - A3 is the following: I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: they are everything the non-ariyans understand. A person (puggala) for example is real. The Arahants in the Sutta stories also saw people, called them by their names, and taught them the Dhamma. The householders served foods to the monks, listened to the teachings by great monks like Sariputta, Ananda and MahaKaccana. So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. I agree with your R1, and also want to add this: the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma is very clear, i.e., that the sabhava-dhammas are the essence of the Dhamma. These sabhava dhammas do not depend on time, place, people or their thoughts. No matter how many trillion years may pass by, no matter how many Buddhas will be born to teach people, the same essence is still seen and the Noble Eightfold Path will always be the same. Concerning your R2, I think all conditioned dhammas --internal or external-- are anicca.m, dukkha.m, anatta. I agree 100% with your R3. Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex and all. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello Sukin, Robert E, all, > > > > >RE:This disparaging characterization of all meditators is presumptuous, >and based only on the dogmatic idea that one cannot engage with >meditation without indulging self-view....It is stated over and over >that "formal meditation" is an expression of self-view and control, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > How come living in the daily life isn't also an expression of self-view? You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes... > #130215 From: "philip" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am Subject: Words from Ajahn Sujin 1 (Rupas of the body) philofillet Dear Group I will occasionally post words from A.Sujin who always helps us to return to developing the understanding of present realities. I will limit my participation at DSG to offering passages for wise reflection. I will not be able to participate beyond that. Thanks for your understanding. "Acharn: Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > I wish this recurrent presumption would not be stated as a > > general rule, as if there is no doubt about it, and all meditators are > > deluded indulgers in self-view. This is not the case, and is a wrong > > view about meditation and meditators. > You consider my idea dogmatic does not make it so. It also does not make it not so. > From where I stand, > its a matter of you not able to see that you are wrong and that I'm > right. Well that is extremely self-righteous to think that you are right and everyone who meditates is wrong - esp. as you say that you do have some doubt as your understanding is intellectual. In other words, that to me is indeed a definition of dogmatic. It is possible to state your understanding without being so disparaging and to admit of your doubt, but instead you choose to state it as a general case that applies without doubt and to all meditators. Why state it that way? Why not look into it and wait to see if you are right? > Do I have doubt? Yes, in the sense of having only intellectual > understanding and far from realization. But when it comes to assessing > the position held by meditators and recognizing the wrong view > expressed, whatever little understanding that occasionally arises, has > been reason for confidence rather than any wavering. It has never been shown, nor have I ever gotten a substantive quote from anyone in authority in traditional Theravada, that meditation is the expression of self-view. Almost all of the scriptures say the opposite, that one should, could or does follow the breath, cultivate mindfulness and samatha, etc., so you must understand that your view is not only unproven, but goes against the word of most of the teachings. So where have you gotten this view? Can you identify the source? What writings tell you explicitly that meditation is bad for you? There are none. > I say that *all* those who meditate in the name of Dhamma practice do so > as a result of wrong view! It is not possible that Right View will agree > with the idea of formal meditation. > You say that this position itself is wrong view. Please tell me how this > is so, and I will explain to you why I think as I do. > > In the meantime I will continue to state that all formal meditation is > the result of wrong view. Well you may continue to state it but there is no evidence for it other than your own logical construction, which I believe is skewed in that direction. No one has ever explained why meditation *must* be the product of self-view, rather than just doing something that Buddha spoke of and in my view recommended almost constantly. It is always said [around here] that the act of sitting is itself an effort to control what dhammas arise, even though Buddhist meditation is explicitly aimed at merely observing whatever dhammas arise in the way that is possible at the present time, not "trying to make something happen" in any way. It is no more inherently controlling than simply observing what arises in daily life, as is constantly recommended on dsg, so I don't frankly see the difference. Surely, if one *does* want to control what arises then at the moment that this is the case, that is a moment of attempting to control dhammas, but this is not the case at every moment, and it is not more the case just because someone is meditating. It is just a spurious argument. In addition, if meditation is unrelated to the path and has no effect on anything, then there is nothing wrong with it, as it will not change what dhammas arise or how they are regarded. Something that has no path relevance cannot make the path "worse," so either way I don't see the problem, or why those who are against meditation appear to be obsessed by it and filled with negative intention towards it. Aversion, anyone? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #130217 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Hi Tep. I always appreciate your efforts to round up the former points and then reply to them in an organized way. It goes well with my obsessive nature! :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: ... So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. I like this description very much - especially the last sentence which describes the momentary changing reality of the body and "person." > I agree with your R1, and also want to add this: the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma is very clear, i.e., that the sabhava-dhammas are the essence of the Dhamma. Could you say a bit more about this point? I am not quite sure if you are saying that the concept of sabhava dhammas is the essence of Buddhism or if you are saying something about the dhammas themselves. Is sabhava dhammas synonymous with paramatha dhammas? Thanks for helping my education. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #130218 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Hi Rob E., (Alex, Sukin, Sarah)- Thanks again for the comments and questions for further discussion. > Rob E. : > I always appreciate your efforts to round up the former points and then reply to them in an organized way. It goes well with my obsessive nature! :-) T: But it did not take much effort to sum up the points you made earlier just to make it easy for me to reply to them. [ I am glad you like it.] .............. > > I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: ... So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. > > Rob E. : I like this description very much - especially the last sentence which describes the momentary changing reality of the body and "person." > T: Thanks, Robert. I believe it is important to note that the fleeting states of the Arahants and their disciples were real, yet impermanent & and not-self. I have to repeat that again; otherwise, someone may say that they did not exist. .............. > > I agree with your R1, and also want to add this: the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma is very clear, i.e., that the sabhava-dhammas are the essence of the Dhamma. > > Could you say a bit more about this point? I am not quite sure if you are saying that the concept of sabhava dhammas is the essence of Buddhism or if you are saying something about the dhammas themselves. Is sabhava dhammas synonymous with paramatha dhammas? T: My apologies for the blurred wording! Allow me to do a better job this time: The dhamma theory states that ultimate reality consists of elementary constituents called "dhammas" that are the fundamental components of actuality. Sabhaava means "intrinsic nature" or "essence" of the dhammas. For example, the "essence" of feeling is the characteristic of being felt. And, as stated in the Vism XI, note 20, "the meaning of element is the meaning of individual essence, the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness, the meaning of voidness is the meaning of not-a-living-being." Thus the not-self or no-self perception clearly follows. Yes, Robert, "sabhava dhammas" is synonymous with paramatha dhammas --according to my understanding. Regards, Tep === #130219 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:39 pm Subject: Re: Words from Ajahn Sujin 1 (Rupas of the body) sarahprocter... Dear Phil, Thanks - greatly appreciated when you quote such helpful passages! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > How can there not be the idea of my body any more? Only when > pa~n~naa develops and becomes very firmly established, that is sacca > ~naa.na, understanding of the truth. ~Naa.na is understanding and > sacca is truth. Once one has heard (the truth) and understood it and > listened more and more, there are conditions that the understanding > of what is heard becomes more firmly established. The Buddha did not > just say to follow or to believe, but to consider until it is oneā€™s > own right understanding of realities, from life to life, unil > realities appear as they are to the developed pa~n~naa." ... Metta Sarah ===== #130220 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:46 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > .... > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! <..> > T: I find myself back to square one again. > > Lookin' back on how it was > In years gone by > ... the good & bad times that I had > Makes today seem rather sad > Not much has changed! > ................ S: We were reading posts in the taxi as we went to the airport in Hong Kong at 6 a.m. for our early flight. We got to your verse and started singing out loud to the shock of the driver: " every sha-la-la-la Every wo-wo-wo Still shines Every shing-a-ling-a-ling That they're starting to sing's So fine..." BUT, should be: "Lookin' back on how it was In years gone by And the good times that I had Makes today seem rather sad SO much has changed" It all changes, Tep, each moment! Metta Sarah ====== #130221 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:49 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Rob E & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >I wonder if there are any competing commentaries that we do not >ordinarily hear about...? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > There are plenty. Such as Vimuttimagga which came before Visuddhimagga. > > As for two truths: > There is sarvastivadin, sutrantika, cittamatra, and two (or more?) madhymaka, and perhaps more takes on "two truths". .... S: Only one Pali canon including the ancient Pali commentaries rehearsed and approved at all the Great Councils by the arahats. Metta Sarah ===== #130222 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:59 pm Subject: Re: What atta is denied? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >To summarize that view [as I understand it:] when you hear a Dhamma command, you should "hurry up and not do anything" so you don't fall into wrong view. ... S: That sounds like a wrong view in itself.... the idea that 'you' should or can do or not do anything is wrong view. .... > > The second way of looking at it, which is how I look at it and is why I think meditation is a legit part of the path, is that when you hear a Dhamma command such as "don't be heedless, develop the path now or you'll be sorry later" [which is a pretty good paraphrase of what the Buddha said:] the correct way to take it is to let it have it's effect. For instance, if "don't be heedless" makes you start wanting to observe dhammas now and see their true nature, that doesn't mean necessarily that there is a "self doing it." ... S: Depends. If there is an idea of you starting to do or observe anything, it's wrong view. It's not understanding what has been conditioned already. ... >It may be that this statement of the Buddha's may be exciting correct volition to develop satipatthana on the part of the cittas arising at that moment, after hearing such a command. ... S: It's not "exciting volition" that develops satipatthana, but right understanding and the accompanying path factors. ... > ....So in my view we should get out of the way and let the cittas go for it without intereference from mis-applied Dhamma concepts. ... S: Better to just talk about realities, paramattha dhammas that can be understood now. I think this is more productive than discussions about formal meditation. This morning at breakfast, another swimmer started asking me about retreats and meditation because of stress issues. I just started talking about 'now', about seeing now, hearing now, 'meditation' now, even in the noisy cafe. Otherwise, there's always a thinking about another time, another place, never any understanding or awareness now. She appreciated it! Metta Sarah ===== #130223 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:00 pm Subject: Re: accident sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > Please remember that voices in your head are NOT real. Satan doesn't exist. Don't listen to those voices. ... S: Very well said! Metta Sarah ==== #130224 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:39 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: Only one Pali canon including the ancient Pali commentaries >rehearsed and approved at all the Great Councils by the arahats. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At which council were commentaries, and which ones approved? How do we know if the Buddha would approve them? What is wrong with, lets say, Vimuttimagga? With best wishes, Alex #130225 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:48 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Dear Sarh, - > S: We were reading posts in the taxi as we went to the airport in Hong Kong at 6 a.m. for our early flight. We got to your verse and started singing out loud to the shock of the driver ... T: Yesterday Once More, the Carpenters 1973. It was my favorite song then. So much has chaged since. > > T: I find myself back to square one again. > S: It all changes, Tep, each moment! T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > .... > > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! > <..> > > > > Lookin' back on how it was > > In years gone by > > ... the good & bad times that I had > > Makes today seem rather sad > > Not much has changed! > > ................ > > > " every sha-la-la-la > Every wo-wo-wo > Still shines > Every shing-a-ling-a-ling > That they're starting to sing's > So fine..." > > BUT, should be: > > "Lookin' back on how it was > In years gone by > And the good times that I had > Makes today seem rather sad > SO much has changed" > > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > #130226 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:30 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: I find myself back to square one again. > > S: It all changes, Tep, each moment! > T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. ... S: Ha, ha! Different citta each moment, but what is true is always true! Metta Sarah > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > > .... > > > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! ====== #130227 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Alex, > > >Suk:What do you think, are these expressions of self-view? Wake up, > >think about what to do next, go to the bathroom, drink a glass of > >water, brush teeth, make coffee, open the computer and read DSG. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > If daily life activities do not have to be rooted in self-view, then > why can't meditation not be rooted in self view? Daily life is not a practice. It is where vipaka cittas, kusala and akusala cittas arise by conditions. In other words, in addition to sense experience which is the result of kamma performed in the past, there is ignorance, attachment, aversion, conceit, wrong view, moral restraint, kindness, understanding etc. all arisen in accordance to the individuals accumulations and other conditions. Whats important is that any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control. Does meditation agree with such an understanding? I don't think so. While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention to "do" certain things. From this one then assumes that just doing it is "kusala". And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be patipatti. And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of situation, meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen object while siting in a particular posture. So rather than the understanding that dhammas have arisen and fallen away already, this is "control". > >Suk:You appear to be confusing self-view with other akusala dhammas, > >such as dosa, lobha and mana. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > For stream entry one doesn't remove or weaken those fetters. So in the > beginning, a meditator isn't expected to remove those fetters either. My response was to your suggesting: Quote: "You think you are selfless in daily life? Wait till tax time comes or someone grabs your wallet in front of your eyes..." > Later on, yes. One has to start where one can, even if it is in delusion. If there is the idea of "one" needing to do this or that, this reflects not understanding that whatever has arisen "now" is conditioned and beyond control. Therefore it is *not* the understanding of where one is at, but rather motivated by where one would like to be. Sukin #130228 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Right View sukinderpal Hi Tep, > Many thanks for the kind reply to my questions. > > [Sukin:] > > 1. Samatha bhavana is the development of kusala of particular kinds. > Vipassana bhavana is the development of understanding with regard to > nama and rupa. > Formal meditation is neither of these. It is something done in the > name of Dhamma practice involving sitting a particular way, > concentrating on some chosen object, at a particular time and place > and the idea that down the road, certain desired states will be > achieved. Whats more is > that, the practice is maintained as a result of the impression by the > meditator, that something positive is happening / being gained. > > 2. Yes, if what you are referring to is the basic characteristic and > function of Right View and not the penetrative power of this > particular level of wisdom. > ----------- > > [Tep:] > 1. I am also of the opinion that kusala dhammas and pa~n~na do arise > through "development" (bhavana). The "formal meditation" as you > described is not my interest either, since it is neither samatha nor > vipassana for the cessation of dukkha. > Since I don't believe that you are agreeing with my conclusion that all formal meditation practices are motivated by attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe to me, which kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha bhavana and which with vipassana bhavana. > 2. This mundane right view is near the supramundane samma-ditthi of > the Sotapanna. Carefully note the words: "his eye of understanding > with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to > ignorance". > I have a question: Do you believe that this is the only mundane right view or that there are lower levels of samma-ditthi as well? > By the way, what are you referring to as "the penetrative power of > this particular level of wisdom"? > For example the one you cite above and all the vipassanannanas preceding this. Sukin #130229 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Hi Sukin, Alex - >Sukin: "Daily life is not a practice. It is where vipaka cittas, kusala and akusala cittas arise by conditions. In other words, in addition to sense experience which is the result of kamma performed in the past, there is ignorance, attachment, aversion, conceit, wrong view, moral restraint, kindness, understanding etc. all arisen in accordance to the individuals accumulations and other conditions. Whats important is that any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control." With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! Be heedful, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > >Suk:What do you think, are these expressions of self-view? Wake up, > > >think about what to do next, go to the bathroom, drink a glass of > > >water, brush teeth, make coffee, open the computer and read DSG. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > If daily life activities do not have to be rooted in self-view, then > > why can't meditation not be rooted in self view? > #130230 From: "sukinderpal narula" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Tep, > With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause for encouragement rather than being discouraged. Sukin #130231 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:17 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Dear Sarah, (Alex) - > >T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. S: Ha, ha! Different citta each moment, but what is true is always true! T: But how do you know what you think is true is true? Please elaborate on that. May there be clear knowing, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > > T: I find myself back to square one again. > > > S: It all changes, Tep, each moment! #130232 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! tambach Dear Sukin, Tep, Alex, all This sutta quote might be relevant: "Once, Ven. Ananda, Master Gotama was staying nearĀ VesaliĀ in the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood. I went to him at the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood, and there he spoke in a variety of ways on mental absorption. Master Gotama was both endowed with mental absorption & made mental absorption his habit. In fact, he praised mental absorption of every sort." "It wasn'tĀ the case, brahman, that the Blessed One praised mental absorption of every sort, nor did he criticize mental absorption of every sort. And what sort of mental absorption did he not praise? There is the case where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion. He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen. Making that sensual passion the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs himself with it. "He dwells with his awareness overcome by ill will... "He dwells with his awareness overcome by sloth & drowsiness... "He dwells with his awareness overcome by restlessness & anxiety... "He dwells with his awareness overcome by uncertainty, seized with uncertainty. He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from uncertainty once it has arisen. Making that uncertainty the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs himself with it. This is the sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One did not praise. "And what sort of mental absorption did he praise? There is the case where a monk ā€” quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities ā€” enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation ā€” internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain ā€” as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress ā€” he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is the sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One praised. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding. Metta, Tam BĀ Ā Hi Tep, > With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause for encouragement rather than being discouraged. Sukin #130233 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:04 am Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt ptaus1 Hi Jon, > J: In ordinary daily life, there may be kusala with any concept as object and, if there is a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will indeed be samatha. > > The significance of the 'official' objects of samatha is that their contemplation can support the development of samatha to a particularly high degree. > > If panna arises with, say, a kasina as object it does so not because the object is a kasina, nor because there is concentration with a kasina as object, but because of the way the (notion of) kasina is being contemplated (and obviously the same could not be said of, say, a cake :-)) Thanks for that. To clarify, there can be kusala samatha bhavana of ordinary daily life moment kind with (concept of) cake as object (so not dana, not sila, not samatha bhavana of high degree, nor vipassana), but there cannot be saamatha bhavana of high degree with (concept of) cake as object. That is what you are saying, right? Thanks. Best wishes pt #130234 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:13 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ptaus1 Hi Alex, > At which council were commentaries, and which ones approved? How do we know if the Buddha would approve them? There was that sutta "Who sees Dhamma, sees me" or something like that. One of the implications I think is that Dhamma is not limited to only the Buddha saying it/approving it. It's timeless. But I understand the problem - so many nowadays saying different things, how can we tell what's Dhamma and what's not. I guess some schools/texts will seem appealing, some dwn't. That's as far as anyone can tell nowadays I guess without actual nanas of whatever level. Best wishes pt #130235 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Hi Sukin, > While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma > arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind > meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention to "do" > certain things. Strawman. > From this one then assumes that just doing it is > "kusala". Strawman. And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna > beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be > "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be > patipatti. Strawman. > And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any > dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of situation, > meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that > certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen object > while siting in a particular posture. Strawman. etc, what's the point of debating with imaginary meditators above? They'll never get a chance to respond. I can be a meditator for a bit if you want an actual debate? Best wishes pt #130236 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:32 am Subject: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Sukin, (others) - I think it is a good idea to agree --once and for all-- what the term "practice" really means. Otherwise, someone will keep saying again and again that it is the idea of a Self trying to do something. > >T: With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! > > Sukin: I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause for encouragement rather than being discouraged. T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. Be free, Tep === #130237 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Dear Tam Bach (& others), - The Buddha did not praise the sort of mental absorption "where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion". Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Sukin, Tep, Alex, all > > This sutta quote might be relevant: > "Once, Ven. Ananda, Master Gotama was staying nearĀ VesaliĀ in the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood. ... > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html > > My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding. > #130238 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Pt, > > While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma > > arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind > > meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention to "do" > > certain things. > > Strawman. > > > From this one then assumes that just doing it is > > "kusala". > > Strawman. > > And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna > > beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be > > "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be > > patipatti. > > Strawman. > > > And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any > > dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of situation, > > meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that > > certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen object > > while siting in a particular posture. > > Strawman. etc, what's the point of debating with imaginary meditators > above? They'll never get a chance to respond. I can be a meditator for > a bit if you want an actual debate? > That would be interesting. So please proceed. Starting with explaining how what I stated are strawman. Sukin #130239 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:59 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Dear Pt, all, >Pt:There was that sutta "Who sees Dhamma, sees me" or something like >that. One of the implications I think is that Dhamma is not limited >to only the Buddha saying it/approving it. It's timeless. But I >understand the problem - so many nowadays saying different things, >how can we tell what's Dhamma and what's not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. The above justification might have been for authorship of Mahayana sutras. Or maybe even for authorship of various Abhidharma texts. It is interesting that there is Theravada Post canonical Abhidhamma, sarvastivada Abhidharma, Sutrantika Abhidharma, Yogacara Abhidharma, Madhymaka philosophy, etc. I wonder if the reason there are so many different Abhidharmas and philosophical texts is that it is abstract, and different thinkers have different ideas. Maybe all the categories, divisions, analysis, etc, are conceptual activities rather than The Absolute Truth? You can divide the distance into miles, kilometers, feet, meters, centimeters, inches, etc... IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130240 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! truth_aerator Dear Sukin, all, >S: Does meditation agree with such an understanding? Meditation is all about study and understanding of phenomena appearing right now. >S:If there is the idea of "one" needing to do this or that, this >reflects > not understanding that whatever has arisen "now" is >conditioned and beyond control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One doesn't have to meditate with the idea that "My true self does it". With best wishes, Alex #130241 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:22 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! nichiconn dear Alex, > > One doesn't have to meditate with the idea that "My true self does it". > Are you suggesting there are two selves: the true and the _____??? Who meditates? connie #130242 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:49 am Subject: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states truth_aerator Dear Connie, Sukin, all, >C:Are you suggesting there are two selves: the true and the _____??? >Who meditates? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. With best wishes, Alex #130243 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:34 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states nichiconn dear Alex, > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > would you say the mind sits? connie #130244 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:38 am Subject: Re: Meditation and Right View t.sastri Hi Sukin (& others) - The reply below may be too long; but I want it to be clear. > >T 1. I am also of the opinion that kusala dhammas and pa~n~na do arise through "development" (bhavana). The "formal meditation" as you described is not my interest either, since it is neither samatha nor vipassana for the cessation of dukkha. >Sukin: "Since I don't believe that you are agreeing with my conclusion that all formal meditation practices are motivated by attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe to me, which kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha bhavana and which with vipassana bhavana." T: "Singleness of mind is concentration(samadhi); the four frames of reference are its themes; the four right exertions are its requisites; and any cultivation, development, & pursuit of these qualities is its development." [MN 44] Concentration is achieved through developing each of the following dhammas: Renunciation, non-ill-will, perception of light, non-agitation, dhamma-vicaya, ~naana (knowledge), gladness(paamojja); each of the following kammatthanas: 10 kasinas, 10 recollections(anussati), 10 kinds of foulness, 32 modes of anapanasati. T: Samatha bhavana is for jhana training; beyond jhana is direct knowledges. There are so many ways to 'abide in jhana' by developing each of the following dhammas: Metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha; four foundations of mindfulness; four exertions; four iddhipada (bases for power); five mental faculties(indriya); five powers (bala); seven factors for enlightenment; eightfold path, and so on. Example. "Seeing the dangers of sensual pleasures I practiced it much. Seeeing the benefits of non-sensual pleasure I practiced it much. Then my mind readily pursued, became delighted, got established and was released seeing non-sensual pleasure as appeasement. Ananda, then secluding the mind from sensual and demeritorious thoughts, with thoughts and discursive thoughts and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion I abode in the first higher state of the mind." [Anguttara Nikaya 004. MahĆ vaggo Tapussasutta. The householder Tapussa] Vipassana bhavana: In general, contemplation (anupassana, vipassana) is the concentration development (samaadhi bhaavanaa) that leads to clear knowing (yathaabhuuta.m pajaanaati) of the phenomena(dhaatu, khandha, naamaruupa). Concentration is developed through relinquishment of the phenomena (dhammas) that are produced during vipassana meditation (e.g., contemplating 'anicca, dukha, anatta') of the following dhammas: The five clinging aggregates; the All; six perceptions (associated with phassa at the sense doors); six volitions, six cravings, vitakka and vicara associated with ayatanas; eighteen proprties(dhatus); the thirty-two body parts; eight jhanas; eleven paticcasamuppada dhammas. [Source: Patisambhidamagga] ------------------ > >T: 2. This mundane right view is near the supramundane samma-ditthi of the Sotapanna. Carefully note the words: "his eye of understanding with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to ignorance". >Sukin: I have a question: Do you believe that this is the only mundane right view or that there are lower levels of samma-ditthi as well? T: The lowest level of mundane right view in my opinion is kammically based and is defined as in MN 117: "There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves." The top-limit of mundane right view is the Sotapanna's right view. So, yes, there are many levels in between the two limits -- as I see it. ............. > >T: By the way, what are you referring to as "the penetrative power of this particular level of wisdom"? >Sukin: For example the one you cite above and all the vipassanannanas preceding this. T: Please elaborate. It is not yet clear to me. Be peaceful, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > > Many thanks for the kind reply to my questions. > > > > [Sukin:] > > > > 1. Samatha bhavana is the development of kusala of particular kinds. > > Vipassana bhavana is the development of understanding with regard to > > nama and rupa. > > Formal meditation is neither of these. It is something done in the > > name of Dhamma practice involving sitting a particular way, > > concentrating on some chosen object, at a particular time and place > > and the idea that down the road, certain desired states will be > > achieved. Whats more is > > that, the practice is maintained as a result of the impression by the > > meditator, that something positive is happening / being gained. > > #130245 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:09 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states truth_aerator Dear Connie, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Alex, > > > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > > would you say the mind sits? > > connie > No. Mind does not sit. With best wishes, Alex #130246 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:13 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states t.sastri Dear Connie, Alex - >C: would you say the mind sits? No, the mind does not have a butt; it can't sit. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Alex, > > > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > > would you say the mind sits? > > connie > #130247 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:25 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states nichiconn dear friends, are there 'mental postures' at all then? what of heart as seat of mind? or 'that rupa'? for we earth-bound. to stilling, connie --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Connie, Alex - > > >C: would you say the mind sits? > > No, the mind does not have a butt; it can't sit. > > Be well, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > dear Alex, > > > > > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > > > > > would you say the mind sits? > > > > connie > > > #130248 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:57 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states t.sastri Hi, Connie, all - [Connie wrote:] > dear friends, > are there 'mental postures' at all then? > what of heart as seat of mind? or 'that rupa'? for we earth-bound. T: We do not need to answer a thousand-and-one miscelleneous questions, hoping that right understanding may unpredictably arise. We do need 'anupassana' on the arising/ceasing of the upadanakkhandhas and the path leading to their cessation. "Monks, if there are any who ask, 'Your listening to teachings that are skillful, noble, leading onward, going to self-awakening is a prerequisite for what?' they should be told, 'For the sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.' 'What duality are you speaking about?' 'This is stress. This is the origination of stress': this is one contemplation. 'This is the cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': this is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly contemplating this duality in this way --heedful, ardent, & resolute-- one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return." [Dvayatanupassana Sutta: The Contemplation of Dualities] Truly, Tep === > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > No, the mind does not have a butt; it can't sit. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > > > dear Alex, > > > > > > > > Alex: Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > would you say the mind sits? > > > > > > connie #130249 From: "azita" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:14 am Subject: Re: Nina update, was:Thank you very much gazita2002 Hallo Sarah, thank you for the update on Nina's condition. She has amazing energy and will do well in post surgery - please give her my well-wishes patience, courage, truthfulness and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > We just spoke to Nina briefly. She's sounding more cheery and laughing too. She expects to be in the Rehab centre for another 6 -8 wks. She still experiences quite a lot of pain and finds it difficult being so dependant on others, such as needing help washing and so on. > > She can now walk a few steps and can get around in a wheelchair. She's especially enjoying being with others at meal times, which doesn't happen when she's at home. She said she's becoming more like my (very sociable) mother day by day, chatting and laughing:-) I had said to Jon that this might be a welcome break for her in this regard. > > The other good news is that she's now able to listen to Dhamma. She has the tapes from Thailand which she made in January and can listen to these again and again. I joked and suggested she'd better write a second series from them! > > Talking of which, she's sent me the file of the series that she was posting extracts from on the list. Jon plans to continue posting the extracts soon. > > Of course, I sent her everyone's best wishes and she sent hers to you all as well. > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > #130250 From: "philip" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:28 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states philofillet Hello Connie > are there 'mental postures' at all then? > what of heart as seat of mind? or 'that rupa'? for we earth-bound. > to stilling, > connie This may or my not be off topic, but there is an interesting Pali term that gets at the way an excessive interest in body posture obstructs satipatthana. Oh so noble I am. sitting with spine erect! Look at my calm half-smile, just like the Buddha! A lobhaditthi constructed 7 day awakening doll! Meditation is great for the health, though. I was speaking to Lukas yesterday and as always recommended playing with the breath to create pleasant sensations in the body, the technique taught by Thanissaro Bhikhu. . Lotta lobha, yes, but this meditation (itfs yoga really, not bhavana) is better than booze, personally I love it! (Lukas didn't fall for it, he values bhavana over abusing Dhamma for pleasure. ) Phil P.s does anyone remember the Pali term I mentioned above? I heard about it in either the 2004 or 2005 India talks. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Dear Connie, Alex - > > > > >C: would you say the mind sits? > > > > No, the mind does not have a butt; it can't sit. > > > > Be well, > > Tep > > === > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > > > > dear Alex, > > > > > > > > Mind meditates. Meditation = developing experiential wisdom. > > > > > > > > > > would you say the mind sits? > > > > > > connie > > > > > > #130251 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:18 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Right. The above justification might have been for authorship of Mahayana sutras. Or maybe even for authorship of various Abhidharma texts. > > It is interesting that there is Theravada Post canonical Abhidhamma, > sarvastivada Abhidharma, Sutrantika Abhidharma, Yogacara Abhidharma, > Madhymaka philosophy, etc. I think what I'm saying is that there must be some Dhamma in the above texts as well. I mean, there were supposedly other Buddhas, silent Buddhas, uncounted disciples, etc, so Dhamma cannot be restricted to coming out of the mouth of our historical Buddha only. It's supposed to be the Law of how things are, not just limited to words of this or that person in time. Our problem is that we cannot tell what's Dhamma and what's not. We can conjecture based on our opinions, affiliations, grammar study, historical study, but that's conjecture. So, my take is that according to one's faculties, this or that text will appeal more or less. That's it. Everything else is conjecture and a waste of time imo unless that's your field of scholarly research, I like scholarly research. > I wonder if the reason there are so many different Abhidharmas and philosophical texts is that it is abstract, and different thinkers have different ideas. > > Maybe all the categories, divisions, analysis, etc, are conceptual activities rather than The Absolute Truth? Maybe, but I don't think I can know either way until there are actual nanas happening, so conjecture seems like a waste of time. The texts will either appeal or not, if not now, maybe later, maybe never. I like abhidhamma and commentaries and honestly don't care they came out of the mouth of the historical Buddha or not. Best wishes pt #130252 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:32 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Hi Sukin, > That would be interesting. So please proceed. Starting with explaining > how what I stated are strawman. Ok, but please do some work too (though please let's not get into gargantuan posts like we used to). > > > While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma > > > arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind > > > meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention to "do" > > > certain things. Assuming doesn't make it so. Don't a/kusala cittas arise in spite of what one may wish, no matter the level of faculties developed? If there was a chance to hear the Dhamma, can it not condition appreciation with panna of such a/kusala moments, regardless of whether they happen in the midst of situations replete with wrong view or whatever other dhammas? > > > From this one then assumes that just doing it is > > > "kusala". It is a possibility, but are we not in a Buddha sasana? Regardless of one's backwards views, if the Dhamma was heard, can it not condition understanding of what's actually kusala and what's not? Would not such moments condition more such moments of understandging? Wouldn't this be actual moments of bhavana? Couldn't all this result in telling the difference between "doing" and "kusala"? > > And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna > > > beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be > > > "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be > > > patipatti. Don't we all do this, meditators or not? Sometimes there's panna, usually there's just thinking. I would think all beginners (meditators or not) can't tell the difference between thinking and understanding most of the time? > > > > > And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any > > > dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of situation, > > > meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that > > > certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen object > > > while siting in a particular posture. I just formally meditated for you. I'm physically unable to sit in a lotus. Different postures don't seem to make a real difference. Further, I'm unable to focus on a certain object, nor see the point of it as things pop up regardless of what I want, etc. Basically, none of your criticisms above seem applicable to my actual meditation, so please find ways to criticise it in a way I can relate to. Perhaps in regards to wrong view, rites and rituals, or whatever else seems the most grave matter. That might make the discussion more relevant. Best wishes pt #130253 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! tambach Dear Tep, all T: The Buddha did not praise the sort of mental absorption "where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion". --------------- Tam B: Ā and he also pointed out the cause of such wrong mental absorption: Ā "Ā He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen."Ā It follows that understanding is the origin, the cause of Ā the type of mental absorption praised by the Buddha. As I see it, if the Buddha were to praise the act of doing meditation, if Ā "doing meditation" Ā were Ā the cause which Ā leads to wholesome states, there would be no need to underlie the difference between the two types. He was concerned with the mental states and the cause for their arising only, and that is in accordance with the teaching of anattaness which is the core of his message delivered to the world. Metta, Tam B === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Sukin, Tep, Alex, all > > This sutta quote might be relevant: > "Once, Ven. Ananda, Master Gotama was staying nearƂĀ VesaliƂĀ in the Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood. ... > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html > > My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding. > #130254 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:24 pm Subject: Extracts from Thailand with Lukas - Doubt sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & friends, ***** Lukas: Ajahn, all these questions here because I doubt. I doubt because now we talk about dhammas, about conditions..... I have a doubt. A.Sujin: Doubt is a dhamma. L: Not self, but then I have a doubt about doubt. A.Sujin: It's not self again. L: Then I need some kind of motivation or someone to tell me. A.Sujin: You know that it's a dhamma. L: A dhamma? A.Sujin: Yes. Otherwise, no other way. If you try to think about something different, it's not like understanding it's only a reality. L: I think I learn this is a dhamma, the doubt must be a nama, this is a rupa.... A.Sujin: That is thinking, not understanding. L: But later comes some unpleasant .... A.Sujin: Dhamma again. L: This is what I cannot believe - this is nama, this is rupa. This is what I doubt. A.Sujin: That is what you recite, but what about understanding whatever appears now as that which is experienced or that which experiences? That's all. In a moment. ***** Metta Sarah ===== #130255 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:29 pm Subject: Extract from Thailand with Lukas - "I, I, I, I, I..." sarahprocter... Dear Lukas and friends, Another good reminder for us all *** L: Ajahn, whenever I cut myself or something and I see blood, I have long, long stories and then lose consciousness. A.Sujin: I, I, I, I, I, or what? L: Concepts. I mean when I see blood, I lose consciousness, I feel very weak. A.Sujin: So what is there at that moment. L: Some kind of thinking? Ann: When you've lost consciousness? A.Sujin: No thinking! L: Bhavanga cittas. A.Sujin: Right. We are talking about each moment in life. **** Best wishes for the journey of life from moment to moment, Lukas. Just dhammas! Metta Sarah ===== #130256 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:39 pm Subject: Howard - Many Happy Returns! sarahprocter... Hi Howard, That time again..... wishing you a special day with lots of kusala of all kinds, especially wisdom! Metta Sarah ===== #130257 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:48 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, (Howard & all)< --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > ...The "rupa-inclusive" explanation says that the physicalization of cetana into physical form - the arising of the rupas of the killing - is itself a cause of the additionally strong kamma. I would say roughly that Sarah and Ken H. and others would be in the "cetana-only" group, and that you would be in the "rupa-inclusive" group. I am probably in the rupa-inclusive group too - have been in the past - but now a little uncertain. ... S: A little unsure what I'm being accused of, but happy to discuss further:-) Kamma is cetana cetasika. When it is a 'complete course of action', kamma-patha, there has to be not only the intention to kill a being, but the death of that living being. If it's just a passing thought, it's just akusala thinking and intention only. The actual cause of death for that other being (the cuti citta or death consciousness of what is referred to as a being), is actually kamma. However, for that kamma to bring its result, there must be supporting conditions, such as the impact of hardness experienced by body-consciousness, for example. So if the first person intends to kill another by using a weapon, it depends on kamma of the second person and other conditions as to whether this will be successful. In truth, as Ken H has stressed, no people, no killing of another, no weapon - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. Metta Sarah ====== #130258 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:53 pm Subject: Re: Nina update sarahprocter... Dear Tadao, I think you meant to say that Nina is not a 'whining' person. She is not someone who is used to complaining at all. I agree with you! It's such a good lesson for us all - if we cannot be patient and learn not to 'whine' or complain in our ordinary daily life when we experience minor inconveniences (usually just dosa as a result of lobha for having things another way), then how will we cope when life is very difficult, when kamma brings really tough results! As for Nina, I'm sure that now she is over the initial shock and trauma, she's adjusting to her new circumstances well. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Dear Sarah > > Thank you for the update. > > She is not a winning person; so when she says a lot of patient, it means that > the hospital services are not up to the level she wanted to be. ... #130259 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:07 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: And you kindly gave a quoted passage from Vism XIV to say all sankhata dhammas "fall into" the five aggregates. Yes, head hair, nails, body parts fall into the 'form aggregate' too. And the external rupas, such as roses, diamonds, bodies, mountains, they are external form-aggregate too, aren't they? ... S: Actually none of the examples you give are rupas, rupa khandha. If you look in CMA - in the text itself from Abhidhammattha Sangaha - you'll see there are only 28 rupas and these do not include body parts, roses, diamonds or mountains. However, in the section under concepts at the end of the text, you'll find these are included there. ... >However, we have to be careful about (unintentionally) mixing up inherent features (sabhava) of a dhamma with the 'sammuti sacca'. This danger arises when a speaker (unintentionally?) switches back-and-forth between the ultimates and the conventionals! ... S: The Buddha intentionally switched between referring to ultimate dhammas and conventional truths all the time. There is no problem at all when dhammas are understood. Just because it is hardness which is touched now doesn't mean that we no longer refer to computer keyboards! ... > > >T: It is not clear to me how to contemplate a rupa --as an ultimate reality-- through the dhamma-anupassana, Sarah. Can you show me how? > > >S: It's never a question of 'how?', but a question about the understanding of what is meant. Now, visible object appears - it is seen. It's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place and falls away immediately. > > T: It is clear by reasoning, not by realizing through direct knowing, that "visible object appears - it is seen" and that "it's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place". ... S: The understanding has to develop. If there is not very clear pariyatti, theoretical understanding of dhammas as anatta such as visible object appearing now, there will not be the direct knowing, patipatti, that directly understands such realities. ... >T:But it is not possible without 'yathabhutam pajanati' to directly know that sankhata dhamma arises and falls away immediately. ... S: Long before there is any direct understanding of the arising and falling away of particular realities, there must be the understanding of such realities. When there are questions about 'how to?' or 'what do do?", there is no understanding about dhammas at such a time. ... >T:It is easier imo to directly know when an in-breath or an out-breath arises and falls away. A breath isn't a paramattha dhamma, yet the Buddha strongly recommends Anapanasati as a major meditation method. ... S: By the time it seems that there is the direct knowing of the arising and falling away of an in or out breath, countless cittas experiencing countless objects have arisen and fallen away. So it's just an idea we have, like when we think we're aware of lifting an arm or washing the dishes. We're lost in the world of concepts all the time. ... > > >S: A very firm intellectual right understanding about realities, sankhara dhammas, as anatta has to be developed first. > > T: Thanks! I absolutely agree with that. The question is : when direct knowing must be developed through appropriate samatha-vipassana bhavana, if not now. ... S: What is "appropriate samatha-vipassana bhavana"? Again, we need to consider each term carefully. Metta Sarah ===== #130260 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:12 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: Then you also disagree with bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation of sankhara, the third category. > "As bare formations, sankharas include all five aggregates, not just the fourth. The term also includes external objects and situations such as mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and computers." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_43.html ... S: Yes, I disagree and so does he in a later comment you quote from the intro to CMA, as I recall. Certainly the text itself, Ab.Sangaha, the Tipitaka and other ancient commentaries disagree. ... > > 3. >S: When touching the keyboard, is a keyboard experienced or is it only hardness? > > T: I remember having seen this kind of question so many times before. :-) > If you close your eyes, yes. ... S: When touching the keyboard with eyes wide open, what is experienced through the body-sense? Metta Sarah ====== #130261 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:13 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > I have a rough question: > If a person kills a man, then it is bad kamma. > If that man happens to be one's father, then it is not just bad kamma, it is heinous kamma. Big difference. > > If only paramattha dhammas have characteristics, and if only paramattha dhammas exist - then: > > Question 1: what paramattha dhamma is "one's father"? ... S: Cittas, cetasikas and rupas. ... > > Question 2: Why did Buddha talk about conventional objects so much, even in satipatthana sutta? .... S: For communication purposes as we are doing now. Metta Sarah ====== #130262 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Hi Tadao & Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > This is not an Abhidhammaic description at all, but when we have a positive attitude to our life, our kamma wouldn't inflict us too much pain. ... S: I think you mean that there won't be so much dosa and domanassa on account of the painful bodily feeling. The painful bodily experience itself is the result of kamma which even a Buddha could not avoid. ... > > > > Even at a bad situation, our own invisible hand(s) would guide us to escape from such a situation without much difficulties. > > > > (Sorry, probably, ignoring Dhamma, I'm too optimistic.) ... S: I remember when I was young and always optimistic about people and situations, Ajahn used to say to me: "Khun Sarah, better to be realistic than optimistic!" It made quite an impression as I'd been brought up to always think the best of people and so on. ... >R: Thanks much for your optimistic thoughts! :-) I appreciate them, and I think that like you whenever one cultivates a positive attitude, it may not change the vipaka, but the view of it can maybe be lighter. I think this corresponds to one of my favorite metaphors in Dhamma, the Buddha's "second arrow." Psychospiritual suffering - the way we react to things - is a different order of dukkha than the initial experience, even if it is unpleasant. ... S: Yes, the second arrow of dosa doesn't help at all. ... > > Sarah has spoken about the three different kinds of dukkha a few weeks ago - I haven't kept track of it well enough, but it distinguished between these things a little bit better... .... S: In the deepest sense, all conditioned realities, all sankhara dhammas are dukkha, inherently unsatisfactory - not just the unpleasant mental and physical phenomena. Metta Sarah ===== #130263 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:26 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Rob E & all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >H: There also needs to be specific rupas that constitute the killing, a.k.a. "the actions" and also called the kamma-patha. Without this, there is only thinking and intending, i.e., there is only incompleted kamma. .... Yes, if it is just thinking, not complete kamma which will bring its results as you say. As quoted quite recently by Ken O from the commentary to the Sammaditthi Sutta: <> **** Metta Sarah ===== #130264 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:26 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Hi Phil (Connie), C: > are there 'mental postures' at all then? P: P.s does anyone remember the Pali term I mentioned above? I think the pali for posture is iriyaapatha; Visuddhimagga, Ch. 21, (~Nm trans, pdf file pag. 667) deals with what conceals the three characterstics shared by all conditioned realities, which start to show up clearly only from the fourth vipassana stage (udayabbaya-~naa.nadassana, direct knowledge of the rise and fall of realities) and says that before that the characteristic of dukkha, which all conditioned realities shared, is concealed by the (concepts of) postures. The morning of the first day in Hua Hin (6th Jan) Ajahn asked us, referring to the realities appearing as different people in the room, what was behind the scene, and I think this would also apply to realities appearing as different postures (either physical or mental) as well (or to the truth spoken in any conventional terms, like posture, people & so on, for that matter). Alberto #130265 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:33 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Hi Sarah, - >> T: Then you also disagree with bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation of sankhara, the third category: "As bare formations, sankharas include all five aggregates, not just the fourth. >S: Yes, I disagree and so does he in a later comment you quote from the intro to CMA, as I recall. Certainly the text itself, Ab.Sangaha, the Tipitaka and other ancient commentaries disagree. T: Isn't it fair to say that commentators sometimes disagree among themselves? ......... >S: When touching the keyboard with eyes wide open, what is experienced through the body-sense? T: Then the whole keyboard is seen, and the touch adds a sensed fact that it is hard or soft. That "experience" does not lead to the understanding of the ti-lakkhana of rupakkhandha, though. Yesterday I looked through the old photos of DSG members meetings in 2007 (when Nina's husband was alive, and Sarah was more vibrant) versus the latest photos. A flash of understanding arose with regard to ageing and death --I saw no men, no women, no buildings, no parties, no beaches-- just the dukkha sacca. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: Then you also disagree with bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation of sankhara, the third category. #130266 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:26 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Dear Tam bach (& others) - Earlier you wrote: "My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding." T: Allow me to propose this for your kind consideration: the Buddha did not only praise the act of doing meditation, given that the meditator's awareness is not overcome by sensual passion (and self-views), but he also praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding (insight). >Tam B: .. and he also pointed out the cause of such wrong mental absorption: " He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen." It follows that understanding is the origin, the cause of the type of mental absorption praised by the Buddha. T: Yes, it is true that vipassana understanding can condition concentration (samadhi); vipassana preceding samatha, so to speak. ......... >Tam B: ... if "doing meditation" were the cause which leads to wholesome states, there would be no need to underlie the difference between the two types. T: Wise observation! I agree with you. [So, why waste time nitpicking anyone?] >Tam B: He was concerned with the mental states and the cause for their arising only, and that is in accordance with the teaching of anattaness which is the core of his message delivered to the world. T: Again, allow me to deviate a little from what you just said: He was concerned with the mental states, the cause for their arising and their dissolving, and that is in accordance with the teaching of anattaness which is one of his core messages delivered to the world. "What do you think, monks --Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, all > > > > T: The Buddha did not praise the sort of mental absorption "where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion". > #130267 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:38 pm Subject: Re: Nina update tadaomiyamot... Hi Sarah I couldn't find the word, which sounded like wine-ing. But "whining" is the word I was looking for. Thank you for your help. Anything happens with our lives; the fact which I've learnt with the Great Earthquake, which said to occur once every one thousand years. Still, I feel that we should not be pessimistic. We are quite lucky in the sense that we have been able to find the Dhamma in the current lives. Metta, tadao P.S. If Kun Nina is stopping over in Bangkok before going to Vietnam, I may be able to see her. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Tadao, > > I think you meant to say that Nina is not a 'whining' person. She is not someone who is used to complaining at all. I agree with you! > > It's such a good lesson for us all - if we cannot be patient and learn not to 'whine' or complain in our ordinary daily life when we experience minor inconveniences (usually just dosa as a result of lobha for having things another way), then how will we cope when life is very difficult, when kamma brings really tough results! > > As for Nina, I'm sure that now she is over the initial shock and trauma, she's adjusting to her new circumstances well. > > Metta > > Sarah > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@" wrote: > > > > Dear Sarah > > > > Thank you for the update. > > > > She is not a winning person; so when she says a lot of patient, it means that > > the hospital services are not up to the level she wanted to be. > ... > #130268 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! tadaomiyamot... Dear Skin How are you? I look forward to seeing you in August. I will be there for the entire month. As for what I've said and what you've said, I can say very very briefly that I'm only interested in things (i.e., dhammas), which I think I can "verify". Things which I think I would never be able to verify remain merely as concepts, hence, attracting no interests of mine. Metta, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hello Tadao, > > > Good to see you posting here. > > > The question of whether a hammer or hand exists or not is the > > so-called "ill-posed problem" in the sense that we have no "means to > > prove" if it does or does not. > > (Only we can say is that we cannot "experience" a hammer or hand.) > > Does not the Abhidhamma tell us what does exist, namely, citta, > cetasika, rupa and nibbana? Does not the Dhamma make the distinction > between paramatthadhamma and pannatti and is not hammer a pannatti? Even > if we don't label or even recognize it as "something", being that it is > not a nimitta of a reality, it must be pannatti, no? > > > If we were a Supernatural Being, who could look at our processing > > mechanism > > totally beyond and above it and could compare our cognition of such an > > object > > and the seemingly existing object, we would be confidently able to say > > such an object exist or dose not exist. > > But the Buddha was enlightened and he knew didn't he? He made it clear > to us that conditioned existence must have the characteristic of rise > and fall, only nibbana does not rise and fall away. That unknown object > out there which you are not sure whether it exists or not, would it be > something that rises and falls away or something presumed to be solid > and lasting in time? > > > But we perceive the seemingly existing object only through our sensory > > doors, > > so we are not in any position of providing a solid answer to the question. > > What we perceive through our senses is only seven of the twenty eight > rupas which the Buddha pointed out. Do you think that the Buddha's > enlightenment was limited? > > > Given that it's an ill-posed question, such a debate does not bring > > any merit. > > It is an ill posed question when there is no Dhamma to refer to. The > Dhamma covers all dhammas. And the important thing is that it can be > proven "now". > > > > If you are interested in, could you please read the following passage? > > It is taken from Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow. (2010). The > > Grand Design, p. 39. London: Bantam Press. > > > > To me it's a pure dhamma. > > > > A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners > > from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measurefs sponsor > > explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a > > fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would > > have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, > > undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside > > some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous > > lens? The goldfishfs picture of reality is different from ours, but > > can we be sure it is less real? > > A similar idea was expressed hundreds of years ago by the Taoist Chuang > Tzu when referring to the man dreaming he is a butterfly. My impression > in that case was that this is simply an expression of doubt due to not > knowing / understanding the Dhamma. When the Buddha's teachings is not > known / understood, people can't help having doubt and speculating. > > Metta, > > Sukin > #130269 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:46 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Hi Sarah, - Our dialog has rapidly become quite long, yet an end is no where in sight! >> T: Yes, head hair, nails, body parts fall into the 'form aggregate' too. And the external rupas, such as roses, diamonds, bodies, mountains, they are external form-aggregate too, aren't they? >S (message #130259): Actually none of the examples you give are rupas, rupa khandha. If you look in CMA - in the text itself from Abhidhammattha Sangaha - you'll see there are only 28 rupas and these do not include body parts, roses, diamonds or mountains. However, in the section under concepts at the end of the text, you'll find these are included there. T: I think you are refering to the 'sabhava' or "essence" of the paramattha dhamma 'rupa', rather than to forms or form-aggreagte themselves: it's like an atomic physicist who refuses to see nothing but the atoms. ............ > >T: However, we have to be careful about (unintentionally) mixing up inherent features (sabhava) of a dhamma with the 'sammuti sacca'. This danger arises when a speaker (unintentionally?) switches back-and-forth between the ultimates and the conventionals! >S: The Buddha intentionally switched between referring to ultimate dhammas and conventional truths all the time. There is no problem at all when dhammas are understood. T: I don't think our Greatest Teacher switched anything: he always talked about the dhammas and their sabhava. There is no mention of paramattha (ultimate) in the Sutta teachings. The confusion arose later, long after the Parinibbana. ............ >S: Just because it is hardness which is touched now doesn't mean that we no longer refer to computer keyboards! T: Yes, if our purpose is to contemplate hardness as a sabhava dhamma --a characteristic of materialities. ............ >> T: It is clear by reasoning, not by realizing through direct knowing, that "visible object appears - it is seen" and that "it's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place". >S: The understanding has to develop. If there is not very clear pariyatti, theoretical understanding of dhammas as anatta such as visible object appearing now, there will not be the direct knowing, patipatti, that directly understands such realities. T: Yet, in many DSG discussion messages it does not seem that "theoretical understanding of dhammas" is the purpose. The following two declarations show direct understanding/ direct knowing of paramattha dhammas by the speaker. "There has to be very clear understanding of what visible object is and how it is distinct from seeing consciousness. There also has to be clear understanding of many other rupas and namas appearing in a day. Without such understanding, there will never be the very highly developed understanding which understands the arising and falling away of realities." "Now, visible object appears - it is seen. It's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place and falls away immediately." ............ >S: Long before there is any direct understanding of the arising and falling away of particular realities, there must be the understanding of such realities. When there are questions about 'how to?' or 'what do do?", there is no understanding about dhammas at such a time. T: Those are legitimate questions every student who intends to apply any theory/principle and develop skills would ask! In the Suttas there are many stories of outsiders and also monks who asked the Buddha the same kind of questions. Of course there was "no understanding about dhammas at such a time"; that's why they asked the Buddha so they learn to abandon akusala dhammas, develop kusala dhammas, and practice for the cessation of dukkha. ............ >>T:It is easier imo to directly know when an in-breath or an out-breath arises and falls away. A breath isn't a paramattha dhamma, yet the Buddha strongly recommends Anapanasati as a major meditation method. >S: By the time it seems that there is the direct knowing of the arising and falling away of an in or out breath, countless cittas experiencing countless objects have arisen and fallen away. So it's just an idea we have, like when we think we're aware of lifting an arm or washing the dishes. We're lost in the world of concepts all the time. T: Then do not think like that, just practice Anapanasati and develop ~naana. ............ S: What is "appropriate samatha-vipassana bhavana"? Again, we need to consider each term carefully. T: I already gave Sukin's similar question an answer in the DSG message #130244, just yesterday. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: And you kindly gave a quoted passage from Vism XIV to say all sankhata dhammas "fall into" the five aggregates. Yes, head hair, nails, body parts fall into the 'form aggregate' too. And the external rupas, such as roses, diamonds, bodies, mountains, they are external form-aggregate too, aren't they? #130270 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:37 am Subject: Re: Howard - Many Happy Returns! upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > That time again..... wishing you a special day with lots of kusala of all kinds, especially wisdom! ----------------------------------- Thanks, Sarah! Much appreciated. :-)And happy birthday to Jon (tomorrow)and to you (on the 1st)! Uh, oh - now you guys'll be deluged with online good wishes! ----------------------------------- > Metta > > Sarah ==================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #130271 From: "Tony H" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:42 am Subject: Re: audio uploaded, Hua Hin, Jan 2013 tony.humphreys Thanks Sarah...I'll tentatively give them a listen - It'll be good to be reminded of AS's words...and my holiday! :) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Tony, Vietnamese friends, Lukas & all, > > We've completed the upload of (edited) discussions from Hua Hin, Jan 2013: > > http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/dsgAudio.html > > > They are in the first section under "editing in progress". > > We'll continue with the other sets after a little break as we're travelling on Sat. > > For those who find them helpful - please consider transcribing any short extracts you like and posting them here for others to read and consider. We especially appreciate everyone's support while Nina is unable to post. > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > > > #130272 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:15 am Subject: Re: Howard - Many Happy Returns! jonoabb --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > That time again..... wishing you a special day with lots of kusala of all kinds, especially wisdom! > ----------------------------------- > Thanks, Sarah! Much appreciated. :-)And happy birthday to Jon (tomorrow)and to you (on the 1st)! Uh, oh - now you guys'll be deluged with online good wishes! > ----------------------------------- Thanks, Howard. And best to you also. Jon #130273 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:24 pm Subject: Happy Birth Day jagkrit2012 Dear Jon and Sarah Happy Birth Day to both of you. May kusala be with you both always. Best wishes Jagkrit Ps. Is Sarah's Birth Day on May 1? #130274 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > > I wish this recurrent presumption would not be stated as a > > > general rule, as if there is no doubt about it, and all meditators > are > > > deluded indulgers in self-view. This is not the case, and is a wrong > > > view about meditation and meditators. > > > You consider my idea dogmatic does not make it so. > > It also does not make it not so. > > > From where I stand, > > its a matter of you not able to see that you are wrong and that I'm > > right. > > Well that is extremely self-righteous > "Self-righteous"? You keep repeating what I consider wrong view and I tell you this, makes me self-righteous? > to think that you are right and everyone who meditates is wrong - esp. > I don't go about thinking this way, comparing myself with the meditator; you are adding spice. I think about wrong view and the concept of meditator only when I read someone expressing it, but without comparing myself. > as you say that you do have some doubt as your understanding is > intellectual. > That was reference to the inherent tendency to doubt of someone with weak understanding and therefore a long, long way to go before it is eradicated. Intellectual understanding is accompanied by a corresponding level of saddha. If doubt arises it would be when there is no intellectual understanding. > In other words, that to me is indeed a definition of dogmatic. > My understanding of Ehipassiko or "come and see" is that pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha are all ehipassiko at their own level. My confidence in the Dhamma is in the fact that it is about dhamma "now" and there is dhamma now. This is the opposite of dogmatism would you not say? > It is possible to state your understanding without being so > disparaging and to admit of your doubt, but instead you choose to > state it as a general case that applies without doubt and to all > meditators. Why state it that way? Why not look into it and wait to > see if you are right? > It is possible to state my understanding without being disparaging of course, but to say that I should doubt makes no sense. But I'm not really talking about meditators am I? A meditator represents the view behind the decision to meditate. Do I need to hear all meditators out then? And of course I've been reading meditators express their views for years and not once have I got the impression that they may be right. > > Do I have doubt? Yes, in the sense of having only intellectual > > understanding and far from realization. But when it comes to assessing > > the position held by meditators and recognizing the wrong view > > expressed, whatever little understanding that occasionally arises, has > > been reason for confidence rather than any wavering. > > It has never been shown, nor have I ever gotten a substantive quote > from anyone in authority in traditional Theravada, that meditation is > the expression of self-view. > When it is a matter of interpretation based on general understanding, I don't think quoting texts will work. > Almost all of the scriptures say the opposite, that one should, could > or does follow the breath, cultivate mindfulness and samatha, etc., so > you must understand that your view is not only unproven, but goes > against the word of most of the teachings. So where have you gotten > this view? Can you identify the source? What writings tell you > explicitly that meditation is bad for you? There are none. > As I said, when the texts refer for example, to concentrating on breath, you interpret this one way and others interpret it another way. It is not texts saying that "meditation is bad", or that "fire worship is bad" that we need to look for, but understanding them in a way that is consistent with certain general principles. And is not understanding in light of these principles the point of reading and quoting texts? And have you been able to quote texts and interpret them in a way consistent with such principles as conditionality and the Tilakkhana, when trying to demonstrate that the Buddha did recommend conventional activities? > > I say that *all* those who meditate in the name of Dhamma practice > do so > > as a result of wrong view! It is not possible that Right View will > agree > > with the idea of formal meditation. > > You say that this position itself is wrong view. Please tell me how > this > > is so, and I will explain to you why I think as I do. > > > > In the meantime I will continue to state that all formal meditation is > > the result of wrong view. > > Well you may continue to state it but there is no evidence for it > other than your own logical construction, which I believe is skewed in > that direction. No one has ever explained why meditation *must* be the > product of self-view, rather than just doing something that Buddha > spoke of and in my view recommended almost constantly. > The understanding that the past is completely gone and the future is unknown / unpredictable, and that the present dhammas have arisen and fallen away already by conditions beyond control. The understanding that intention to have kusala for example, is not a condition for the particular kusala to arise, but that like any other sankhara dhamma, they do so by whole set of conditions, none of which is subject to control of will. The Buddha encouraged all kinds of kusala, but more than anything, the development of Right Understanding. Samatha Bhavana at some point involves the rising and falling away of particular set of dhammas each with particular relation to another. In giving a description of what those dhammas are, their particular characteristic and functions, he would go on to also cite their general characteristics. It is this that the listener is supposed to understand. If all the dhammas in every stage of Jhana are anicca, dukkha and anatta and must be understood as such, why would one think that these particular Suttas is about how Jhana can be developed? And if dhammas arise by conditions beyond control, why would one think that the different states can be achieved by "just doing it"? > It is always said [around here] that the act of sitting is itself an > effort to control what dhammas arise, even though Buddhist meditation > is explicitly aimed at merely observing whatever dhammas arise in the > way that is possible at the present time, not "trying to make > something happen" in any way. > It is trying to make sati and panna arise by deciding to sit and concentrate on a chosen object and then believing that the "observing" is sati, that the "control" is about. > It is no more inherently controlling than simply observing what arises > in daily life, as is constantly recommended on dsg, so I don't frankly > see the difference. > It is because "no-control" that it is daily life. If the meaning of daily life meant "do it" in daily life, that would mean control. Daily life is where dhammas rise and fall away by conditions regardless of whether we believe in control or not. When wrong view arises during the day, and if panna has been accumulated enough, this wrong view can become its object, not by the decision to observe. The decision to observe can't make sati and panna arise. > Surely, if one *does* want to control what arises then at the moment > that this is the case, that is a moment of attempting to control > dhammas, but this is not the case at every moment, and it is not more > the case just because someone is meditating. It is just a spurious > argument. > As I said, the control is in the decision observe / meditate, making sati and panna arise by following a conventional activity. > In addition, if meditation is unrelated to the path and has no effect > on anything, then there is nothing wrong with it, as it will not > change what dhammas arise or how they are regarded. > Of course wrong view will not change what dhammas arise. But that is not what the wrong view behind the wrong practice believes. It takes what is wrong practice for right which further gives rise to wrong ideas about dhammas and practice. The man lost in the dark forest going round and round in circles and not knowing it. > Something that has no path relevance cannot make the path "worse," so > either way I don't see the problem, or why those who are against > meditation appear to be obsessed by it and filled with negative > intention towards it. Aversion, anyone? > Aversion, yes sometimes, obsessed, no.But even if I were obsessed, so what? How does that effect my argument? Wrong view accumulates just as any other sankhara dhamma. So it does get worse, such that it becomes ever harder to get on the right track. Can a person who rejects moral cause and effect develop Right Understanding? Sukin #130275 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day tambach Happy birthday to you both, John and Sarah!Ā May you be well and continue to develop and to share your understanding of the Dhamma with such commitment and generosity. Metta, Tam B Ā Dear Jon and Sarah Happy Birth Day to both of you. May kusala be with you both always. Best wishes Jagkrit Ps. Is Sarah's Birth Day on May 1? #130276 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Pt, > > That would be interesting. So please proceed. Starting with explaining > > how what I stated are strawman. > > Ok, but please do some work too (though please let's not get into > gargantuan posts like we used to). What "work" are you referring to? As to gargantuan posts, I'll try, but as you know, its anatta. Know however, that I do not mind if you decide not to continue as a result of my responses being too long. > > > > While mindfulness and understanding like any other sankhara dhamma > > > > arises by conditions based on past accumulations, the view behind > > > > meditation assumes the ability to make this happen by intention > to "do" > > > > certain things. > > Assuming doesn't make it so. Don't a/kusala cittas arise in spite of > what one may wish, no matter the level of faculties developed? Well, that's the point isn't it? If kusala arise during meditation, it must be in spite of and not because of it. > If there was a chance to hear the Dhamma, can it not condition > appreciation with panna of such a/kusala moments, regardless of > whether they happen in the midst of situations replete with wrong view > or whatever other dhammas? So what are you arguing for? Meditate with the idea of making sati and panna arise or understanding that this is not how it works? > > > > From this one then assumes that just doing it is > > > > "kusala". > > It is a possibility, but are we not in a Buddha sasana? Regardless of > one's backwards views, if the Dhamma was heard, can it not condition > understanding of what's actually kusala and what's not? Would not such > moments condition more such moments of understandging? Wouldn't this > be actual moments of bhavana? Couldn't all this result in telling the > difference between "doing" and "kusala"? Patipatti comes as a result of accumulated pariyatti. Pariyatti will not condition wrong practice / meditation. If wrong practice is indulged in, the imperative would be to study and develop pariyatti. To believe that patipatti may arise in spite of the wrong practice being indulged in is wishful thinking. > > > And while patipatti is the result of accumulated panna > > > > beginning with pariyatti, the meditator takes what must only be > > > > "thinking about" what is going on from moment to moment, to be > > > > patipatti. > > Don't we all do this, meditators or not? Sometimes there's panna, > usually there's just thinking. I would think all beginners (meditators > or not) can't tell the difference between thinking and understanding > most of the time? Why is requirement for direct understanding being used to deny the necessary effect of intellectual understanding? Not having direct understanding calls for further development of intellectual understanding and not an excuse to follow wrong practice. > > > > And while pariyatti understanding comes to see that any > > > > dhamma can and must be understood at any time regardless of > situation, > > > > meditation is motivated by the idea that this is not so, but that > > > > certain states must be aroused by concentrating on some chosen > object > > > > while siting in a particular posture. > > I just formally meditated for you. I'm physically unable to sit in a > lotus. Different postures don't seem to make a real difference. > Further, I'm unable to focus on a certain object, nor see the point of > it as things pop up regardless of what I want, etc. Basically, none of > your criticisms above seem applicable to my actual meditation, so > please find ways to criticise it in a way I can relate to. Well you said that you "just formally meditated for me", this is not the standard motivation of meditators is it? Anyway, you can tell me what you are generally motivated by and I will give you my response. > Perhaps in regards to wrong view, rites and rituals, or whatever else > seems the most grave matter. That might make the discussion more relevant. So you simply don't want me to mention "meditation" or "meditator"? Sukin #130277 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! tambach Dear Tep, all Ā T: Allow me to propose this for your kind consideration: the Buddha did not only praise the act of doing meditation, given that the meditator's awareness is not overcome by sensual passion (and self-views), but he also praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding (insight). -------------------- Tam B: Ā If you agree with my observation as bellows: Ā Ā "Ā >Tam B: ... if "doing meditation" were the cause which leads to wholesome states, there would be no need to underlie the difference between the two types.Ā T: Wise observation! I agree with you. [So, why waste time nitpicking anyone?]" , Ā I don't see why you would say that the Buddha praised the act of doing meditation. If the act of doing meditation it-self is not the cause of wholesome states, why would he praise it? On the contrary, what I see here is that he cautioned against Ā misunderstanding about the basis of the Ā development of wholesome states : not the act of doing, but the understanding. T: Yes, it is true that vipassana understanding can condition concentration (samadhi); vipassana preceding samatha, so to speak. ------------------ Tam B: While it is true that vipassana Ā includes samatha in the wider sense, IMHO, the sentenceĀ "Ā He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen."Ā Ā actually Ā indicates the wisdom inherent to the development of samatha: the wisdom which Ā understands the characteristics of wholesome and unwholesome states. And as the text shows, this wisdom is indispensable for the arising of wholesome states praised later on, namely the jhanna.Ā T: Again, allow me to deviate a little from what you just said No problem if you want it to be more complete. Metta, Tam Ā B #130278 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day sarahprocter... Dear Tam B, Jagkrit & Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Happy birthday to you both, John and Sarah!Ā > > May you be well and continue to develop and to share your understanding of the Dhamma with such commitment and generosity. ... S: Many thanks for the good wishes! Yes, mine (60!) is next Wed, May 1st. Don't worry, Tep - the cittas are as "vibrant" as ever:-) Just back from a second ocean swim for the day to celebrate with Jon:-)) Any time, any moment, dhamma (reality) can be known. Metta Sarah ===== #130279 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah > S: Yes, mine (60!) is next Wed, May 1st. Don't worry, Tep - the cittas are as "vibrant" as ever:-) >S: Just back from a second ocean swim for the day to celebrate with Jon:-)) JJ: Happay Birth Day in advance, Sarah. Your Birth Day is the same day as my wife (55). I consider about swimming in the ocean for celebration as well: very good idea and low cost!! :)) It seems that our cittas never get old at all. Best wishes Jagkrit #130280 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:48 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Dear Tam, - >Tam: I don't see why you would say that the Buddha praised the act of doing meditation. T: This is what I wrote earlier: "the Buddha did not only praise the act of doing meditation, given that the meditator's awareness is not overcome by sensual passion (and self-views), but he also praised the wholesome states which are the result of understanding (insight)". In other words, he does not praise the samatha meditator who is overcome by sensual passion (and self-views). >Tam: If the act of doing meditation it-self is not the cause of wholesome states, why would he praise it? T: No, he would not. ........... >Tam: IMHO, the sentence " He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen." actually indicates the wisdom inherent to the development of samatha: the wisdom which understands the characteristics of wholesome and unwholesome states. T: Indeed, the fault is in the person who is not able to discern the escape. The fault is not due to samatha meditation. Jhana development is for purification of consciousness. .......... >>T: Again, allow me to deviate a little from what you just said. >Tam: No problem if you want it to be more complete. T: Even among people whose views are alike they still disagree once in a while. Completeness (perfection) is found only in the Buddha's words; people's interpretation of them is not complete. .......... Thanks for the discussion, Tam. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, all > Ā #130281 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day t.sastri Hi Sarah, (and Jagkrit), - >>S: Just back from a second ocean swim for the day to celebrate with Jon:-)) T: You are already happy, so I am not going to say "Happy Birthday, Sarah". > >S: Yes, mine (60!) is next Wed, May 1st. Don't worry, Tep - the cittas are as "vibrant" as ever:-) T: I'm glad to know that! May your bodily health remain very good for several years to come, Sarah. ............ >JJ: I consider about swimming in the ocean for celebration as well: very good idea and low cost!! :)) T: You are lucky there. The beaches closest to where I live are not clean enough for happy swimming . Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Sarah > ... > > It seems that our cittas never get old at all. > #130282 From: "philip" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:00 pm Subject: Words from Ajahn Sujin 2 (Panna little by little) philofillet Dear group Acharn: One can see that the manner of development of pa~n~naa is little by little. Otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. When sound appears, think of nothing at all, no thing, except sound. Or nothing at all, except hardness, only that is reality. (end of passage) Phil #130283 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day jonoabb Dear Tam B, Jakgrit and Howard (and others I may have missed) Many thanks for the birthday wishes, and of course for the Dhamma reminders in your messages to the list. Much appreciated. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Happy birthday to you both, John and Sarah!Ā > > May you be well and continue to develop and to share your understanding of the Dhamma with such commitment and generosity. > > Metta, > Tam B > Ā > Dear Jon and Sarah > > > Happy Birth Day to both of you. May kusala be with you both always. > > Best wishes > > Jagkrit > > Ps. Is Sarah's Birth Day on May 1? > > > > > > #130284 From: "philip" Date: Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:38 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states philofillet Hello Alberto Thank you for your explanation re the below: > > I think the pali for posture is iriyaapatha; Visuddhimagga, Ch. 21, (~Nm trans, pdf file pag. 667) deals with what conceals the three characterstics shared by all conditioned realities, which start to show up clearly only from the fourth vipassana stage (udayabbaya-~naa.nadassana, direct knowledge of the rise and fall of realities) and says that before that the characteristic of dukkha, which all conditioned realities shared, is concealed by the (concepts of) postures. > Phil #130285 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, (Howard & all)< > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > ...The "rupa-inclusive" explanation says that the physicalization of cetana into physical form - the arising of the rupas of the killing - is itself a cause of the additionally strong kamma. I would say roughly that Sarah and Ken H. and others would be in the "cetana-only" group, and that you would be in the "rupa-inclusive" group. I am probably in the rupa-inclusive group too - have been in the past - but now a little uncertain. > ... > S: A little unsure what I'm being accused of, but happy to discuss further:-) Since I am uncertain which group I'm in, I doubt I'm "accusing" anyone of being in one or the other... We'll find out whose side I'm on eventually... > Kamma is cetana cetasika. When it is a 'complete course of action', kamma-patha, there has to be not only the intention to kill a being, but the death of that living being. If it's just a passing thought, it's just akusala thinking and intention only. > > The actual cause of death for that other being (the cuti citta or death consciousness of what is referred to as a being), is actually kamma. However, for that kamma to bring its result, there must be supporting conditions, such as the impact of hardness experienced by body-consciousness, for example. > > So if the first person intends to kill another by using a weapon, it depends on kamma of the second person and other conditions as to whether this will be successful. > > In truth, as Ken H has stressed, no people, no killing of another, no weapon - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. Thanks for that explanation, which helps. No people, but there is cetana causing rupas to arise, and act as supporting conditions with kamma to cause or not cause the arising of the death citta for another. Intersecting co-arising conditions for all. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #130286 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:02 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 10 jonoabb Dear All Nina has sent Sarah and me a copy of her article from the recent Thailand trip, so that installments can continue to be posted to the list. Jon Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): It is good to be reminded of the cycle of birth and death. The last citta of this life, the dying-consciousness (cuti-citta), is succeeded immediately by the rebirth-consciousness (pa.tisandhi-citta) of the following life. Our life is an unbroken series of cittas. Wholesome qualities and unwholesome qualities which arose in the past can condition the arising of such qualities at present. Since our life is an unbroken series of cittas, succeeding one another, wholesome qualities and unwholesome qualities can be accumulated from one moment to the next moment, and, thus, there are conditions for their arising at the present time. When we listen to the Dhamma and we have a little more understanding, this is never lost. Understanding is accumulated and it can grow from life to life. #130287 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:55 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, - > > >Jon: Yes, the egg grows/develops into the chicken. But I don't see a comparable relationship between 'practice' (of satipatthana/vipassana) and 'progress' (on the path): in each case what is being referenced is a moment of awarenss/insight. > > T: A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no progress. > =============== J: As I said in my earlier message, the term "practice (of the teachings)" has the same meaning as "progress (on the path)". It means (any moment of) actual awareness/insight, rather than something done as a preliminary to such awareness/insight. In a later message to Sukin you say: "According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.]" I read this as referring to actual awareness/insight. > =============== > T: In other words, with no right exertion (samma vayama) there is no entering into the path (magga). With right exertion, there can be a moment of awarenss/insight of the path after the hindrances have been abandoned. Mundane awarenss/insight is weak because the hindrances are in charge. > =============== J: I would say that the reason why mundane awareness/insight is weak is because that is the extent to which it has been developed. But nevertheless, it has been developed to some extent already and so will arise (i.e., will re-arise) when there are the right conditions for it to do so. Among those conditions is reflection on what has been properly understood at an intellectual level. Jon #130288 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:03 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Alex (and Tep) 130201 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Jon, all, > > > >T:A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no >progress. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: I believe you are right. Also, I don't think that one needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. > > The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. > =============== J: To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. There are no exercises or methods given by the Buddha for this, just descriptions of the conditions for the arising of such awareness/insight. Jon #130289 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:18 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Alex (Jon & others) - > ... > T: There are two levels of right view: mundane- and supramundane- right views. > > Prior to attaining the mundane right view (lokiya samma ditthi), there are wrong views (including views about Self and the Cosmos) of an uninstructed person who must be educated by the Buddhist mundane right view in order to remove those views about permanent Self; disbelief in kamma and vipaka; disbelief/not-knowing that there are Ariyans/Buddhas in the world, and so on . Thus the uninstructed outsider has to be taught about the mundane right view; he does not have "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" to remove his own thick-set wrong views. > =============== J: It is the quality/mental factor of "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" itself -- not the "person who has" such quality/accumulated tendency -- that removes wrong views. > =============== > T: And, importantly the Buddha said, "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. etc.". The ignorant outsider now must try to abandon and abstain from his prior wrong views mainly through Saddha, not through "wisdom" or "insight" or "understanding" which he has none. He has to exercise mundane right effort and mundane right mindfulness with the mundane right view that he applies, although he does not yet have the wisdom to understand it. > =============== J: There is no need to hypothesize the person who has never accumulated any "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding". As you yourself pointed out in an earlier message, there is already a certain amount of accumulated mundane awareness/insight, but it is weak. The development of the path (or "practice") is all about the arising of already developed, but weak, accumulated mundane awareness/insight. And when such arising occurs, there is the co-arising mental factor of Right Effort that is spoken of in the texts. Jon #130290 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:34 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Jon, - >J: As I said in my earlier message, the term "practice (of the teachings)" has the same meaning as "progress (on the path)". It means (any moment of) actual awareness/insight, rather than something done as a preliminary to such awareness/insight. T: Do you mean that every time there is awareness/insight in a non-ariyan, it is a magga dhamma? But I still do not have a clue why practice is the same as progress. ............ > >T:"According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.]" >J: I read this as referring to actual awareness/insight. T: That's not clear. Please elaborate! ............ >> T: In other words, with no right exertion (samma vayama) there is no entering into the path (magga). With right exertion, there can be a moment of awarenss/insight of the path after the hindrances have been abandoned. Mundane awarenss/insight is weak because the hindrances are in charge. >J: I would say that the reason why mundane awareness/insight is weak is because that is the extent to which it has been developed. T: What do you mean by "the extent to which it has been developed"? A clear example will be appreciated. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > #130291 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:05 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Jon (& Alex, Rob E.), - > >Alex:The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. > > J: To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. T: Just like flipping a light switch to light up a dark room! Where do I go find the Right View switch? ............ >J: There are no exercises or methods given by the Buddha for this, just descriptions of the conditions for the arising of such awareness/insight. There are some suttas that explain the development of right view. Allow me to give a few quotes. 1. [AN 5.25 Anugghita Sutta:] "There is the case where right view is supported by virtue, supported by learning, supported by discussion, supported by tranquillity, supported by insight." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.025.than.html 2. [MN 117 Maha-cattarisaka Sutta:] "He endeavors to dispel wrong view and gets established in right view, that becomes his right endeavour. He mindfully dispels wrong view and abides established in right view, that becomes his right mindfulness. Thus these three things follow each other, turning in a circle. Such as right view, right endeavor and right mindfulness". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex (and Tep) > > 130201 > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Dear Tep, Jon, all, > > > > > > >T:A simple relationship may be overlooked here: no practice, no >progress. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > A: I believe you are right. Also, I don't think that one needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. > > #130292 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:30 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Dear Jon, all >J:To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views >is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how to get right view after you learned and considered the ABC's od Dhamma? Is it right view that when bad qualities arise you say something like "no control! I can't do anything" and then wallow in unwholesomeness? Is that right view? With best wishes, Alex #130293 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:54 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Dear Jon, Tep, all, >1.[AN 5.25 Anugghita Sutta:] "There is the case where right view is ?>supported by virtue, supported by learning, supported by discussion, >supported by tranquillity, supported by insight." >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.025.than.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note: Right view is supported by tranquility... I've done a lot of considering and study, and yet somehow bad qualities do arise. It seems It seems that there are two ways: a) Get into Jhana and use that super experience as basis for real right view. and/or b) After one learns that akusala qualities are bad, one uses brute force to suppress them. "Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130294 From: "philip" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:59 am Subject: Words from Ajahn Sujin 3 (misunderstanding rupa) philofillet Dear Group From Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "People may erroneously believe that rupa gradually changes." (end of passage) Phil #130295 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:26 am Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt jonoabb Hi pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: In ordinary daily life, there may be kusala with any concept as object and, if there is a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will indeed be samatha. > > > > The significance of the 'official' objects of samatha is that their contemplation can support the development of samatha to a particularly high degree. > > > > If panna arises with, say, a kasina as object it does so not because the object is a kasina, nor because there is concentration with a kasina as object, but because of the way the (notion of) kasina is being contemplated (and obviously the same could not be said of, say, a cake :-)) > > > pt: Thanks for that. To clarify, there can be kusala samatha bhavana of ordinary daily life moment kind with (concept of) cake as object (so not dana, not sila, not samatha bhavana of high degree, nor vipassana), but there cannot be saamatha bhavana of high degree with (concept of) cake as object. That is what you are saying, right? Thanks. > =============== J: I'd like to amplify/clarify my earlier remarks when I said: "In ordinary daily life, there may be kusala with any concept as object and, if there is a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will indeed be samatha." That kusala would have to be either dana, sila or vipassana (of an intellectual level). So for example, if there is dana with concept of cake (among other concepts, such as person) as object, and there is a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will be samatha with concept of cake as object. Or, in the example you gave before, if there is kusala reflection on how the present object of thinking (for example, cake) is concept and not dhamma, that would be understanding of dhammas at an intellectual level; and if there was then a level of understanding of that kusala as kusala, then that will be samatha with concept of cake as object. (Also, I've heard it said that at moment of awareness/insight, all the factors of samatha are also present). In either case, cake just happens to be the object, so it's an incidental association. There's nothing about cake per se (i.e., excluding, say, cake as earth element) that, properly reflected upon, can support the kusala factor of tranquillity that is characteristic of samatha. Hoping this is clearer. Jon #130296 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:23 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jonoabb Hi Tep > T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > =============== J: I think you'll find there are plenty of references to wrong practice (including as "miccha pa.tipadaa") in the texts. For example, AN 2:40: "Bhikkhus, I do not praise the wrong practice of two kinds of people: a layperson and one gone forth into homelessness. "Whether it is a layperson or one gone forth who is practising wrongly, they do not attain the true way, the Dhamma that is wholesome." Jon #130297 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:33 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Sarah has spoken about the three different kinds of dukkha a few weeks ago - I haven't kept track of it well enough, but it distinguished between these things a little bit better... > .... > S: In the deepest sense, all conditioned realities, all sankhara dhammas are dukkha, inherently unsatisfactory - not just the unpleasant mental and physical phenomena. Yes, those are worthwhile distinctions. Are those the three types of dukkha? Physical pain [on account of kamma,] Mental discomfort/suffering [second arrow?] and then the inherent suffering/unsatisfactoriness/unpleasantness inherent in the arising of all phenomena? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #130298 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:48 pm Subject: Re: What atta is denied? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Better to just talk about realities, paramattha dhammas that can be understood now. I think this is more productive than discussions about formal meditation. > > This morning at breakfast, another swimmer started asking me about retreats and meditation because of stress issues. I just started talking about 'now', about seeing now, hearing now, 'meditation' now, even in the noisy cafe. Otherwise, there's always a thinking about another time, another place, never any understanding or awareness now. She appreciated it! I continue to think this is a very "zen" approach to Dhamma - I think if you called it "zen" you'd probably convert a bunch of Mahayanists, as it is very appealing, and I agree really is the heart of becoming aware, which can only happen at this moment now. A favorite quote of mine is sort of analogous in its simplicity, from the avant-garde saxaphonist/bass clarinetist Eric Dolphy, now deceased: "Music, after it's over, it's gone in the air - you can never capture it again." Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #130299 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:19 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Hi Phil, Ph: Thank you for your explanation You're welcome - Alberto - don't try to have sati: it's already gone (TA, in Hua Hin) #130300 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt sarahprocter... Hi Pt, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > ... I still can't quite make sense of one thing, though I'm not sure I can quite form the question - why can't there be an "ordinary daily life moment" of awareness with samatha kind of panna which is unrelated to actual samatha objects? ... S: If the citta is kusala, it is calm, there is samatha, but occasional moments of kusala with calm are not samatha bhavana, the development of calm. ... > > What I mean is a moment of samatha bhavana (so not dana and not sila and not vipassana), which is unconnected to official samatha development objects that Jon mentioned with reference to Vsm. What I mean is perhaps like a moment when something is seen and perceived in daily life, like (a concept of) a cake for example, but there's no attachment to such concept, in other words there's a sort of kusala "calm awareness" of the fact that it's a perception/concept, .... S: If there's a brief moment of wise thinking without attachment, there is calm, but such occasional moments of kusala are not samatha bhavana. I'd also like to stress that most of what is taken for "calm awareness" in a day, when it seems there is no attachment to what is experienced, is either rooted in ignorance or attachment. Unless panna develops, there's no way of detecting subtle ignorance and attachment. .... >so with samatha sort of panna (which I guess makes it samatha bhavana), but the object is not a kasina, nor a dhamma (as we're not talking about vipassana here), nor a ... well, it's clear its a perception/concept, but it's not clung to. This is probably not making much sense. ... How would samatha bhavana develop with the concept of a cake as object, for example? If there is no understanding of how such an object can condition calm, impossible. ... > > Anyway, my point being that this sort of ordinary moments would be a precursor to actual samatha bhavana with an official object for samatha later on. I mean, I assume nobody can jump straight into fullon samatha bhavana with actual official objects until at least some sort of "ordinary" moments of samatha bhavana happened (like my cake thing) and it became clear what is a moment with sati as opposed to a moment without sati (still speaking samatha-related only like outside a sasana)? ... S: What about now? It's clear that at moments of dana or kindness, for example, that the citta is kusala, it's calm. Whilst looking at or thinking about the cake, it may be clear (even at an intellectual level) that only visible object is seen, only concepts are thought about. Kusala cittas with calm. You're interested, however, in thinking about the cake without attachment, with understanding, but of what? Metta Sarah ====== #130301 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:43 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > 3. "<...>The dhammas fall into two broad classes: the unconditioned dhamma, which is solely Nibbana, and the conditioned dhammas, which are the momentary mental and material phenomena that constitute the process of experience. ... S: You quote this from B.Bodhi's intro to CMA. Here "the momentary mental and material phenomena" refer to namas and rupas. The text details the 28 rupas - no mountains or roses. This was the contradiction I referred to. ... > > 4. .....The entities of our everyday frame of reference possess merely a consensual reality derivative upon the foundational stratum of the dhammas. It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence "from their own side" (sarupato) independent of the mind's conceptual processing of the data. .... S: In other words, hearing and sound are ultimate realities. Mountains and roses are not. ... S: Any suggestion that mountains, roses and diamonds are rupas or paramattha dhammas is not in accordance with the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries. Metta Sarah ======#130302 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sarahprocter... HI Phil & Alberto, Discussing postures and the pali term is iriyaapatha, as Alberto explained below. As we read in the vibhanga comy and elsewhere: ā€œThe characteristic of pain does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating continuous oppression and owing to its being concealed by the postures (iriyaapatha).ā€ Note, that rather than being aware of postures, it is the idea of postures that conceals the truths about the elements as dukkha.. When there is understanding, thereā€™s no idea of posture at all. Quote from "Survey of Paramattha Dhammas": "Questioner: I have heard that the postures conceal dukkha. Please, could you explain this? Sujin: All conditioned realities have the characteristic of dukkha. They arise and fall away, they are impermanent and therefore, they cannot be a real refuge, they are dukkha. Thus, dukkha is not merely painful feeling. When it is said that the postures conceal dukkha, one should understand that this refers not just to painful feeling but to the characteristic of dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities. One may believe that there is no dukkha when, at this very moment, one is sitting, lying down, standing or walking without being stiff. The belief that the change of one posture into another one conceals dukkha is not paƱƱƄ that clearly realizes the arising and falling away of nĆ„ma dhammas and rĆŗpa dhammas. Naama and ruupa arise together when one assumes different postures and dukkha is concealed so long as one does not know the characteristic of dukkha of one ruupa and of one naama at a time, as they arise and fall away. When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? There must be dukkha, otherwise it cannot be said that the postures conceal dukkha. Any idea of a posture or of the whole body, no matter there is painful feeling or not, conceals the characteristic of dukkha. So long as one has not realized the arising and falling away of nĆ„ma and rĆŗpa one does not understand the truth of dukkha. If a person does not develop pa~n~naa in order to understand naama and ruupa as they are, he has wrong understanding of dukkha. He may believe that he knows the truth of dukkha when he ponders over his painful feeling, dukkha vedanaa, caused by stiffness, before he changes into a new posture in order to relieve his pain. He cannot know the truth of dukkha so long as he does not discern the characteristic of non-self of naama and ruupa. This is the case if he does not know the naama which sees and colour appearing through the eyes, the naama which hears and sound appearing through the ears, the naama which smells and odour, the nĆ„ma which tastes and flavour, the naama which experiences tangible object and tangible object, the naama which thinks, happiness, sorrow and other realities. Also the reality which thinks that it will change posture is not self, it should be realized as a type of nĆ„ma which arises and then falls away. If one does not know this one will not be able to understand the characteristic of dukkha. Only if one is naturally aware of naama and ruupa as they appear one at a time, pa~n~naa can develop stage by stage, so that the noble Truth of dukkha can be realized." (Also see more detail in U.P. under "Postures (Iriyapatha)" Metta Sarah > >A: I think the pali for posture is iriyaapatha; Visuddhimagga, Ch. 21, (~Nm trans, pdf file pag. 667) deals with what conceals the three characterstics shared by all conditioned realities, which start to show up clearly only from the fourth vipassana stage (udayabbaya-~naa.nadassana, direct knowledge of the rise and fall of realities) and says that before that the characteristic of dukkha, which all conditioned realities shared, is concealed by the (concepts of) postures. ===== #130303 From: "azita" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Birth Day gazita2002 Happy birthday to all who are having birthdays about now!! Hallo Jagkrit, I like what you say here about cittas never getting old. They just keep arising and falling away ever so fast - no time to get old:) patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Sarah > > > S: Yes, mine (60!) is next Wed, May 1st. Don't worry, Tep - the cittas are as "vibrant" as ever:-) > > >S: Just back from a second ocean swim for the day to celebrate with Jon:-)) > > JJ: Happay Birth Day in advance, Sarah. Your Birth Day is the same day as my wife (55). I consider about swimming in the ocean for celebration as well: very good idea and low cost!! :)) > > It seems that our cittas never get old at all. > > Best wishes > > Jagkrit > #130304 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, > > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > .... > > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! > > I agree that "one" is a convention -- but action still takes place. ... S: As soon as there's a question about "how to prepare.... for that moment", it's not understanding present dhammas, no matter how "one" is used. There is still the idea of someone doing something. ... >Or are you saying that not only is there no actor, but there is also no action? Rupas arise - those are physical realities. I wonder how far they go? And when mental factors arise they perform their function -- those are actions as well. ... S: Yes, namas and rupas arise and fall away. When namas arise, they perform their functions and then gone. They don't stop to ask "how to?"! ... > When a 'being is murdered' what is taking place in reality? ... S: The arising and falling away of various namas and rupas. .... > > S: A better question, imho, is what can be directly understood now? > > It is always that case that what is happening now should be understood - but sometimes it is necessary to clarify what can arise and what can take place. Do certain volitions lead to certain actions, and can those go into the category of preparation or development? .... S: Volition arises at each moment. As soon as there's the idea of preparing or developing volitions, it is not understanding what has been conditioned to arise already. Metta Sarah ===== #130305 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:23 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >Alex: If finger, hammer, and other objects don't exist: Hit your finger with a hammer! > > T: It is a reality for sure that it hurts when you hit a real finger with a real hammer. Nobody can deny that! But what does this "reality" imply? I don't think the implication is that the dhamma theory (dhammavada)of the Abhidhamma is wrong. It does not imply either that the hurt feeling is a delusion, since feeling is a paramattha dhamma -- so it is a reality, isn't it? ... S: Yes, the bodily experience and painful bodily feeling accompanying it are real. The hardness experienced is real, very real! ... > I think what is at fault is the viewpoint of anyone who interprets the dhamma theory to mean that there is neither a hammer nor a finger, "but only particular primary elements experienced by some mental phenomena". ... S: So we agree that there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors. In other words, the 'hammer' and 'finger' are thought about when there are conditions for such thinking to occur. An animal or baby will not think about 'hammer' or 'finger', but about whatever concepts there are conditions to think about. ... T:> It is like the viewpoint of an atomic physicist who sees nothing but the atoms. ... S: Well, to use your analogy, what do you expect the atomic physicist to see? Metta Sarah ====== #130306 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:34 pm Subject: Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Hi Tung, I was glad to read your message and to see that you're still following. Did you meet our friends in Hanoi yet? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "willthlong" wrote: > The 'restrain' here doesn't necessarily mean you force yourself to be indifferent to what you come in contact with, so it's not like you can't enjoy sense objects. The way I understand it is that you "don't add stuffs" (mostly ideas) to what there is. So for example, when you watch a movie and there's a part that you enjoy, a pleasant feeling arises. Once you are aware of it, you can just let it be, and then you don't try to create ideas/fantasize things around what you experience (e.g. seeing yourself in the role, being all over a character/things you see and suddenly desire). ... S: I think that the main point to stress is that there is no "you" to enjoy/not enjoy/add ideas/let it be/fantasize or anything else. It just depends on conditions what kind of cittas arise. .... > > That's when you don't grasp at what comes to your sense doors, at least at the 'macro' level. I imagine that at a subtler level, in the movie case, you'd see whatever is in there as they are, with no feelings attached. A is just a set of pictures streaming before your eyes - so when you see it, it's just seeing. Why do you have to work yourself up and add all sorts of things around it, which leads to unnecessary emotions and attachments? But well, it's not that easy to let go of our habitual ways. ... S: Yes, just seeing of visible object followed by all kinds of thoughts and feelings. It's good to understand this, because it leads to more understanding and detachment. Again, no "you" to grasp/not grasp or anything else! Glad to hear your comments. Metta Sarah ====== #130307 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sarahprocter... Hi Tep, (Alex & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T:... > I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: they are everything the non-ariyans understand. A person (puggala) for example is real. ... S: The concepts such as 'person' seem real to the ignorant worldlings, but this does not mean they are ever real. Even if a Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma, the truths remain the same, concepts are never realities: AN 3s, 134 "The Three Characteristics of Existence" (Bodhi transl, "Numerical Discourses") "Whether Tathaagatas arise in the world or not, it still remains a fact, a firm and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are impermanent...that all formations are suffering.... that all things are not-self (sabbe dhammaa anattaa). "A Tathaagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully awakened to it and penetrated it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are non-self." ... >The Arahants in the Sutta stories also saw people, called them by their names, and taught them the Dhamma. The householders served foods to the monks, listened to the teachings by great monks like Sariputta, Ananda and MahaKaccana. So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. ... S: They had no illusion about the realities involved. Whilst using names and concepts in teaching the Dhamma, there was no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities. ... >Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. ... S: No bodies in reality, just rupas and namas, impermanent, suffering and not-self as you say. Metta Sarah ====== #130308 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:10 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Jon, - Thanks for the good evidence of 'miccha pa.tipadaa'. Can you tell me the Pali word for "progress"? If it turns out to be the same as pa.tipadaa, then you shall convince me that "practice is the same as progress". Concerning AN 2:40, what is the true meaning of pa.tipadaa in this Sutta? Further, what do you think 'sekha pa.tipadaa' in MN 53 means? Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > > T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > > I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > > =============== > > J: I think you'll find there are plenty of references to wrong practice (including as "miccha pa.tipadaa") in the texts. > > For example, AN 2:40: > "Bhikkhus, I do not praise the wrong practice of two kinds of people: a layperson and one gone forth into homelessness. > "Whether it is a layperson or one gone forth who is practising wrongly, they do not attain the true way, the Dhamma that is wholesome." > > Jon > #130309 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:02 pm Subject: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts truth_aerator Dear Sarah, Jon, >S: So we agree that there is no hammer or finger experienced through >the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors. > >In other words, the 'hammer' and 'finger' are thought about when >there >are conditions for such thinking to occur. An animal or baby >will not >think about 'hammer' or 'finger', but about whatever >concepts there are >conditions to think about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is, lets say, a wall is perceived vs how is the door perceived? I think that some concepts are built into consciousness and cannot be removed. My dog distinguishes wall from a door, and he doesn't know any language and can't conceptualized. Saying on other hand that "door doesn't exist because it is made of such and such elements such as:" seem to be the sort of abstract conceptualizing that Buddha wasn't in favor of. Some arguments seem to go this way: X is made of parts, X is not found in any parts, thus X doesn't exist. This nihilistic argument isn't very convincing. If "X" didn't exist, then we couldn't take it into its constituent parts in the first place. Also trying to compare whole (X) to its parts is like comparing trees to apples. It seems to me that conceptualizing isn't perceiving wholes, but perceiving abstract dhammas from which it is made of. So door isn't a concept: gazillion dhammas that come in kalapas of 8 rupas are. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130310 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:00 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Hi Sarah (Alex, others) - In response to Alex's now-famous one-line quip: "If finger, hammer, and other objects don't exist: Hit your finger with a hammer!", we wrote the following comments: >T: It is a reality for sure that it hurts when you hit a real finger with a real hammer. Nobody can deny that! But what does this "reality" imply? I don't think the implication is that the dhamma theory (dhammavada)of the Abhidhamma is wrong. It does not imply either that the hurt feeling is a delusion, since feeling is a paramattha dhamma -- so it is a reality, isn't it? I think what is at fault is the viewpoint of anyone who interprets the dhamma theory to mean that there is neither a hammer nor a finger, "but only particular primary elements experienced by some mental phenomena". > S: Yes, the bodily experience and painful bodily feeling accompanying it are real. The hardness experienced is real, very real! So we agree that there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors. In other words, the 'hammer' and 'finger' are thought about when there are conditions for such thinking to occur. An animal or baby will not think about 'hammer' or 'finger', but about whatever concepts there are conditions to think about. T: I do not agree that "there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors", dear Sarah. Since you only "see" the ultimate reality or sabhava-dhamma, you are like the atomic physicist who only "sees" atoms; and he misses a whole lot of the realities that other people see. In your example, animal and baby do not have the experience of the world at large, so a baby does not know "this is a hammer", but it sees and knows "this is my milk". ...... > S: Well, to use your analogy, what do you expect the atomic physicist to see? > T: He must see his wife at home as a person whom he loves, not a collection of atoms (although that is also a reality). Otherwise, he would have a big trouble! Be flexible, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep (& Alex), > #130311 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:18 pm Subject: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Hi Sarah, - The busy time must be over, since you wrote several messages today. >S: Even if a Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma, the truths remain the same, concepts are never realities. T: The definitions of concepts and realities have been clear to me . No question about that. But such understanding does not lead to the Noble Truths. You say persons (puggala), e.g. the Buddha's disciples, are not real: they are just concept. But the Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma to concepts; he taught it to his real disciples. He even called them by their names. You quoted [AN 3s, 134 "The Three Characteristics of Existence" :] "A Tathaagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully awakened to it and penetrated it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are non-self." Sadhu! Sadhu! This is a good one. Does he teach the three characteristics to conceptual disciples that do not exist, or does he teach them to his real disciples who penetrated the Dhamma and eradicated Dukkha? He does not say that all things are not real. He does not say they are real either. Real/not real, existence/non-existence, ultimate/concept issues do not lead to understanding of the Noble Truths. By the way, do you know: what is the purpose to contemplate that all (conditioned) things are anatta? ............ >>T: The Arahants in the Sutta stories also saw people, called them by their names, and taught them the Dhamma. The householders served foods to the monks, listened to the teachings by great monks like Sariputta, Ananda and MahaKaccana. So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. >S: They had no illusion about the realities involved. Whilst using names and concepts in teaching the Dhamma, there was no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities. No bodies in reality, just rupas and namas, impermanent, suffering and not-self as you say. T: Who are they? They are Arahants who have no illusions; so it is clear that they have "no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities". Who are we? The best we can do now is only talk about understanding, concepts, and realities -- just talk (like parrots mimicking human?). Are we able to experience, directly know the ultimate realities that way? A chick should not try to sing like a male nightingale. A hen should not pretend to be beautiful like a peacock. It seems you have not admited the fact that the Buddha and his disciples are real, regardless of some people calling them "concepts". Be clear, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, (Alex & all), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: #130312 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:00 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Jon (and Alex, others) - It has been encouraging to me that our discussion sems to slowly make a progress. In this sense progress does not mean the same as practice. :-) >J: There is no need to hypothesize the person who has never accumulated any "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding". As you yourself pointed out in an earlier message, there is already a certain amount of accumulated mundane awareness/insight, but it is weak. T: You are arguing like a lawyer! Here I am using the terminolgy of pa~n~naa, the quality that is not found in any ordinary person (puthujjana). >J: The development of the path (or "practice") is all about the arising of already developed, but weak, accumulated mundane awareness/insight. T: That, I agree. The "insight" of those "uninstructed, run-of-the mill" people is even lower. >J: And when such arising occurs, there is the co-arising mental factor of Right Effort that is spoken of in the texts. T: That is on the path. So where are you in your practice? With no practice, do-nothing, the best you can be is one of the "instructed" worldling, and may remain so many eons more! Be diligent, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Dear Alex (Jon & others) - > > ... > > T: There are two levels of right view: mundane- and supramundane- right views. > > > > Prior to attaining the mundane right view (lokiya samma ditthi), there are wrong views (including views about Self and the Cosmos) of an uninstructed person who must be educated by the Buddhist mundane right view in order to remove those views about permanent Self; disbelief in kamma and vipaka; disbelief/not-knowing that there are Ariyans/Buddhas in the world, and so on . Thus the uninstructed outsider has to be taught about the mundane right view; he does not have "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" to remove his own thick-set wrong views. > > =============== > > J: It is the quality/mental factor of "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding" itself -- not the "person who has" such quality/accumulated tendency -- that removes wrong views. > > > =============== > > T: And, importantly the Buddha said, "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. etc.". The ignorant outsider now must try to abandon and abstain from his prior wrong views mainly through Saddha, not through "wisdom" or "insight" or "understanding" which he has none. He has to exercise mundane right effort and mundane right mindfulness with the mundane right view that he applies, although he does not yet have the wisdom to understand it. > > =============== > #130313 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:50 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers t.sastri Hi Sarah, all - Thanks for reading that message and discussing it (as a good moderator should). > >T: 3. "<...>The dhammas fall into two broad classes: the unconditioned dhamma, which is solely Nibbana, and the conditioned dhammas, which are the momentary mental and material phenomena that constitute the process of experience. ... >S: You quote this from B.Bodhi's intro to CMA. Here "the momentary mental and material phenomena" refer to namas and rupas. The text details the 28 rupas - no mountains or roses. This was the contradiction I referred to. T: I understand that these 28 rupas are the intrinsic dhammas which define the essence (sabhava) of material such as earth, mountains, stones, diamonds, trees, flowers, bodies (kaya), etc. I may be confusing to the reader. So, allow me to explain. According to the Budha (S.22:79/iii, 86) anything that deforms (ruppati) is called "material form". "Deformed by what? Deformed by cold, by heat, by hunger, by thirst, by flies, mosquitoes, wind, sunburn, and creeping things." Most of these deforming factors apply to the bodies. But materials like diamonds, trees, flowers also deform by cold, heat, wind and sunburn. The primary material element (pathavi-dhatu, #1) appears (intrinsic) in all of them; visible form(#10) characterizes them, decay (#27) and impermanence(#28) apply to them > > T: 4. .....The entities of our everyday frame of reference possess merely a consensual reality derivative upon the foundational stratum of the dhammas. It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence "from their own side" (sarupato) independent of the mind's conceptual processing of the data. >S: In other words, hearing and sound are ultimate realities. Mountains and roses are not. T: Mountains and roses are not ultimate realities, but intrinsic pathavi-dhatu in them is ultimate reality. They are deformable, hence they are material form and may be used as meditation object to train perception of impermanence. .... >S: Any suggestion that mountains, roses and diamonds are rupas or paramattha dhammas is not in accordance with the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries. T: No, I have not suggested so. But I believe they are qualified as material form that are anicca.m, dukkha.m, anatta. My above explanation should make it clear, I hope. Be kind, Tep === #130314 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:27 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): Each day we had one session of two hours in the morning and one session of two hours later in the afternoon. In Huahin the sessions were in a large lounge of a bungalow where Jonothan and Sarah had one room and where I had another room. After the afternoon session, Thai friends arranged for fruits, cookies and different snacks. There was such an abundance of food that there was no need to go out for supper anymore. Our friends were most attentive to all our needs and looked after us all the time. We went out for lunch to different places and even while we were having lunch Acharn would speak about paramattha dhammas appearing right now. The whole atmosphere was most pleasant while we enjoyed each other's company, the beautiful panorama and the great variety of dishes. We had the following conversation about understanding realities: Acharn: "Visible object can be understood but memory takes it for a person or a thing. There should be the development of all realities, even of thinking. One can begin to see the difference between right understanding and wrong thinking about people and things. Do not have the idea that there should not be thinking, but understand thinking as just a reality." Nina: "Trying not to think is forced." Acharn: "It is not natural. Pa~n~naa cannot grow when it is not natural. It arises by conditions and it can become stronger and stronger." Sarah: "When it is time for thinking, time for sadness, it is conditioned like that. No one can change it or stop it." Nina: "We should not select, but just be aware of any reality." Acharn: "The self is trying. When there is trying it shows that the understanding of anattaa (non-self) is not firm, not well established. But no matter whether there is a day without awareness, it is by conditions. When awareness arises by its own conditions it is much better than trying the whole day with the idea of self. The idea of self is building up at that very moment. When awareness arises for only a moment the difference can be seen between unawareness the whole day and a moment of understanding of a reality. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha does not arise and when it arises all the time, after seeing, hearing, at the moments of trying. Lobha is like a big boss." Several times Acharn reminded us of the power of lobha, attachment. It is dangerous that it is mostly unknown. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha arises and leads one astray. One may wish to have more understanding but at such a moment one clings to the idea of self. #130315 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:16 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, - > > >J: As I said in my earlier message, the term "practice (of the teachings)" has the same meaning as "progress (on the path)". It means (any moment of) actual awareness/insight, rather than something done as a preliminary to such awareness/insight. > > T: Do you mean that every time there is awareness/insight in a non-ariyan, it is a magga dhamma? > =============== J: No, I was not suggesting that awareness/insight in a non-ariyan is a magga (i.e., supramundane) dhamma. But each moment of awareness/insight takes one closer towards magga citta, because it is developed insight that effects the eradication of latent tendencies at moments of magga citta. So I would see awareness/insight as progress on the path. What else could constitute progress? Other kinds of kusala, while they are a support for the development of the path, do not themselves take one closer to magga citta. (BTW, I believe that awareness/insight is sometimes referred to in the texts as the "mundane path".) > =============== > T: But I still do not have a clue why practice is the same as progress. > =============== J: I hope the above comments make it clearer. > =============== > > >T:"According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.]" > > >J: I read this as referring to actual awareness/insight. > > T: That's not clear. Please elaborate! > =============== J: I'll do my best :-)) In everyday English, the word "practice" or "to practise" has more than 1 meaning, the two most obvious being: (a) doing a set of exercises designed to help one become proficient in something (e.g., as when one practises scales when learning the piano, and afterwards to maintain proficiency) (b) to carry out a particular kind of work for which one is already qualified (e.g. to practise as a doctor, lawyer, etc.) To my understanding, "practice according to the teaching" refers to the mental development that is unique to the teaching of a Buddha. This is more like the second of the 2 meanings of "practice" than the first. So it means the actual arising of awareness/insight, rather than a technique or exercises designed to induce the arising of awareness/insight. > =============== > >> T: In other words, with no right exertion (samma vayama) there is no entering into the path (magga). With right exertion, there can be a moment of awarenss/insight of the path after the hindrances have been abandoned. Mundane awarenss/insight is weak because the hindrances are in charge. > > >J: I would say that the reason why mundane awareness/insight is weak is because that is the extent to which it has been developed. > > T: What do you mean by "the extent to which it has been developed"? A clear example will be appreciated. > =============== J: I was responding to your comment that "Mundane awareness/insight is weak because the hindrances are in charge". I am suggesting that mundane awareness is weak because it has not yet been highly developed. It is only partly developed (i.e., developed to a certain extent). Hope this is clearer. Jon #130316 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:34 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon (& Alex, Rob E.), - > > > >Alex:The idea that one shouldn't practice to eliminate Wrong Views until wrong view was eliminating is simply impossible and self contradictory. It seems to be a sophistic excuse NOT to practice in the first place. > > > > J: To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. > > T: Just like flipping a light switch to light up a dark room! Where do I go find the Right View switch? > =============== J: Think of it this way: it is the 'good' dhammas -- and not the actions of somebody doing something -- that overcome and eventually eradicate the 'bad' dhammas such as wrong view. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated, but they have been accumulated to a weak degree only. So for the most part they are not manifest but lie latent/dormant. however, when there's an interest in the teachings, and an appreciation of the importance of the development of the path, there will be the natural reflecting on what has so far been understood that will condition the arising of awareness/insight. This is the particular 'good dhamma' that counters wrong view. So it's not a matter of *somebody doing something*; it's a matter of having the confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' :-)) Jon #130317 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:38 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all > > >J:To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views >is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > And how to get right view after you learned and considered the ABC's od Dhamma? Is it right view that when bad qualities arise you say something like "no control! I can't do anything" and then wallow in unwholesomeness? Is that right view? > =============== J: It's not a matter of having to *get* right view. We can safely assume that right view has already been accumulated to a certain degree, but it is weak and arises only rarely. As far as the development of awareness/insight is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the presently arising citta is wholesome or unwholesome. Because awareness/insight is just as likely to be aware of one as of the other; or for that matter of a vipaka citta such as seeing or of a rupa such as visible object. Besides, what has arisen has already arisen :-)) Jon #130318 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:47 am Subject: Erakapatta The Naga King, Uttara And The Buddha yawares1 Dear Members, There is nothing-else I love to do more than tell this wonderful story of Erakapatta the Naga King to you all. ******* Erakapatta The Naga King, Uttara And The Buddha [Translated from the Pali by Daw Mya Tin,M.A.] While residing near Baranasi the Buddha uttered Verse (182) of this book, with reference to Erakapatta, a king of nagas (dragons). Once there was a naga king by the name of Erakapatta. In one of his past existences during the time of Kassapa Buddha he had been a bhikkhu for a long time. Through worry (kukkucca) over a minor offence he had committed during that time, he was reborn as a naga. As a naga, he waited for the appearance of a Buddha. Erakapatta had a very beautiful daughter, and he made use of her as a means of finding the Buddha. He made it known that whoever could answer her questions could claim her for a wife. Twice every month, Erakapatta made her dance in the open and sing out her questions. Many suitors came to answer her questions hoping to claim her, but no one could give the correct answer. One day, the Buddha saw a youth named Uttara in his vision. He also knew that the youth would attain Sotapatti Fruition in connection with the questions put by the daughter of Erakapatta the naga. By then the youth was already on his way to see Erakapatta's daughter. The Buddha stopped him and taught him how to answer the questions. While he was being taught, Uttara attained Sotapatti Fruition. Now that Uttara had attained Sotapatti Fruition, he had no desire for the naga princess. However, Uttara still went to answer the questions for the benefit of numerous other beings. The first four questions were: 1. Who is a ruler? 2. Is one who is overwhelmed by the mist of moral defilements to be called a ruler? 3. What ruler is free from moral defilements? 4. What sort of person is to be called a fool? The answers to the above questions were: 1. He who controls the six senses is a ruler. 2. One who is overwhelmed by the mist of moral defilements is not to be called a ruler; he who is free from craving is called a ruler. 3. The ruler who is free from craving is free from moral defilements. 4. A person who hankers after sensual pleasures is called a fool. Having had the correct answers to the above, the naga princess sang out questions regarding the floods (oghas) of sensual desire, of renewed existence, of false doctrine and of ignorance, and how they could be overcome. Uttara answered these questions as taught by the Buddha. When Erakapatta heard these answers he knew that a Buddha had appeared in this world. So he asked Uttara to take him to the Buddha. On seeing the Buddha, Erakapatta related to the Buddha how he had been a bhikkhu during the time of Kassapa Buddha, how he had accidentally caused a grass blade to be broken off while travelling in a boat, and how he had worried over that little offence for having failed to do the act of exoneration as prescribed, and finally how he was reborn as a naga. After hearing him, the Buddha told him how difficult it was to be born in the human world, and to be born during the appearance of the Buddhas or during the time of their Teaching. Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 182: Hard to gain is birth as man; hard is the life of mortals; hard to get is the opportunity of hearing the Ariya Dhamma (Teaching of the Buddhas); hard it is for a Buddha to appear. The above discourse benefited numerous beings. Erakapatta being an animal could not attain Sotapatti Fruition then and there. ********** Love Buddhas yawares #130319 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:53 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- >J: So I would see awareness/insight as progress on the path. What else could constitute progress? Other kinds of kusala, while they are a support for the development of the path, do not themselves take one closer to magga citta. T: According to AN 4.37, there are five kusala dhammas that ascertain "no falling away" (aparihani) in the progress toward nibbana: consummate in virtue, guards the doors to his sense faculties, knows moderation in eating, devoted to wakefulness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html T: Development of concentration (samadhibhavana) is another support for the progress of the path: "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents (asava). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html ............... >J: BTW, I believe that awareness/insight is sometimes referred to in the texts as the "mundane path". T: The CMI book, page 66, explains the meaning of supramundane consciousness (lokuttaracittaani) that pertains to the process of transcending the world (consisting of the five aggregates of clinging). There are eight supramundane cittas that pertain to the four stages of enlightenment. Each stage involves two types of citta, maggacitta and phalacitta. There are 81 mundane consciousnesses (lokiyacitta) and they pertain to the three worlds, not the path development. I don't know and have never seen the term "mundane path" (lokiyamagga??). ............. >J: In everyday English, the word "practice" or "to practise" has more than 1 meaning, the two most obvious being: (a) doing a set of exercises designed to help one become proficient in something (e.g., as when one practises scales when learning the piano, and afterwards to maintain proficiency) (b) to carry out a particular kind of work for which one is already qualified (e.g. to practise as a doctor, lawyer, etc.) To my understanding, "practice according to the teaching" refers to the mental development that is unique to the teaching of a Buddha. This is more like the second of the 2 meanings of "practice" than the first. T: Thanks for the Dictionary definition. It is clear that even to become a (good) lawyer it takes lots of effort to develop skills that did not exist before and, after that stage, practice as a profession to become competent as a successful lawyer. Thus both (a) and (b) are required. In a similar vein, an instructed worldling (who has studied the Dhamma from books and hearing good Dhamma teachings) must apply the teachings to abandon akusala and develop kusala (that did not previously exist) such as precepts and sense restraint and abandoning wrong views. Then he/she as a trainer (sekha) practices right mindfulness (through satipatthana meditation) and right concentration which I see as "progress on the path". ............. >J: So it means the actual arising of awareness/insight, rather than a technique or exercises designed to induce the arising of awareness/insight. T: That is basically what we differ in our opinion. Awareness/insight --direct experience, direct knowing of the truths-- that penetrates the Noble Truths do not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. Knowledge and vision must be trained (i.e. developed through practice). "The compound expression 'knowledge and vision,' indicates that the kind of knowledge to be developed is not mere conceptual understanding, but knowledge which in its directness and immediacy is akin to visual perception. Conceptual understanding is often needed to clear away the intellectual obstructions to a correct perspective, but it must eventually yield to the light of direct experience. To achieve this experiential understanding it is necessary to enter upon the practice of the second system of Buddhist meditation, the development of insight. The practice of insight meditation aims at dislodging the defilements by eradicating the ignorance at their base. Ignorance is overcome by generating, through mindful observation, a direct insight into things as they really are. The material upon which insight works is precisely the sphere where ignorance is concealed, our own psycho-physical experience. Its method is the application of mindfulness or discerning awareness to this sphere without interruption and in all activities." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html#top ------------ > >T: What do you mean by "the extent to which it has been developed"? A clear example will be appreciated. >J: I am suggesting that mundane awareness is weak because it has not yet been highly developed. It is only partly developed (i.e., developed to a certain extent). T: Mundane awareness is weak and brittle like a piece of metal that has impurities. >Hope this is clearer. Jon Yes, it is --a tiny bit better. Keep on trying! Best wishes, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, - > > > > >J: As I said in my earlier message, the term "practice (of the teachings)" has the same meaning as "progress (on the path)". It means (any moment of) actual awareness/insight, rather than something done as a preliminary to such awareness/insight. > > > > T: Do you mean that every time there is awareness/insight in a non-ariyan, it is a magga dhamma? > > =============== #130320 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:12 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Jon and Alex, - > >J: To my understanding, the only "practice" that eliminates wrong views is Right View, that is to say, actual moments of awareness/insight. >Alex: And how to get right view after you learned and considered the ABC's of Dhamma? Is it right view that when bad qualities arise you say something like "no control! I can't do anything" and then wallow in unwholesomeness? Is that right view? >Tep: Just like flipping a light switch to light up a dark room! Where do I go find the Right View switch? .............. J (in #130316): Think of it this way: it is the 'good' dhammas -- and not the actions of somebody doing something -- that overcome and eventually eradicate the 'bad' dhammas such as wrong view. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated, but they have been accumulated to a weak degree only. So for the most part they are not manifest but lie latent/dormant. however, when there's an interest in the teachings, and an appreciation of the importance of the development of the path, there will be the natural reflecting on what has so far been understood that will condition the arising of awareness/insight. This is the particular 'good dhamma' that counters wrong view. So it's not a matter of *somebody doing something*; it's a matter of having the confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' :-)) J (in #130317): It's not a matter of having to *get* right view. We can safely assume that right view has already been accumulated to a certain degree, but it is weak and arises only rarely. As far as the development of awareness/insight is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the presently arising citta is wholesome or unwholesome. Because awareness/insight is just as likely to be aware of one as of the other; or for that matter of a vipaka citta such as seeing or of a rupa such as visible object. Besides, what has arisen has already arisen :-)) .............. T: In summary: 1. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; they lie latent/dormant, ready to spring into action to wipe out wrong views. Therefore, your progress will be steady and never falls away from the path. 2. Right view is not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is not required. The confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' is what you need. Lucky you to be forever with the accumulated "good dhammas" that act like an army of kind angels to carry you onto the path (magga) and beyond --like a baby boy who is well protected by several kind, loving babysitters. Be blessed, Tep === #130321 From: "philip" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:15 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states philofillet Hi Sarah Thank you for the passage from SPD (part below) and the rest of your explanation. >>>>When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? Phil #130322 From: "philip" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:49 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Dear group Please allow me to repost the following superior Dhamma conversation. > We had the following conversation about understanding realities: > > Acharn: "Visible object can be understood but memory takes it for a person or a thing. There should be the development of all realities, even of thinking. One can begin to see the difference between right understanding and wrong thinking about people and things. Do not have the idea that there should not be thinking, but understand thinking as just a reality." > Nina: "Trying not to think is forced." > Acharn: "It is not natural. Pa~n~naa cannot grow when it is not natural. > It arises by conditions and it can become stronger and stronger." > Sarah: "When it is time for thinking, time for sadness, it is conditioned like that. No one can change it or stop it." > Nina: "We should not select, but just be aware of any reality." > Acharn: "The self is trying. When there is trying it shows that the understanding of anattaa (non-self) is not firm, not well established. > But no matter whether there is a day without awareness, it is by conditions. When awareness arises by its own conditions it is much better than trying the whole day with the idea of self. The idea of self is building up at that very moment. When awareness arises for only a moment the difference can be seen between unawareness the whole day and a moment of understanding of a reality. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha does not arise and when it arises all the time, after seeing, hearing, at the moments of trying. Lobha is like a big boss." I would say dosa is like a big boss too. The desire for comfort sought by the meditator comes from the mortal fear that he or she is trying to escape. As the Buddha said, the worldling knows no escape from unpleasant mental feelings except by greedily seeking pleasant ones. We all do it, to greater or lesser degrees and frequency, but right understanding of the tendency develops for some of us. It clicks. And the courage to not to seek to escape develops as well. It ill comes down to SN 1:1, I think. Seek to rush across the flood (i.e escape dosa through lobha ditthi rooted practices) and be swept away by lobha and moha. Courageous patience, and the very very gradual development of panna, that is the only way to get across. But it goes against the way of the world. Phil #130323 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:35 am Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah, Phil and Alberto I just wonder that the meaning of "postures" (iriyaapatha) used for body only? Does mind have posture? Thank you Jagkrit #130324 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:11 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E., (Alex, Sukin, Sarah)- > > Thanks again for the comments and questions for further discussion. > > > Rob E. : > > I always appreciate your efforts to round up the former points and then reply to them in an organized way. It goes well with my obsessive nature! :-) > > T: But it did not take much effort to sum up the points you made earlier just to make it easy for me to reply to them. [ I am glad you like it.] :-) > .............. > > > I think non-ariyans cannot directly apprehend the paramattha dhammas and, therefore, what "the wise" calls concepts are actually very real to the non-ariyans: ... So, the Arahants and their disciples saw each other; it means that they were not fiction. Their bodies, rupas and namas were impermanent, suffering and not-self. They were real, but different, from moment to moment until death arises. > > > > Rob E. : I like this description very much - especially the last sentence which describes the momentary changing reality of the body and "person." > > > T: Thanks, Robert. I believe it is important to note that the fleeting states of the Arahants and their disciples were real, yet impermanent & and not-self. I have to repeat that again; otherwise, someone may say that they did not exist. The idea of a changing reality should become customary, and not be confused with unreality, as you rightly are clarifying here. The question as to what aspects of this fleeting reality are actual, and which are illusory, is another matter. > .............. > > > I agree with your R1, and also want to add this: the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma is very clear, i.e., that the sabhava-dhammas are the essence of the Dhamma. > > > > Could you say a bit more about this point? I am not quite sure if you are saying that the concept of sabhava dhammas is the essence of Buddhism or if you are saying something about the dhammas themselves. Is sabhava dhammas synonymous with paramatha dhammas? > > T: My apologies for the blurred wording! Allow me to do a better job this time: > The dhamma theory states that ultimate reality consists of elementary constituents called "dhammas" that are the fundamental components of actuality. Sabhaava means "intrinsic nature" or "essence" of the dhammas. For example, the "essence" of feeling is the characteristic of being felt. And, as stated in the Vism XI, note 20, "the meaning of element is the meaning of individual essence, the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness, the meaning of voidness is the meaning of not-a-living-being." Thus the not-self or no-self perception clearly follows. "the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness," That is interesting - why posit an essence which is void? > Yes, Robert, "sabhava dhammas" is synonymous with paramatha dhammas --according to my understanding. Thanks - the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? Best, Rob E. - - - - - #130325 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:23 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Hi Robert E., - Glad to see you back. Glad to read your penetrating questions; I'll do the best I can to explain. But, in case you forgot, I do not know everything! :) >RE : The idea of a changing reality should become customary, and not be confused with unreality, as you rightly are clarifying here. The question as to what aspects of this fleeting reality are actual, and which are illusory, is another matter. T: Yes indeed, it is very important to be observant and able to clearly separate the two aspects! Confusion arises whenever the actual is not seen as "actual". -------- >RE : "the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness," That is interesting - why posit an essence which is void? T: The essence is not void; the meaning of it is that of voidness. Yes, it is confusing. So allow me explain the concept "void" and "voidness" as follows. 'Empty' or 'void' (su~n~na), the adjective of 'emptiness'(su~n~nata), is a quality that supports the liberation of consciousness from avijja. It is the mental state that is empty of self-view and the conceit 'I am'. Hope I hit the nail on the head! Yet, someone may ask: "why then is the meaning of individual essence is the meaning of voidness?". My answer is: because the individual essence is empty of Self or anything that pertains to Self. ------- >RE : the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? T: These are difficult questions, Robert. But I don't worry, since there is always someone around who knows. In my opinion the "function of being heard" involves hearing consciousness, but the "characteristic of being heard" is the 'sabhava' of the hearing itself. Sabhava is a "nature" that exists independent of whether or not there is "acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function". Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E., (Alex, Sukin, Sarah)- > > > > Thanks again for the comments and questions for further discussion. > > #130326 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:00 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 tadaomiyamot... Hi Everyone: > Several times Acharn reminded us of the power of lobha, attachment. It is dangerous that it is mostly unknown. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha arises and leads one astray. One may wish to have more understanding but at such a moment one clings to the idea of self. As for the above passage, what I was strongly reminded in March by Kun Sujin was that Buddhism is the teaching of "detachment", and it is not the teaching of "attachment." Not only worldly/sensuous things but also any elements associated with our study and practice of the Dhamma could easily become objects of lobha. Since then, my simplest mantra is "Buddhism teaches nothing but detachment and there is no exception to this statement." In other words, I shouldn't give any cheap excuse to (my) lobha. Mettaa tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > By Nina van Gorkom > > Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): > > Each day we had one session of two hours in the morning and one session of two hours later in the afternoon. In Huahin the sessions were in a large lounge of a bungalow where Jonothan and Sarah had one room and where I had another room. After the afternoon session, Thai friends arranged for fruits, cookies and different snacks. There was such an abundance of food that there was no need to go out for supper anymore. Our friends were most attentive to all our needs and looked after us all the time. We went out for lunch to different places and even while we were having lunch Acharn would speak about paramattha dhammas appearing right now. The whole atmosphere was most pleasant while we enjoyed each other's company, the beautiful panorama and the great variety of dishes. > > We had the following conversation about understanding realities: > > Acharn: "Visible object can be understood but memory takes it for a person or a thing. There should be the development of all realities, even of thinking. One can begin to see the difference between right understanding and wrong thinking about people and things. Do not have the idea that there should not be thinking, but understand thinking as just a reality." > Nina: "Trying not to think is forced." > Acharn: "It is not natural. Pa~n~naa cannot grow when it is not natural. > It arises by conditions and it can become stronger and stronger." > Sarah: "When it is time for thinking, time for sadness, it is conditioned like that. No one can change it or stop it." > Nina: "We should not select, but just be aware of any reality." > Acharn: "The self is trying. When there is trying it shows that the understanding of anattaa (non-self) is not firm, not well established. > But no matter whether there is a day without awareness, it is by conditions. When awareness arises by its own conditions it is much better than trying the whole day with the idea of self. The idea of self is building up at that very moment. When awareness arises for only a moment the difference can be seen between unawareness the whole day and a moment of understanding of a reality. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha does not arise and when it arises all the time, after seeing, hearing, at the moments of trying. Lobha is like a big boss." > > Several times Acharn reminded us of the power of lobha, attachment. It is dangerous that it is mostly unknown. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha arises and leads one astray. One may wish to have more understanding but at such a moment one clings to the idea of self. > #130327 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:41 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Dear Jagkrit, J: I just wonder that the meaning of "postures" (iriyaapatha) used for body only? I think you are right, in satipatthana sutta (a difficult sutta, as Ajahn reminded us) it is used to explain clear comprehension of realities, one at the time, in normal everyday life, arising naturally, by conditions, while standing, or sitting, or walking, or lying down. Alberto #130328 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:44 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 t.sastri Dear Tadao, - Since you said 'Hi everyone', so I thought you might allow two questions. >[Tadao:] 1. >Buddhism is the teaching of "detachment", and it is not the teaching of "attachment." 2. >Not only worldly/sensuous things but also any elements associated with our study and practice of the Dhamma could easily become objects of lobha. 3. >In other words, I shouldn't give any cheap excuse to (my) lobha. They say, craving (hunger for, excitement) is a synomym for greed. There are three kinds of craving: craving for sensuality(kaamatanha), craving for becoming(bhavatanha), craving for non-becoming(vibhava tanha). Which one is (your) lobha and what is its object? How do you detach from the object of lobha? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "tadaomiyamoto@..." wrote: > > Hi Everyone: > > > Several times Acharn reminded us of the power of lobha, attachment. It is dangerous that it is mostly unknown. Only pa~n~naa can see when lobha arises and leads one astray. One may wish to have more understanding but at such a moment one clings to the idea of self. > > As for the above passage, what I was strongly reminded in March by Kun Sujin was that > Buddhism is the teaching of "detachment", and it is not the teaching of "attachment." > > Not only worldly/sensuous things but also any elements associated with our study and practice of the Dhamma could easily become objects of lobha. > > Since then, my simplest mantra is "Buddhism teaches nothing but detachment and there is no exception to this statement." In other words, I shouldn't give any cheap excuse to (my) lobha. > > Mettaa > > tadao > #130329 From: han tun Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:55 pm Subject: I am so sorry! hantun1 Dear Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, and others, Before I recover completely from the recent surgery, the Pathologist has found in me another illness that requires various investigations and prolonged and difficult treatment. When I first read the statement [Once a being acquires the five aggregates, he acquires the dukkha] I took it lightly. Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement, and I get fed-up with the five aggregates. My five aggregates are a heap of sheer formations (suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m). It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases. Dukkhameva hi sambhoti, dukkha.m ti.t.thati veti ca; Naa~n~natra dukkhaa sambhoti, naa~n~na.m dukkhaa nirujjhatii"ti. -SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta. -------------------- Clarification: [1] When I say [Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement], it is still the intellectual understanding and not "full understanding" (pari~n~naa). [2] When I say [I get fed-up with the five aggregates] I mean the ordinary meaning of the English word "fed-up", and not the (No. 6) Nibbidaa-~naa.na of the ten vipassanaa ~naa.nas. I am still struggling with the lowest two rungs: (No. 1) Sammasana-~naa.na and (No. 2) Udayabbaya-~naa.na. In this connection, my Good Brother Tep told me that if I am fed-up with the five aggregates, I should let them go. Yes, that is exactly what I will have to try: to cut off the attachment to the five aggregates. -------------------- Having said that, I have lost all my will and zeal and energy, and I do not want to write anything on any topic. So I most humbly offer my apologies to Khun Tadao and Khun Jagkrit for not keeping my promise to write something on Nandii-raaga. I am so sorry! -------------------- In one moment I am sad and depressed. In another moment I am happy. I am happy because I have the opportunity to pay back some of my akusala kamma debt in this very life. -------------------- This is my last message for many, many days to come. I pray for you all, the best of health and happiness. with metta and respect, Han #130330 From: "philip" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:11 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! philofillet Dear Han Wishing your courage and wisdom, and I know you have both. And you have done so much kusala kamma, that will carry you through your hard time, I am confident of that. Yes, letting go of the five aggregates, wise decision, made by accumulated panna. With respect, Phil #130331 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:59 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Hi Sukin, Thanks for your reply. > What "work" are you referring to? I just meant let's try to move on from cliches and generalised assumptions. > As to gargantuan posts, I'll try, but as you know, its anatta. Know > however, that I do not mind if you decide not to continue as a result of > my responses being too long. No worries, I'll just be late in replying due to work. > > Assuming doesn't make it so. Don't a/kusala cittas arise in spite of > > what one may wish, no matter the level of faculties developed? > > Well, that's the point isn't it? If kusala arise during meditation, it > must be in spite of and not because of it. Yes, that was my point exactly. I.e. we all start somewhere - sun-worshipers, pop-buddhists, etc, and still, none of that is an insurmountable obstacle for kusala citta to arise anyway - "in spite of". > > If there was a chance to hear the Dhamma, can it not condition > > appreciation with panna of such a/kusala moments, regardless of > > whether they happen in the midst of situations replete with wrong view > > or whatever other dhammas? > > So what are you arguing for? Meditate with the idea of making sati and > panna arise or understanding that this is not how it works? I meant just that kusala citta can arise "in spite of" all that other stuff, and if one was opportune enough to hear the Dhamma, so can understnading, bhavana. That's how wrong views are made straight so to speak. As to how will this look and find expression in the conventional world (aka meditate or don't meditate, etc) that's a different story, depending on accumulations, etc. > > ... Couldn't all this result in telling the > > difference between "doing" and "kusala"? > > Patipatti comes as a result of accumulated pariyatti. Pariyatti will not > condition wrong practice / meditation. If wrong practice is indulged in, > the imperative would be to study and develop pariyatti. To believe that > patipatti may arise in spite of the wrong practice being indulged in is > wishful thinking. Pariyatti/patipatti is an interesting side-topic. While in principle I agree with what you say above, it simplifies matters a bit too much for my liking. I don't know if you feel like going into this in more detail? > > Don't we all do this, meditators or not? Sometimes there's panna, > > usually there's just thinking. I would think all beginners (meditators > > or not) can't tell the difference between thinking and understanding > > most of the time? > > Why is requirement for direct understanding being used to deny the > necessary effect of intellectual understanding? Not having direct > understanding calls for further development of intellectual > understanding and not an excuse to follow wrong practice. I don't understand to what you are objecting here. In any case, while you are in theory probably right above in your conclusion, I don't think one can actually choose/decide to develop (right) intellectual understanding and stop doing something else since that would still be choosing a "doing" - still in the realm of conventional things and doings, which means it has to do with lobha rather than actual arising of understanding. > Well you said that you "just formally meditated for me", this is not the > standard motivation of meditators is it? Anyway, you can tell me what > you are generally motivated by and I will give you my response. Ok, though I'm not sure the question applies. I do things during the day - work, write, rest, etc. In some brief moments in the midst of all this, kusala citta arises and I appreciate it when it does (at least I believe it is kusala, and I believe I appreciate it, but who knows, it might all be self-delusion and lobha). These brief moments of kusala and its appreciation are what I'd call "meditation". Nothing to do with posture, time, place, focusing, etc. There are also times when I'm just sitting/lying/standing without doing much of anything else in particular, and during these times there might be a kusala citta and its appreciation. Since at the time I'm not working, reading, writing, nor much of anything else in the conventional sense, I call this "formal meditation". > > Perhaps in regards to wrong view, rites and rituals, or whatever else > > seems the most grave matter. That might make the discussion more relevant. > > So you simply don't want me to mention "meditation" or "meditator"? On the contrary, criticise me as a meditator and my meditation in particular, instead of some imaginary meditator that does things entirely differently and is not here to actually participate in the discussion. I mean, you are talking to me, so it would be good to get a critique of what I'm actually doing/saying. Best wishes pt #130332 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:14 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt ptaus1 Hi Jon and Sarah, Thanks for your further clarifications. I understand what you're saying but I'm still not managing to get to the bottom of what I'm after, though all this helped narrow it down I think: Basically, for those guys outside a sasana, I'm wondering if there is such a citta like the following, or not: - it's a kusala citta, - it has panna of weak samatha kind with it (so it is not jhana, nor advanced samatha bhavana) - it has a concept as object, but it is an ordinary one (e.g. a cake, or music, etc), so not one of the Vsm. samatha bhavana objects. In addition, - it is brief - so an ordinary javana cittas of a normal mind-door process, involved in day-to-day interaction with cakes, music, etc. - it has nothing to do with dana, sila, advanced samatha bhavana, intellectual right understanding, vipassana, etc. Basically an ordinary citta, but instead of attachment arising in interaction with cakes, music, etc, there's a kusala citta instead that has these same (conceptual) everyday object. Hoping I've managed to explain this more clearly. My thinking is that for those guys outside of a sasana, there must be some sort of kusala that arises in interaction with everyday stuff without it being vipassana nor right intellectual understanding nor advanced samatha bhavana, since it is not accessible to most. Best wishes pt #130334 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:33 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! t.sastri Dear Han, my good brother - You wrote: >Han: In one moment I am sad and depressed. In another moment I am happy. I am happy because I have the opportunity to pay back some of my akusala kamma debt in this very life. >This is my last message for many, many days to come. T: A Chinese proverb says: "there is no happy party that lasts forever". Your time has come to leave this "party" for many days, you say. But when your health improves and the sadness disappears, you can come back to join the party again! Don't be sad; get well soon, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, and others, > > Before I recover completely from the recent surgery, the Pathologist has found in me another illness that requires various investigations and prolonged and difficult treatment. > #130335 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:54 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana epsteinrob Hi Tep, Jon and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: According to AN 4.37, there are five kusala dhammas that ascertain "no falling away" (aparihani) in the progress toward nibbana: consummate in virtue, guards the doors to his sense faculties, knows moderation in eating, devoted to wakefulness. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html > > T: Development of concentration (samadhibhavana) is another support for the progress of the path: "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. ... This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents (asava). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html > ............... This appears to be one of those cases in which the description of concentration includes the function and development of mindfulness. When one "remains focused" on the "arising and passing away" of form, feeling, perception, etc., and is able to understand: "Such is feeling, ...its origination, ...its passing away..." then there is sati and sampajanna as well. I think this is a good example of the interlocked nature of right mindfulness and right concentration, and how the practice of one involves the support of the other. The concentration of this level described, where one is aware of the rising and passing away of the kandhas, would not exist without this high degree of mindful awareness. And this level of mindfulness would not exist without the necessary degree of concentration/uninterrupted focus that is described. The ability to stay focused well enough and long enough to observe and understand the rising and falling away of dhammas appears to be a prerequisite support for the development of sati sampajanna and satipatthana. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #130336 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:09 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Hi Sarah and Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > > > > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > > > .... > > > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! > > > > I agree that "one" is a convention -- but action still takes place. > ... > S: As soon as there's a question about "how to prepare.... for that moment", it's not understanding present dhammas, no matter how "one" is used. There is still the idea of someone doing something. What if there is only the idea of how conditions may lead to one or another accumulation or outcome? If there is no "one" involved, and there is no one trying to do anything, but there is just an understanding of conditions, then there is no problem. The conflict is about whether a normal activity such as "studying Dhamma" or "meditating" or "doing good works" or "experiencing metta for a being" can lead to the development of the kind of kusala that supports the path. The idea that no activities make any difference continues to be the real disagreement, I think. Everyone goes about their business either reading and discussing scriptures or meditating or eradicating defilements to whatever extent is possible, doing good and trying to avoid doing bad, etc., "as if" these all really do make a difference, but then when discussing them they deny that they have anything to do with the path. It seems to me that such a contradictory divide between what is actually intended and done, and what is acknowledged, is not a very realistic situation. If those who say that meditating and even Dhamma study are beside the point and cannot lead to path development, then why don't they stop? And why don't they prove they really believe this by drinking, killing and burning their Dhamma books? I don't mean to be too dramatic but it does seem like everyone really does believe that studying Dhamma - a worldly activity - will lead to the path and to true understanding. > >Or are you saying that not only is there no actor, but there is also no action? Rupas arise - those are physical realities. I wonder how far they go? And when mental factors arise they perform their function -- those are actions as well. > ... > S: Yes, namas and rupas arise and fall away. When namas arise, they perform their functions and then gone. They don't stop to ask "how to?"! They don't have to ask how to develop, that is true. But there are cittas that do collaborate to ask "how is this taking place?," "how does understanding develop?" etc., and we are engaged in those discussions every day. So they either have a purpose, or are a complete waste of time. I wonder which it is...? > > When a 'being is murdered' what is taking place in reality? > ... > S: The arising and falling away of various namas and rupas. > .... I agree. And that shows that what we take for ordinary activity really does represent arising and falling away of various namas and rupas, which really exist. So we may not be seeing murder correctly when we conceptualize an event, a being, etc., but there is actually something happening, real dhammas arising and falling away. The event is not fictitious, just misunderstood or glossed over. > > > S: A better question, imho, is what can be directly understood now? > > > > It is always that case that what is happening now should be understood - but sometimes it is necessary to clarify what can arise and what can take place. Do certain volitions lead to certain actions, and can those go into the category of preparation or development? > .... > S: Volition arises at each moment. As soon as there's the idea of preparing or developing volitions, it is not understanding what has been conditioned to arise already. Yet we do try to understand how one thing leads to another in dependent origination. We do not simply take each dhamma as independent all by itself with no thought to accumulations or development. So it is also true that there are relations between what has arisen and what develops or arises afterwards. Often the hesitancy to discuss this reality of accumulation, tendency and development, except to acknowledge it in a technical discussion, robs the reality out of how conditions continue to be formed and influence what happens at each moment. No dhamma arises in a vaccuum. In fact it seems that this is one of the Buddha's main points, and the continued developments of dependent origination one of his most important and influential subjects. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #130337 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:21 am Subject: The Bodhi Trees of the 28 Buddhas yawares1 Dear Members, This Monday morning..I proudly present "The Bodhi Trees of the 28 Buddhas": Please click: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=11901 **Note to Sarah You asked me not to post with the link..but this post will not be perfect without the pictures...so please just let me post with link one last time because I put so much efforts to research for the information and the pictures...which are so hard to find...took me a long time to finish the post. Miss you and Nina, yawares yawares #130338 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:54 am Subject: Re: I am so sorry! jonoabb Dear Han I join Phil and all your friends here in wishing you all the best. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Dear Han > > Wishing your courage and wisdom, and I know you have both. And you have done so much kusala kamma, that will carry you through your hard time, I am confident of that. > > Yes, letting go of the five aggregates, wise decision, made by accumulated panna. > > With respect, > > Phil > #130339 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:08 am Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt jonoabb Hi pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Jon and Sarah, > > Thanks for your further clarifications. I understand what you're saying but I'm still not managing to get to the bottom of what I'm after, though all this helped narrow it down I think: > > Basically, for those guys outside a sasana, I'm wondering if there is such a citta like the following, or not: > ... > > Basically an ordinary citta, but instead of attachment arising in interaction with cakes, music, etc, there's a kusala citta instead that has these same (conceptual) everyday object. Hoping I've managed to explain this more clearly. My thinking is that for those guys outside of a sasana, there must be some sort of kusala that arises in interaction with everyday stuff without it being vipassana nor right intellectual understanding nor advanced samatha bhavana, since it is not accessible to most. > =============== J: I cannot think what sort of kusala that could be. Unless perhaps the cake reminds the person of something kusala. Do you have anything in mind? In the case of the specified objects, it is the contemplation about the object that can condition calm. Jon #130340 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:37 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Alex (Tep. All) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, Tep, all, > > >1.[AN 5.25 Anugghita Sutta:] "There is the case where right view is ?>supported by virtue, supported by learning, supported by discussion, >supported by tranquillity, supported by insight." > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.025.than.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Please note: Right view is supported by tranquility... > =============== J: The passage says that right view can be supported by any one or more of 4 factors, namely, learning, discussion, tranquillity and insight. > =============== > A: I've done a lot of considering and study, and yet somehow bad qualities do arise. It seems > > It seems that there are two ways: > a) Get into Jhana and use that super experience as basis for real right view. > > and/or > > b) After one learns that akusala qualities are bad, one uses brute force to suppress them. > =============== J: The development of the path is not about dealing with bad qualities that have arisen. It's about awareness of any presently arisen dhamma. That awareness can arise at any time, including in the midst of bad qualities. Understanding sees the true nature of things, thus akusala as akusala. > =============== > A: > "Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html > =============== J: In this passage the Buddha is speaking of kusala citta, I believe. So not our idea of using brute force to suppress bad qualities that we would rather were not manifesting. Jon #130341 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:03 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, Jon, > ... > How is, lets say, a wall is perceived vs how is the door perceived? > > I think that some concepts are built into consciousness and cannot be removed. My dog distinguishes wall from a door, and he doesn't know any language and can't conceptualized. > =============== J: A dog cannot think *in words*, but does think (or conceptualise) about what is experienced through the sense-doors, and this allows him to distinguish door from wall. > =============== > A: Saying on other hand that "door doesn't exist because it is made of such and such elements such as:" seem to be the sort of abstract conceptualizing that Buddha wasn't in favor of. > =============== J: Dhammas are those things that can be directly experienced. There is no dhamma of 'door'. The development of the path concerns the understanding of dhammas, not of 'things' that are not dhammas. We can just leave it at that. Jon #130342 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:04 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Rob E., Jon, others - The five kusala dhammas that contribute to progress towards nibbana are: 1) being consumate in virtue (Sila), 2) guarding of the sense doors, 3) knowing moderation in eating, 4) devoting to wakefulness, and 5) developing of concentration for direct knowing (via satipatthana of) the five aggregates of clinging and their arising/dissolving phenomena. [AN 4.37 and AN 4.41] >Rob E. : This appears to be one of those cases in which the description of concentration includes the function and development of mindfulness. When one "remains focused" on the "arising and passing away" of form, feeling, perception, etc., and is able to understand: "Such is feeling, ...its origination, ...its passing away..." then there is sati and sampajanna as well. T: That is an accurate summary of the two Anguttara Nikaya suttas, Robert. I appreciate your feedback. ............. >Rob E. : I think this is a good example of the interlocked nature of right mindfulness and right concentration, and how the practice of one involves the support of the other. The concentration of this level described, where one is aware of the rising and passing away of the kandhas, would not exist without this high degree of mindful awareness. And this level of mindfulness would not exist without the necessary degree of concentration/uninterrupted focus that is described. T: It is true that right mindfulness as 'samadhi-nimitta' interlocks with right concentration. In fact the three magga dhammas: right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration form the samadhi-khandha group of the Noble Eightfold path. Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in his Noble Eightfold Path book as follows: "The purification of conduct established by the prior three factors serves as the basis for the next division of the path, the division of concentration (samadhikkhandha). This present phase of practice, which advances from moral restraint to direct mental training, comprises the three factors of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. It gains its name from the goal to which it aspires, the power of sustained concentration, itself required as the support for insight-wisdom. Wisdom is the primary tool for deliverance, but the penetrating vision it yields can only open up when the mind has been composed and collected. Right concentration brings the requisite stillness to the mind by unifying it with undistracted focus on a suitable object. To do so, however, the factor of concentration needs the aid of effort and mindfulness. Right effort provides the energy demanded by the task, right mindfulness the steadying points for awareness." ............. >Rob E. : The ability to stay focused well enough and long enough to observe and understand the rising and falling away of dhammas appears to be a prerequisite support for the development of sati sampajanna and satipatthana. T: Such noble "understanding" is known as "knowledge and vision of things as they really are" (yathabhuta.m pajanati) that supports disenchantment (nibbida) and dispassion (viraga). Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep, Jon and all. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: According to AN 4.37, there are four kusala dhammas that ascertain "no falling away" (aparihani) in the progress toward nibbana: consummate in virtue, guards the doors to his sense faculties, knows moderation in eating, devoted to wakefulness. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html > > > #130343 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:08 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 12 jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): After our sejourn in Huahin, we stayed for the weekend in Bangkok. On Saturday Khun Duangduen offered us a lunch in her garden which is a pleasant, restful place. On Sunday there were sessions in Thai in the building of the "Dhamma Study and Support Foundation" . It was Acharn's birthday and it was inspiring to see many people who came with gifts and paid respect to Acharn. We could watch the great generosity of the Thais. The little room Acharn uses to meet people privately was full of flowers, fruits and other gifts. During the session we had conversations about life in conventional sense and life in the sense of paramattha dhammas. It was stressed that it is important to know the difference between concept and reality. When we think of people we live in the world of concepts and when understanding is developed of reality as it appears through one of the six doors, one at a time, we come to know the world of paramattha dhammas. We had lunch in the Foundation building at a long table with Acharn and other friends. We were enjoying the food offered by a couple who sponsored the meal. Husband and wife served us with such great concern and affection, taking care all the time to see if anybody needed anything. Their children entered the room and paid respect to Acharn. I found it a special experience to be back again in the Foundation. All my Thai friends welcomed me with great cordiality and they kept smiling, radiating kindness. When everyone around us is smiling with sincere kindness, we just have to smile too and it is impossible to be sad and depressed. #130344 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:08 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Dear Jon, all, >J:The passage says that right view can be supported by any one or >more of 4 factors, namely, learning, discussion, tranquillity and >insight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't say any one. All those are required, including samatha. >J:The development of the path is not about dealing with bad >?>qualities that have arisen. It's about awareness of any presently >arisen dhamma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole point of awareness of presently arisen dhamma could be to counteract the hindrances until they grew too strong. >That awareness can arise at any time, Only if one is actively being aware. >J:Understanding sees the true nature of things, thus akusala as >akusala. >>>>>>>>>>> The more understanding one has, the more one attempts to abandon, destroy, dispel and wipe them off existence. > > =============== > > A: > > "Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html > > =============== > > J: In this passage the Buddha is speaking of kusala citta, >>>>>>>>> Yes, it is kusala to abandon, destroy, dispel and wipe akusala off existence. It is akusala citta to sink into unwholesomeness under pretense "I can't do anything! No control!". IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130345 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:15 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts truth_aerator Dear Jon, all, >J:A dog cannot think *in words*, but does think (or conceptualise) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thinking requires words to think with. Or images. In any case, it seems that perception of certain phenomena (doors, etc) are built into a mind. >A: Saying on other hand that "door doesn't exist because it is made >of such and such elements such as:" seem to be the sort of abstract >conceptualizing that Buddha wasn't in favor of. >=============== >J:Dhammas are those things that can be directly experienced. >>>>>>> And door is one of them, otherwise how could dog distinguish door from a wall, or any other obstacle from empty space? >There is no dhamma of 'door'. There IS such phenomenon, and there are obstacles that dogs and other animals can walk, crawl, or fly around. Talking about momentary dhammas on other hand, is by-product of a, possibly restless, mind. >J:The development of the path concerns the understanding of dhammas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And understanding for what purpose? Is there some sort of a secret password that one can learn after aeons of such study to dial-in nibbana? I think that understanding is to motivate one to work harder and crush defilements. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130346 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:31 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- > ... > >J: BTW, I believe that awareness/insight is sometimes referred to in the texts as the "mundane path". > > T: I don't know and have never seen the term "mundane path" (lokiyamagga??). > =============== J: I'm afraid I don't know what the Pali would be. In Ven Soma Thera's 'The Way of Mindfuoness' (translation of the Satipatthana Sutta and commentaries) there is the following in connection with the passage "having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief" in the opening part of the sutta: ***************** [Comy] "Having overcome" refers to the discipline of knocking out an evil quality by its opposite good (that is by dealing with each category of evil separately) or through the overcoming of evil part by part [tadangavinaya] and through the disciplining or the overcoming of the passions by suppression in absorption [vikkhambhana vinaya]. [Sub-Comy] Preliminary practice connected with the mundane path of mindfulness is pointed out by the commentator here. ***************** I would assume that awareness/insight is referred to as the mundane path because it is the teaching unique to a Buddha which, if developed, leads directly to (supramundane) magga citta. Jon #130347 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:40 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I would say dosa is like a big boss too. The desire for comfort sought by the meditator comes from the mortal fear that he or she is trying to escape. As the Buddha said, the worldling knows no escape from unpleasant mental feelings except by greedily seeking pleasant ones. We all do it, to greater or lesser degrees and frequency, but right understanding of the tendency develops for some of us. It clicks. And the courage to not to seek to escape develops as well. It ill comes down to SN 1:1, I think. Seek to rush across the flood (i.e escape dosa through lobha ditthi rooted practices) and be swept away by lobha and moha. > > Courageous patience, and the very very gradual development of panna, that is the only way to get across. But it goes against the way of the world. Are you still meditating? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #130348 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:49 am Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) epsteinrob Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >RE : the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? > > T: These are difficult questions, Robert. But I don't worry, since there is always someone around who knows. > > In my opinion the "function of being heard" involves hearing consciousness, but the "characteristic of being heard" is the 'sabhava' of the hearing itself. Sabhava is a "nature" that exists independent of whether or not there is "acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function". Exactly - that is what bugs me about it. I have always had the feeling that sabhava is not really defined but is just postulated as an existent quality of dhammas, such that they have this special substrate or possession; and to me it seems very much like a sneaking idea of a 'self' or 'soul' quality - not quite the same as a "person" might have, but a special something that is not quite defined which make a dhamma more than just "empty." When this kind of specialness attaches to something, it tends to be idealized into a kind of entity beyond its momentary existence, even though it is said that it disappears completely. But having this special essence for that fleeting moment I think is comforting to those who don't like a universe of samsara that is completely meaningless and has nothing to offer but dukkha. With sabhava in hand, well, at least for that moment we have a special essence, something to hold onto, before it goes away. I don't think that sabhava ever appears in the Buddha's own words in the suttas - not that I know of anyway. The Buddha did not talk about things having special "essences" did he? He spoke about them being empty and temporary and not worth holding onto, not that they were possessed by wonderful uniquenesses of some kind. I suspect that this addition of sabhava to Buddhist philosophy at a later time is a sneaky way of providing subtle specialness to dhammas that should really be discarded completely and have no value whatsoever. But maybe I'm just a little paranoid... What is the value of sabhava? And is it really something that exists? Why and how does a fleeting dhamma have an 'essence' that it possesses - its very own "own-being?" What does this say about a dhamma that is worthwhile in the understanding of dependent origination, detachment and understanding itself? That is what I'd like to know. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #130349 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:14 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts t.sastri Hi Alex, Jon - Allow me to give one comment. > >Alex: Saying on other hand that "door doesn't exist because it is made of such and such elements such as:" seem to be the sort of abstract conceptualizing that Buddha wasn't in favor of. >J: Dhammas are those things that can be directly experienced. There is no dhamma of 'door'. The development of the path concerns the understanding of dhammas, not of 'things' that are not dhammas. T: There are two issues: 1. Door does not exist i.e. not directly experienceable, because it is not a paramattha dhamma. 2. Path development concerns the understanding of paramattha dhammas. Comment: 1. Door has characteristics of earth element, decay, and impermanence. So it is a reality too; although it is not ultimate reality. 2. Path development concerns with sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na. Truly, Tep === #130350 From: "philip" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:33 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Hello Rob E Of course! As well as another solitary practice seeking escape from stress, rooted in moha and lobha. Over and out. Phil #130351 From: "philip" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:57 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 12 philofillet Dear group > > During the session we had conversations about life in conventional sense and life in the sense of paramattha dhammas. It was stressed that it is important to know the difference between concept and reality. When we think of people we live in the world of concepts and when understanding is developed of reality as it appears through one of the six doors, one at a time, we come to know the world of paramattha dhammas. > Ph: We can't hear this enough. When Ajahn is asked a question about a difficult topic such as paccayas sometimes she provides the answer, to support correct theoretical understanding. But usually she says something like " I think instead of thinking about what is not appearing now it is is better to understand what appears now" and she will then talk about seeing and visible object, usually. What is appearing now. That is how we come to understand reality, not by endlessly debating the topic of concept and reality. It is only by developing understanding of presently arisen dhammas that we really understand concept and reality. What is appearing now, listening to the wise Dhamma friend can condition moments of awareness. Ajahn helps us so much to develop understanding, little by little, she helps us to drop topics that impede awareness of what is appearing now. Phil #130352 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:26 am Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) t.sastri Hi Rob E., - Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to contemplate both the Dhamma and the dhammas. >RE: I have always had the feeling that sabhava is not really defined but is just postulated as an existent quality of dhammas, such that they have this special substrate or possession; and to me it seems very much like a sneaking idea of a 'self' or 'soul' quality ...But having this special essence for that fleeting moment I think is comforting to those who don't like a universe of samsara that is completely meaningless and has nothing to offer but dukkha. With sabhava in hand, well, at least for that moment we have a special essence, something to hold onto, before it goes away. T: Sabhava, to my understanding, is the "core" quality (or qualities) that makes each category of things uniquely different. Maybe it is postulated, but it is based on actual & wise observation. For example, an intrinsic quality of earth is hardness that makes it different than water whose essence is liquidity. Such qualities do not change with location or time. They don't disappear either, but remain accountable for all newly arisen phenomena of the same kind. ............. >RE: The Buddha did not talk about things having special "essences" did he? He spoke about them being empty and temporary and not worth holding onto, not that they were possessed by wonderful uniquenesses of some kind. T: Broadly, he talked about two kinds of things: the conditioned and the unconditioned. The three characteristics (anicca, dukha, anatta) are the global sabhava of all conditioned things and there are individual intrinsic qualities as well. Being impermanent, they are "empty and temporary and not worth holding onto" as you said. Feelings, for example, are conditioned dhammas that are possessed of the three characteristics in addition to the intrinsic characteristic of being felt. Although the Buddha highly praised happiness (a feeling) in the jhana as "beyond the world" (niramisa), yet he also said that they were to be abandoned for the sake of the "nibbana bliss". To my understanding "bliss" is a sabhava of nibbana. This ultimate bliss, is according to him, wonderful uniqueness that is beyond all things in the three worlds. ............. >RE: What is the value of sabhava? And is it really something that exists? Why and how does a fleeting dhamma have an 'essence' that it possesses - its very own "own-being?" What does this say about a dhamma that is worthwhile in the understanding of dependent origination, detachment and understanding itself? That is what I'd like to know. T: Ha, ha ... I wish I knew the answer to everything you ask! But when we are trying to understand the ultimate realities, I feel like a plankton floating in the Atlantic Ocean. :) Be well, Tep === #130353 From: "connie" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:23 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 nichiconn really, doll, it's all about relationships! take up that 'breath meditation technique' with the proviso that your eyes don't leave another's. take care, connie *As lions, elephants and tigers are gradually tamed, so also the breath, when rightly managed (comes under control); else it kills the practitioner. -minor upanishads ps. just off a crazy damn-it doll making binge myself - manipulator. #130354 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:26 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Jon (Alex and others) - I am delighted by your research finding as the new ground for a more in-depth discussion. Thanks. ............ >J: I'm afraid I don't know what the Pali would be. In Ven Soma Thera's 'The Way of Mindfuoness' (translation of the Satipatthana Sutta and commentaries) there is the following in connection with the passage "having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief" in the opening part of the sutta: ***************** T: So the Venerable actually says that covetousness and grief (abhijjha and domanassa) have to be overcome before mindfulness may arise and get established. Then understanding has its support to directly know the rise-and-fall phenomena of the khandhas. Agree? ............ [Comy] "Having overcome" refers to the discipline of knocking out an evil quality by its opposite good (that is by dealing with each category of evil separately) or through the overcoming of evil part by part [tadangavinaya] and through the disciplining or the overcoming of the passions by suppression in absorption [vikkhambhana vinaya]. [Sub-Comy] Preliminary practice connected with the mundane path of mindfulness is pointed out by the commentator here. ***************** T: What do you think "preliminary practice" really means here? Also I'd like to remind you that "overcoming of evil" is the second component of the right effort . SN 45.8: "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen." The "do-nothing" approach to develop understanding does not fit the above description of evil abandoning. Now, let's have more Buddha's words: [ AN 4. Catukkanipaata 2. Caravaggo 4. Samvarasutta:] 002.04. "Bhikkhus, these four are the endeavours. What four? Endeavour to restrain, to dispel, to develop and the endeavour to protect." ... ... 2. "Bhikkhus, what is the endeavour to dispel? [pahaana padhaana] Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu does not endure, dispels, removes and destroys arisen sensual desires, makes them not arise again. The bhikkhu does not endure, dispels, removes and destroys arisen, hateful thoughts, ... re ... hurting thoughts and whatever arisen ... re ... demeritorious thoughts, makes them not arise again. Bhikkhus, this is the endeavour to dispel." ............ >J: I would assume that awareness/insight is referred to as the mundane path because it is the teaching unique to a Buddha which, if developed, leads directly to (supramundane) magga citta. T: Since there is no evidence of "mundane path" in the Teachings, I'm afraid it may be premature to assume as such. Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- > > ... > >J: BTW, I believe that awareness/insight is sometimes referred to in the texts as the "mundane path". > > T: I don't know and have never seen the term "mundane path" (lokiyamagga??). > =============== #130355 From: "philip" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:14 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Hi Connie > really, doll, > it's all about relationships! > take up that 'breath meditation technique' with the proviso that your eyes don't leave another's. > take care, > connie > > *As lions, elephants and tigers are gradually tamed, so also the breath, when rightly managed (comes under control); else it kills the practitioner. -minor upanishads > > > ps. just off a crazy damn-it doll making binge myself - manipulator. Not to worry, especially with the techniques that are sold as "jhanas." (E.g Thanissaro Bhikkhu, that awful Vimralmso or whatever his name is, and the jolly Ajahn Brahm. In the case of TB it is so blatantly wrong, but it was devised by Ajahn Lee when he was recovering from a heart attack during a remote rains retreat, with no access to medical treatment. That tells you all you need to no, it is not bhavana, it is a kind of breath yoga in which one comes, for example, to "breathe" through the hands, through the eyelids. And it absolutely easy to do when one is in touch with the ki/chi/prahna(? on the last one), those subtle energies that are absolutely real in a physiological sense. I am really good at working with them (my druggy years helped develop great visualization skills) and there is all sorts of evidence how "meditation" helps cerebral health, for example. (I would like to what I can to ward off my DNA dictated brain rot.) as I have said often to Lukas, there is no doubt that the pleasure I get from this subtle energy-manipulation technique did away for the need for alcohol, it provides a superior pleasure. (But still inferior to codeine!) It's the people who a) don't see that this technique is all rooted in lobha and doesn't have anything to do with jhanas and b) who use "satipatthana meditation" a la Mahasi who are in trouble, especially the latter, I would say, since the Buddha's subtle teaching on satipatthana is such a liberating treasure that is lost forever to people who fall deep into that trap. (How fortunate we are that Sarah was able to extricate herself all those years back.) As for Nichiconn, don't tell me her binge involved chanting the lotus sutra! I try with mana to pick out those folks getting on and off the train at the station where the big SOka Gakkai center sits like a giant concrete boil on the back of a hill. 5% of the Japanese population, apparently. Enough on this for me, Connie, thanks Phil P.s Can you chant for Scott to come back? #130356 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:43 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts kenhowardau Hi Alex, ---------- <. . .> > A: I think that understanding is to motivate one to work harder and crush defilements. --------- KH: The first defilement to crush is wrong view. From Nina's Cetasikas: "When there is wrong view one clings to a false view of reality." (end quote) So, Alex, when you insist that the world of cars, trees, people, hammers and fingers is reality, are you clinging to that view? If you are clinging to it you should crush it, now, with right view. Now is your only chance. Ken H #130357 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:18 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states jagkrit2012 Dear Alberto > A: in satipatthana sutta (a difficult sutta, as Ajahn reminded us) it is used to explain clear comprehension of realities, one at the time, in normal everyday life, arising naturally, by conditions, while standing, or sitting, or walking, or lying down. JJ: Thank you very much. I can see that when we assume of any posture, we can not understand dhamma one at the time which arises and falls away completely in spit seconds. In Vism, it refers arising and falling away dhamma as destruction which is dukka, doesn't it? Best wishes Jagkrit #130358 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Alex, > >S: Does meditation agree with such an understanding? > > Meditation is all about study and understanding of phenomena appearing > right now. > Right now means right now and there is only "now". So why think about another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or rupa which appears now? It is because there is no real understanding that there is only what appears now to be known, that ideas about need for meditation arises. So if it is not now now, the now of meditation practice is not really "now", but only thinking about it. > >S:If there is the idea of "one" needing to do this or that, this > >reflects > not understanding that whatever has arisen "now" is > >conditioned and beyond control. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > One doesn't have to meditate with the idea that "My true self does it". > You misunderstand the reference to "idea of self". It does not have to involve any verbal description, but something that is reflected in the basic attitude towards practice. If you believe in a particular time, place, posture and object of concentration as means to develop wisdom, self-view is already at work. Even if during the meditation itself, there is no real thought about "me who does it", self-view is there. Sukin #130359 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Right View sukinderpal Hi Tep, > The reply below may be too long; but I want it to be clear. > > > >T 1. I am also of the opinion that kusala dhammas and pa~n~na do > arise through "development" (bhavana). The "formal meditation" as you > described is not my interest either, since it is neither samatha nor > vipassana for the cessation of dukkha. > > >Sukin: "Since I don't believe that you are agreeing with my > conclusion that all formal meditation practices are motivated by > attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe to me, which > kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha bhavana and > which with vipassana bhavana." > > T: "Singleness of mind is concentration(samadhi); the four frames of > reference are its themes; the four right exertions are its requisites; > and any cultivation, development, & pursuit of these qualities is its > development." [MN 44] > Concentration is achieved through developing each of the following > dhammas: > Renunciation, non-ill-will, perception of light, non-agitation, > dhamma-vicaya, ~naana (knowledge), gladness(paamojja); each of the > following kammatthanas: 10 kasinas, 10 recollections(anussati), 10 > kinds of foulness, 32 modes of anapanasati. > > T: Samatha bhavana is for jhana training; beyond jhana is direct > knowledges. There are so many ways to 'abide in jhana' by developing > each of the following dhammas: Metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha; four > foundations of mindfulness; four exertions; four iddhipada (bases for > power); five mental faculties(indriya); five powers (bala); seven > factors for enlightenment; eightfold path, and so on. > Example. "Seeing the dangers of sensual pleasures I practiced it much. > Seeeing the benefits of non-sensual pleasure I practiced it much. Then > my mind readily pursued, became delighted, got established and was > released seeing non-sensual pleasure as appeasement. Ananda, then > secluding the mind from sensual and demeritorious thoughts, with > thoughts and discursive thoughts and with joy and pleasantness born of > seclusion I abode in the first higher state of the mind." [Anguttara > Nikaya 004. MahĆ vaggo Tapussasutta. The householder Tapussa] > > Vipassana bhavana: In general, contemplation (anupassana, vipassana) > is the concentration development (samaadhi bhaavanaa) that leads to > clear knowing (yathaabhuuta.m pajaanaati) of the phenomena(dhaatu, > khandha, naamaruupa). > Concentration is developed through relinquishment of the phenomena > (dhammas) that are produced during vipassana meditation (e.g., > contemplating 'anicca, dukha, anatta') of the following dhammas: The > five clinging aggregates; the All; six perceptions (associated with > phassa at the sense doors); six volitions, six cravings, vitakka and > vicara associated with ayatanas; eighteen proprties(dhatus); the > thirty-two body parts; eight jhanas; eleven paticcasamuppada dhammas. > [Source: Patisambhidamagga] > I wasn't asking for a general description from the texts, but what you do or what is taught nowadays by others with whom you agree. You will have seen it pointed out often that what the texts say are descriptive in nature. That meditation teachers teach formal practice and students follow them on the other hand, this is from reading the texts as recommendations to "do". I see a big difference in understanding between these two attitudes and therefore was hoping to address this. > > >T: 2. This mundane right view is near the supramundane samma-ditthi > of the Sotapanna. Carefully note the words: "his eye of understanding > with nibbana as its object eliminates the inherent tendency to ignorance". > > >Sukin: I have a question: Do you believe that this is the only > mundane right view or that there > are lower levels of samma-ditthi as well? > > T: The lowest level of mundane right view in my opinion is kammically > based and is defined as in MN 117: "There is what is given, what is > offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad > actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & > father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & > contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this > world & the next after having directly known & realized it for > themselves." > > The top-limit of mundane right view is the Sotapanna's right view. So, > yes, there are many levels in between the two limits -- as I see it. > Again I wasn't asking for the kind of response. i.e. quoting the texts. But because I've seen it suggested to the effect that pariyatti is not really right view and/ or that right view refers only to what a Sotapana or someone close to this has, I wanted a definitive answer. So perhaps you can tell me now if this is what you believe? > > >T: By the way, what are you referring to as "the penetrative power > of this particular level of wisdom"? > > >Sukin: For example the one you cite above and all the vipassanannanas > preceding this. > > T: Please elaborate. It is not yet clear to me. > You cited a text which referred to panna of vipassana level. Panna of lower levels such as pariyatti and patipatti (normal satipatthana) is not of the level of pativedha. Metta, Sukin #130360 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:26 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! jagkrit2012 Dear Khun Han I'm so sorry to hear about your another illness and prolong treatment. I do hope that this illness will be cured very soon. And looking forward to your coming back to join DSG again. Best wish Jagkrit #130361 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Tam, Thank you for your contribution. Metta, Sukin > Dear Sukin, Tep, Alex, all > > This sutta quote might be relevant: > "Once, Ven. Ananda, Master Gotama was staying near Vesali in the > Peaked Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood. I went to him at the Peaked > Roofed Pavilion in the Great Wood, and there he spoke in a variety of > ways on mental absorption. Master Gotama was both endowed with mental > absorption & made mental absorption his habit. In fact, he praised > mental absorption of every sort." > "It wasn't the case, brahman, that the Blessed One praised mental > absorption of every sort, nor did he criticize mental absorption of > every sort. And what sort of mental absorption did he not praise? > There is the case where a certain person dwells with his awareness > overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion. He does not > discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion > once it has arisen. Making that sensual passion the focal point, he > absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs himself with it. > "He dwells with his awareness overcome by ill will... > "He dwells with his awareness overcome by sloth & drowsiness... > "He dwells with his awareness overcome by restlessness & anxiety... > "He dwells with his awareness overcome by uncertainty, seized with > uncertainty. He does not discern the escape, as it actually is > present, from uncertainty once it has arisen. Making that uncertainty > the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & > supersorbs himself with it. This is the sort of mental absorption that > the Blessed One did not praise. > "And what sort of mental absorption did he praise? There is the case > where a monk ā€” quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from > unskillful (mental) qualities ā€” enters & remains in the first jhana: > rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed > thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & > evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & > pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from > directed thought & evaluation ā€” internal assurance. With the fading of > rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure > with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the > Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' > With the abandoning of pleasure & pain ā€” as with the earlier > disappearance of elation & distress ā€” he enters & remains in the > fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor > pain. This is the > sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One praised. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html > > My understanding of the above is that the Buddha didn't praise the act > of doing meditation, but he praised the wholesome states which are the > result of understanding. > > Metta, > #130362 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Hi Tep, > I think it is a good idea to agree --once and for all-- what the term > "practice" really means. Otherwise, someone will keep saying again and > again that it is the idea of a Self trying to do something. > > > >T: With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these > dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen > away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the > near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No > practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on > turning! > > > > Sukin: I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may > not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. > And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause > for encouragement rather than being discouraged. > > T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is > the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as > 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > OK. So practice is actually panna cetasika which like lobha, dosa or metta, is a sankhara dhamma, therefore arises by conditions and not subject to the control of will, right? > I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > I have only heard it through others too. I don't have a problem with the suggestion though, do you? Metta, Sukin #130363 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Pt, > Thanks for your reply. > > > What "work" are you referring to? > > I just meant let's try to move on from cliches and generalised > assumptions. > You are trying to change the way I express myself. That is not going to happen. More reasonable would be that you refrain from butting into my discussion with others. If you can't help yourself, then you will have to accept what you get. Unless of course there is a Dhamma lesson that you are trying to get across, in which case please say it directly as I'm quite dumb when it comes to indirect suggestions. > > > Assuming doesn't make it so. Don't a/kusala cittas arise in spite of > > > what one may wish, no matter the level of faculties developed? > > > > Well, that's the point isn't it? If kusala arise during meditation, it > > must be in spite of and not because of it. > > Yes, that was my point exactly. I.e. we all start somewhere - > sun-worshipers, pop-buddhists, etc, and still, none of that is an > insurmountable obstacle for kusala citta to arise anyway - "in spite of". > But the discussion is about wrong practice and the wrong view that is behind it. There is a difference in understanding between the concept of natural development in daily life and that of formal practice. The latter is a denial of the former. The starting point is only when panna actually arises for the first time in any given lifetime, not when it hasn't. > > > If there was a chance to hear the Dhamma, can it not condition > > > appreciation with panna of such a/kusala moments, regardless of > > > whether they happen in the midst of situations replete with wrong > view > > > or whatever other dhammas? > > > > So what are you arguing for? Meditate with the idea of making sati and > > panna arise or understanding that this is not how it works? > > I meant just that kusala citta can arise "in spite of" all that other > stuff, and if one was opportune enough to hear the Dhamma, so can > understnading, bhavana. That's how wrong views are made straight so to > speak. > And belief in formal practice due to wrong view will only make the straightening of view more difficult to arise. > As to how will this look and find expression in the conventional world > (aka meditate or don't meditate, etc) that's a different story, > depending on accumulations, etc. > I used to meditate before, now I don't. Do you think this is due to change in general accumulations? Would it make no difference in terms of the possibility of panna arising had I continued to meditate? Is my decision not to continue meditating due possibly to some perversion of perception and of thought? > > > ... Couldn't all this result in telling the > > > difference between "doing" and "kusala"? > > > > Patipatti comes as a result of accumulated pariyatti. Pariyatti will > not > > condition wrong practice / meditation. If wrong practice is indulged > in, > > the imperative would be to study and develop pariyatti. To believe that > > patipatti may arise in spite of the wrong practice being indulged in is > > wishful thinking. > > Pariyatti/patipatti is an interesting side-topic. > You were saying this: " It is a possibility, but are we not in a Buddha sasana? Regardless of one's backwards views, if the Dhamma was heard, can it not condition understanding of what's actually kusala and what's not? Would not such moments condition more such moments of understanding? Wouldn't this be actual moments of bhavana? Couldn't all this result in telling the difference between "doing" and "kusala"? " And my point was, if there is pariyatti understanding, can this condition wrong practice? You are saying that if bhavana arises during formal practice, this can condition more bhavana, implying that the formal practice could still continue. This sounds to me like suggesting that wrong practice arises in spite of the right view, and I don't think that this can be defended. My pointing out the pariyatti - patipatti relationship is therefore not a side-topic as far as I'm concerned. > While in principle I agree with what you say above, it simplifies > matters a bit too much for my liking. I don't know if you feel like > going into this in more detail? > I'll add the concept of saccannana, kiccannana and kattannana here. The connecting line between these three is understanding and confidence that the "present dhamma" is the only valid object of study. This denies any place for the idea of meditation, which after all is about another time, situation and object. And saccannana being related to pariyatti, means that if meditation is believed in, not only is saccannana lacking, but pariyatti as well. > > > Don't we all do this, meditators or not? Sometimes there's panna, > > > usually there's just thinking. I would think all beginners > (meditators > > > or not) can't tell the difference between thinking and understanding > > > most of the time? > > > > Why is requirement for direct understanding being used to deny the > > necessary effect of intellectual understanding? Not having direct > > understanding calls for further development of intellectual > > understanding and not an excuse to follow wrong practice. > > I don't understand to what you are objecting here. In any case, while > you are in theory probably right above in your conclusion, I don't > think one can actually choose/decide to develop (right) intellectual > understanding and stop doing something else since that would still be > choosing a "doing" - still in the realm of conventional things and > doings, which means it has to do with lobha rather than actual arising > of understanding. > My objection to meditation was not telling people not to do it and to do something else instead. You were making a case for meditation or at least for not talking against it in a general way. I was trying to point out the wrong view behind the decision to meditate. You are trying to tell me that this is no more an obstacle to right view than the one behind the understanding that development must be natural and in daily life. Hence the objection. > > Well you said that you "just formally meditated for me", this is not > the > > standard motivation of meditators is it? Anyway, you can tell me what > > you are generally motivated by and I will give you my response. > > Ok, though I'm not sure the question applies. I do things during the > day - work, write, rest, etc. In some brief moments in the midst of > all this, kusala citta arises and I appreciate it when it does (at > least I believe it is kusala, and I believe I appreciate it, but who > knows, it might all be self-delusion and lobha). These brief moments > of kusala and its appreciation are what I'd call "meditation". Nothing > to do with posture, time, place, focusing, etc. There are also times > when I'm just sitting/lying/standing without doing much of anything > else in particular, and during these times there might be a kusala > citta and its appreciation. Since at the time I'm not working, > reading, writing, nor much of anything else in the conventional sense, > I call this "formal meditation". > Are you calling the one "meditation" and the other "formal meditation" just for the sake of argument or do you really believe so? I take it that you actually think this way. First, you apply the concept in the first case to actual moments of reality, and in the second to a conventional situation. Is this done to give validity to the conventional activity? If so, the question is, why? Why do you have to even differentiate between time for work and time for leisure here? Are the realities not all the same? Is it a fact that you experience more kusala during the one than the other? If not, why label one "formal meditation" and the other not? If yes, is the meditation in "formal meditation" a reference to the actual moments of panna or is it something else, and what would this be? > > > Perhaps in regards to wrong view, rites and rituals, or whatever else > > > seems the most grave matter. That might make the discussion more > relevant. > > > > So you simply don't want me to mention "meditation" or "meditator"? > > On the contrary, criticise me as a meditator and my meditation in > particular, instead of some imaginary meditator that does things > entirely differently and is not here to actually participate in the > discussion. I mean, you are talking to me, so it would be good to get > a critique of what I'm actually doing/saying. > You are imaginary too. Do you think that you describe to me what you do, this makes what I say in response of more value than when I make general statements based on imagined situations. When I write I do not have just the person I'm responding to in mind and I do believe that what I say is in line with the Dhamma. But of course you are objecting and this means perhaps I'm only fooling myself..... But do tell me this, what is the Dhamma lesson you are trying to impart to me? Like I said, I'm slow, so please be as straight as possible. If you are trying to show me how to discuss / debate forget it, I'm not interested. If you don't like my style, don't read me or at least don't bother to respond. If you do however, I'll respond as I always do whether you like it or not. Sorry. Sukin #130364 From: "azita" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:09 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! gazita2002 Dear Han, may you have lots of patience, courage and good cheer, Azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, and others, > > Before I recover completely from the recent surgery, the Pathologist has found in me another illness that requires various investigations and prolonged and difficult treatment. > > When I first read the statement [Once a being acquires the five aggregates, he acquires the dukkha] I took it lightly. Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement, and I get fed-up with the five aggregates. > > My five aggregates are a heap of sheer formations (suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m). > > It's only suffering that comes to be, > Suffering that stands and falls away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > Nothing but suffering ceases. > > Dukkhameva hi sambhoti, > dukkha.m ti.t.thati veti ca; > Naa~n~natra dukkhaa sambhoti, > naa~n~na.m dukkhaa nirujjhatii"ti. > -SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta. > > -------------------- > > Clarification: > > [1] When I say [Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement], it is still the intellectual understanding and not "full understanding" (pari~n~naa). > > [2] When I say [I get fed-up with the five aggregates] I mean the ordinary meaning of the English word "fed-up", and not the (No. 6) Nibbidaa-~naa.na of the ten vipassanaa ~naa.nas. I am still struggling with the lowest two rungs: (No. 1) Sammasana-~naa.na and (No. 2) Udayabbaya-~naa.na. > > In this connection, my Good Brother Tep told me that if I am fed-up with the five aggregates, I should let them go. Yes, that is exactly what I will have to try: to cut off the attachment to the five aggregates. > > -------------------- > > Having said that, I have lost all my will and zeal and energy, and I do not want to write anything on any topic. So I most humbly offer my apologies to Khun Tadao and Khun Jagkrit for not keeping my promise to write something on Nandii-raaga. > > I am so sorry! > > -------------------- > > In one moment I am sad and depressed. In another moment I am happy. I am happy because I have the opportunity to pay back some of my akusala kamma debt in this very life. > > -------------------- > > This is my last message for many, many days to come. > I pray for you all, the best of health and happiness. > > with metta and respect, > Han > > > #130365 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:20 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry! sarahprocter... Dear Partner Han, So very sorry to hear that you have further illness and investigations and prolonged treatment. As you quote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > It's only suffering that comes to be, > Suffering that stands and falls away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > Nothing but suffering ceases. > > Dukkhameva hi sambhoti, > dukkha.m ti.t.thati veti ca; > Naa~n~natra dukkhaa sambhoti, > naa~n~na.m dukkhaa nirujjhatii"ti. > -SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta. .... S: And it's such a good reminder even when there is the illusion, the mirage, that all is well and happy. <...> > In one moment I am sad and depressed. In another moment I am happy. I am happy because I have the opportunity to pay back some of my akusala kamma debt in this very life. .... S: Happy and sad all day....momentary changing dhammas, not Han, Sarah or anybody else. Yes, always a big debt and lots of payback to come, life after life in samsara. Time to see the truth about the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-self nature of all conditioned dhammas. Very best wishes & metta Sarah p.s sorry for late reply - only just saw your message. ===== #130366 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:31 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sarahprocter... Hi Tep, (Alex & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: I do not agree that "there is no hammer or finger experienced through the body-sense... or the eye-sense or other sense doors", dear Sarah. Since you only "see" the ultimate reality or sabhava-dhamma, you are like the atomic physicist who only "sees" atoms; and he misses a whole lot of the realities that other people see. .... S: You also questioned how we could 'switch' between used of ultimate dhammas and conventional terms and uses. I referred to the sutta in AN in which the Buddha makes it clear that whether or not a Buddha arises in the world or not, the truths about realities as anicca, dukkha and anatta remains the same. In other words, whether or not there is any understanding of the fact that seeing only ever sees visible object, hearing only ever hears sound, that there is never a finger, hammer or person in reality, the truth remains the same. I've quoted the following from the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the Abhidhamma text, (PTS) and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) before. The following quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p. 41): ā€œ 'Without self' means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense is: even in one and the same quality, there is no ā€˜personā€™. Thus the meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered. ".....Even in such expressions as ā€˜there is the person who works for his own goodā€™(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, there is no such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific and general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: 'there is the person.' This is the sense here. "Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: 'These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.' (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term ā€˜personā€™ is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. <...> "Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as such, characteristic of things (as they are). There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular teaching consisting of ā€˜butter-jar,ā€™ and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression 'there is the person who,' must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. The controversy on ā€˜personā€™ is ended.ā€ Metta Sarah ====== #130367 From: "azita" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states gazita2002 hallo Alberto, each time I see your name I think of the expression on your face when we walked into that Tuscany look-alike in NE thailand, you were 'welcoming' us all to 'your' house:) Sanna at work!!! In the commentary to the Sammaditthi sutta, it reads: 'Herein, one of right view is one possessing a lucid and praiseworthy view, but when this word 'right view' is used to signify a state [rather than a person endowed with that state] it then means a lucid and praiseworthy view.' now I know you are writing about the sattipatthana sutta, but this 'lucid and praiseworthy view' must be the view that comprehends the realities that arise in normal everyday life while sitting, standing etc and when this view does comprehend a reality then there is no posture, just a reality. may all beings be happy azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Dear Jagkrit, > > J: I just wonder that the meaning of "postures" (iriyaapatha) used for body only? > > I think you are right, in satipatthana sutta (a difficult sutta, as Ajahn reminded us) it is used to explain clear comprehension of realities, one at the time, in normal everyday life, arising naturally, by conditions, while standing, or sitting, or walking, or lying down. > > Alberto > #130368 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:34 pm Subject: step on railway tracks. No train in the present. truth_aerator Dear Sukin, all, >S:Right now means right now and there is only "now". So why think about >another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or >rupa which appears now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not step onto railway tracks in front of a speeding train? The train is not there yet. Nothing to worry about... Only namas and rupa. Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. With best wishes, Alex #130369 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:40 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Dear Jagkrit, I'm posting a quote from the chapter The charactersitic of dukkha of A survey, in which Ajahn talks about this difficult subject. Alberto **************** ... Q: What is the meaning of studying characteristics? A: When sati is aware and someone considers the characteristic of whatever appears, that reality can be known as naama, which experiences something, or as ruupa which does not experience anything. Then one studies the characteristic of non-self of that reality. It is naama or ruupa, not self. This kind of study is different from thinking about terms or naming realities. When pa~n~na is developed to the degree that it is more accomplished, it can penetrate the three general characteristics of naama and ruupa: impermanence, dukkha and anatta. ... (Sarah's already posted this, from the same chapter) Q. : I have heard that the postures conceal dukkha. Please, could you explain this? A. : All conditioned realities have the characteristic of dukkha. They are impermanent and therefore they cannot be a real refuge, they are unsatisfactory, dukkha. Thus, dukkha is not merely painful feeling. People who believe that dukkha is merely painful feeling think that, when they feel stiffness and assume a new posture in order to avoid stiffness, that the new posture conceals dukkha. However, any posture conceals the characteristic of dukkha if one has not developed pa~n~na. What we take for the whole body or a posture are in reality many different ruupas that arise and fall away. They are impermanent and thus dukkha. However, people do not realize that, no matter they are sitting, lying down, standing or walking, there are ruupas all over the body, arising and falling away, and that these ruupas are dukkha. It has been explained in the Visuddhimagga that the postures conceal dukkha (7). The meaning is that the characteristic of dukkha of the naama and ruupa which arise and form together different postures is concealed, so long as one takes the body for a "whole", for "mine". The characteristic of dukkha is concealed so long as one does not know the characteristic of dukkha of one naama and one ruupa at a time, as they arise and fall away. When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? There must be dukkha, otherwise it cannot be said that the postures conceal dukkha. If one has not realized the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa, all postures, no matter they are connected with painful feeling or not, conceal the characteristic of dukkha. If a person does not develop pa~n~na in order to understand naama and ruupa as they are, he has the wrong understanding of dukkha. He may believe that he knows the truth of dukkha when he ponders over his painful feeling, dukkha vedana, caused by stiffness, before he changes into a new posture in order to relieve his pain. He cannot know the truth of dukkha so long as he does not discern the characteristic of non-self of naama and ruupa. This is the case if he does not know the naama which sees, and colour appearing through the eyes; the naama which hears, and sound appearing through the ears; the naama which smells and odour; the naama which tastes and flavour; the naama which experiences tangible object and tangible object; the naama which thinks; happiness, sorrow and other realities. Also the reality which thinks that it will change posture is not self, it should be realized as a type of naama which arises and then falls away. If one does not know this one will not be able to understand the characteristic of dukkha. Only if one is naturally aware of naama and ruupa as they appear one at a time, pa~n~na can develop stage by stage, so that the noble Truth of dukkha can be realized. #130370 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:41 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Hi Sukin, > You are trying to change the way I express myself. That is not going to > happen. More reasonable would be that you refrain from butting into my > discussion with others. If you can't help yourself, then you will have > to accept what you get. Unless of course there is a Dhamma lesson that > you are trying to get across, in which case please say it directly as > I'm quite dumb when it comes to indirect suggestions. No dhamma lesson, just asking for more clarity, do as you see fit of course. > But the discussion is about wrong practice and the wrong view that is > behind it. > There is a difference in understanding between the concept of natural > development in daily life and that of formal practice. The latter is a > denial of the former. Ok, but isn't the denial of your making? I mean, you designate the two concepts as opposite, hence the denial. Others might not designate them like that. > The starting point is only when panna actually > arises for the first time in any given lifetime, not when it hasn't. I don't quite get what you are saying here. > And belief in formal practice due to wrong view will only make the > straightening of view more difficult to arise. Ok, but that's depending on what's meant by conventional designation "formal practice". Different people designate it differently, you seem to insist on equating "formal practice" and "meditation" with ditthi. > I used to meditate before, now I don't. Do you think this is due to > change in general accumulations? Would it make no difference in terms of > the possibility of panna arising had I continued to meditate? Is my > decision not to continue meditating due possibly to some perversion of > perception and of thought? I don't know. > And my point was, if there is pariyatti understanding, can this > condition wrong practice? You are saying that if bhavana arises during > formal practice, this can condition more bhavana, implying that the > formal practice could still continue. This sounds to me like suggesting > that wrong practice arises in spite of the right view, and I don't think > that this can be defended. My pointing out the pariyatti - patipatti > relationship is therefore not a side-topic as far as I'm concerned. Ok, if you want to discuss it, I get the impression from the above that panna and pariyatti are somehow similar to sotapati in the sense of making wrong view and wrong practice appear a lot less than before. I might be wrong, but my thinking is that despite occasional pariyatti moments with panna, there will still come plenty of wrong view and wrong practice moments until sotapati happens. Whether these akusala moments could be described in the conventional terms as meditating or not, considering or not, reciting or not, studying or not, debating or not, thinking or not, etc, these would all be just conventional/conceptual designations for supposed akusala dhammas happening somewhere in there. > I'll add the concept of saccannana, kiccannana and kattannana here. The > connecting line between these three is understanding and confidence that > the "present dhamma" is the only valid object of study. This denies any > place for the idea of meditation, which after all is about another time, > situation and object. And saccannana being related to pariyatti, means > that if meditation is believed in, not only is saccannana lacking, but > pariyatti as well. Ok, though again depending on how you designate the conventional meaning of "meditation". You have your own, no worries, but there are others. E.g. bhavana translated as meditation meaning a kusala citta with panna, pariyatti translated as study also meaning a kusala citta with panna. But there are also others who equate study with wrong practice, just like others equate meditation with wrong practice. Concepts can be used anywhich way. > My objection to meditation was not telling people not to do it and to do > something else instead. You were making a case for meditation or at > least for not talking against it in a general way. I was trying to point > out the wrong view behind the decision to meditate. Well, again, that holds only according to your designation of terms. > Are you calling the one "meditation" and the other "formal meditation" > just for the sake of argument or do you really believe so? I take it > that you actually think this way. > > First, you apply the concept in the first case to actual moments of > reality, and in the second to a conventional situation. Is this done to > give validity to the conventional activity? If so, the question is, why? > Why do you have to even differentiate between time for work and time for > leisure here? Are the realities not all the same? Is it a fact that you > experience more kusala during the one than the other? If not, why label > one "formal meditation" and the other not? Why not? I mean, you seem to manipulate the concept of meditation pretty well. > If yes, is the meditation in "formal meditation" a reference to the actual moments of panna or is it > something else, and what would this be? Sure, sometimes there are more kusala moments during what I designate "formal meditation". Sometimes there are less. There are no rules since concepts and doings like meditating or not meditating are not realities. Would there also be wrong view somewhere in there? Perhaps you don't agree, but I do think wrong view arises very often, despite any kusala that happens to arise occasionally. It's all just conditioned moments that arise despite of what we may want to arise. > But do tell me this, what is the Dhamma lesson you are trying to impart > to me? Like I said, I'm slow, so please be as straight as possible. If > you are trying to show me how to discuss / debate forget it, I'm not > interested. If you don't like my style, don't read me or at least don't > bother to respond. If you do however, I'll respond as I always do > whether you like it or not. Sorry. That's quite alright, no need to apologise, the discussion proceeds in whatever way it can. Best wishes pt #130371 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt ptaus1 Hi Jon, > > Basically an ordinary citta, but instead of attachment arising in interaction with cakes, music, etc, there's a kusala citta instead that has these same (conceptual) everyday object. Hoping I've managed to explain this more clearly. My thinking is that for those guys outside of a sasana, there must be some sort of kusala that arises in interaction with everyday stuff without it being vipassana nor right intellectual understanding nor advanced samatha bhavana, since it is not accessible to most. > > =============== > > J: I cannot think what sort of kusala that could be. Unless perhaps the cake reminds the person of something kusala. > > Do you have anything in mind? > > In the case of the specified objects, it is the contemplation about the object that can condition calm. I don't know, didn't have anything specific in mind, just seemed logical there should be a citta like that. I mean, sort of a foundation for samatha bhavana with specific objects (much) later on. Perhaps if it's the contemplation about the object that conditions calm as you say, maybe then the cake can be, erm, contemplated in that way... Yeah, that doesn't sound quite right. Anyway, thanks anyway. Best wishes pt #130372 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:09 pm Subject: Re: Meditation is studying presently arisen mental states sprlrt Hi Azita, > each time I see your name I think of the expression on your face when we walked into that Tuscany look-alike in NE thailand, you were 'welcoming' us all to 'your' house:) Sanna at work!!! I've lived for a couple of years in Florence (a good while back), must have been sanna at work for me too :) Alberto #130373 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 12:19 am Subject: Re: step on railway tracks. No train in the present. t.sastri Hi Sukin, Alex - Sukin: So why think about another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or rupa which appears now? Alex: Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. Alex is too indirect to get your attention, Sukin. Let me be direct! :) Are you able to experience by direct knowing of "the nama or rupa which appears now"? If you are not, then stop acting like a parrot who can talk but does not understand even a single word it is talking. Be realistic and study what the Buddha taught at the level that you may understand, e.g. abandoning evil and unskilled states (such as the five hindrances) NOW. [I suspect you didn't read the Suttas, otherwise you would have known what the Buddha taught.] Importantly, do not forget that the meditation schemes for developing concentration (samadhi) are indeed one of the three major components of the Buddha's Teachings. See the Vism. Purification of Consciousness, Part III, Chapters VI, VII, VIII, XI and XII. ............... >Sukin ( in an older message): "Since I don't believe that you are agreeing with my conclusion that all formal meditation practices are motivated by attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe to me, which kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha bhavana and which with vipassana bhavana." My reply to you in DSG message #130244 gives details about the two meditation methods taught by the Buddha: samatha & vipassana. But it got rejected! To be fair, show me first that you understand these meditation schemes taught by the Buddha and why you have rejected them! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130244 Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sukin, all, > > >S:Right now means right now and there is only "now". So why think about > >another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or >rupa which appears now? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Why not step onto railway tracks in front of a speeding train? The train > is not there yet. Nothing to worry about... Only namas and rupa. > > Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #130374 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 12:20 am Subject: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) yawares1 Dear Members, A member@ DhammaWheel posted this story that so new to me...I like it alot..please let me share with you all. ***************** The Deva Bhikkhu [Presented by PLWK @ DhammaWheel (From Sayādaw U Pandita)] 6. Chariot to Nibbāna Once, when the Buddha was staying in the Jeta Grove near the ancient city of Sāvatthī in India, he was visited in the wee hours of the night by a deva, come down from the heaven realms with a retinue of a thousand companions. Although the deva's radiance filled the entire grove, he was nonetheless visibly distraught. He paid respects to the Buddha and then launched into the following lament: "O Lord Buddha," he cried, "devaland is so noisy! It's full of racket from all these devas. They look like petas (unhappy ghosts) to me, frolicking in their own land. Confusing it is to be in such a place. Please show me a way out!" This was an odd speech for a deva to make. The heaven realms are characterized by delight. Their residents, elegant and musically inclined, hardly resemble petas who live in extreme misery and suffering some petas are said to have gigantic bellies and pinhole mouths, so that they feel a constant, terrible hunger which they cannot satisfy. Using his psychic powers, the Buddha investigated the deva's past. He learned that only recently this deva had been a human being, a practitioner of the Dhamma. As a young man he had had such faith in the Buddha's doctrine that he left home to become a bhikkhu. After the required five years under a teacher, he had mastered the rules of conduct and community life and had become self-sufficient in his meditation practice. Then he retired to a forest alone. Because of his tremendous wish to become an arahant, the bhikkhu's practice was extremely strenuous. So as to devote as much time as possible to meditation, he slept not at all and hardly ate. Alas, he damaged his health. Gas accumulated in his belly, causing bloating and knife-like pains. Nonetheless the bhikkhu practiced on single-mindedly, without adjusting his habits. The pains grew worse and worse, until one day, in the middle of walking meditation, they cut off his life. The bhikkhu was instantly reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods, one of several deva realms. Suddenly, as if from a dream, he awoke dressed in golden finery and standing at the gates of a glittering mansion. Inside that celestial palace were a thousand devas, dressed up and waiting for him to arrive. He was to be their master. They were delighted to see him appear at the gate! Shouting in glee, they brought out their instruments to entertain him. Amidst all this, our poor hero had no chance to notice that he had died and been reborn. Thinking that all these celestial beings were no more than lay devotees come to pay him respects, the new deva lowered his eyes to the ground, and modestly pulled up a corner of his golden outfit to cover his shoulder. From these gestures, the devas guessed his situation and cried, "You're in deva-land now. This isn't the time to meditate. It's time to have fun and frolic. Come on, let's dance!" Our hero barely heard them, for he was practicing sense restraint. Finally some of the devas went into the mansion and brought out a full-length mirror. Aghast, the new deva saw that he was a monk no more. There was no place in the entire heaven realm quiet enough to practice. He was trapped. In dismay he thought, " When I left my home and took robes, I wanted only the highest bliss, arahantship. I'm like the boxer who enters a competition hoping for a gold medal and is given a cabbage instead!" The ex-bhikkhu was afraid even to set foot inside the gate of his mansion. He knew his strength of mind would not last against these pleasures, far more intense than those of our human world. Suddenly he realized that as a deva he had the power to visit the human realm where the Buddha was teaching. This realization cheered him up. "I can get celestial riches any time," he thought, "but the opportunity to meet a Buddha is truly rare." Without a second thought he flew off, followed by his thousand companions. Finding the Buddha in the Jeta Grove, the deva approached him and asked for help. The Buddha, impressed by his commitment to practice, gave the following instructions: "O deva, straight is the path you have trodden. It will lead you to that safe haven, free from fear, which is your goal. You shall ride in chariot that is perfectly silent. Its two wheels are mental and physical effort. Conscience is its backrest. Mindfulness is the armor that surrounds this chariot, and right view is the charioteer. Anyone, woman or man, possessing such a chariot and driving it well, shall have no doubt of reaching nibbāna." ***********To be continued************ yawares #130375 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Sukin, - > >T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] >S: OK. So practice is actually panna cetasika which like lobha, dosa or metta, is a sankhara dhamma, therefore arises by conditions and not subject to the control of will, right? T: It is an inappropriate question, since you and I are unable to experience ultimate realities . Of course, over there --we are told by Abhidhammikas who are not Arahants-- there are no control, no you, no me, no discussion, no meditation, no learning, no practice, no Dhamma -- just the ultimate realities alone. How do you verify the accuracy of their statements? Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away right now? ....................... > >T: I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > >S:I have only heard it through others too. I don't have a problem with the suggestion though, do you? T: Thank you for telling the truth. I think anyone can suggest anything he/she wants; but we have the right not to listen. Be gentle, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > > I think it is a good idea to agree --once and for all-- what the term > > "practice" really means. Otherwise, someone will keep saying again and > > again that it is the idea of a Self trying to do something. > > > > > >T: With that attitude, i.e. do-nothing-but-reflecting "any of these > > dhammas when known would be understood as having arisen and fallen > > away already by conditions beyond control", your daily life in the > > near and far future will be more or less the same as it is now. No > > practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on > > turning! > > > > > > Sukin: I don't know what the future will bring, patipatti may or may > > not arise. But no patipatti is certainly better than miccha patipatti. > > And if there is only the experience of pariyatti, this should be cause > > for encouragement rather than being discouraged. > > #130376 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 2:44 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hello Rob E > > Of course! Well that makes one of us - I've been out of it lately. I must be more detached than you. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #130378 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 6:42 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri -Hi Sarah, (Rob E., Alex, others) - [This is replacing the the message I wrote earlier today -- an error was corrected.] >S: You also questioned how we could 'switch' between used of ultimate dhammas and conventional terms and uses. I referred to the sutta in AN in which the Buddha makes it clear that whether or not a Buddha arises in the world or not, the truths about realities as anicca, dukkha and anatta remains the same. >In other words, whether or not there is any understanding of the fact that seeing only ever sees visible object, hearing only ever hears sound, that there is never a finger, hammer or person in reality, the truth remains the same. T: I am happy to say that I agree with you about the (four noble) truths do not change whether people agree or disagree about existence/non-existence, real/not-real, ultimate/conventional. However the Buddha does not state in that AN sutta, or in any other suttas, that person (puggala) is not a reality. Otherwise, only the dhammas are real, but Buddha and his disciples never existed!! Thanks for another quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p.41) of the Kathavatthu. Allow me to give some thoughts as follows. 1. "Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: 'there is the person.' ... T: Popular speech and convention are man-made. Hammer and car are man-made. There are men who made these things. Ultimate realities are not man-made; they are sabhava (intrinsic qualities) of man, things (man-made or nature-made) and the Cosmos. It is true that "man", "Cosmos" are labels, but it is not convincing to say "there is no man", "there is no Cosmos". Similarly, it is ridiculous to say I can smell a sweet aroma of a rose, but there is no rose and I don't exist (even for a moment)! 2. ... it was also said by the Exalted One: 'These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.' (Dialogues, i 263). T: What about Citta, was he not real, not existing as other "designations"? Clearly, the Buddha does not say anything about real/unreal, existence/non-existence, ultimate/conventional. 3. "What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term ā€˜personā€™ is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense." T: Clearly, these are words of the commentator, but he does not say either that 'person' does not exist or not real. "Tep" is the label, but it is ridiculous to say 'there is no Tep' and there are only fleeting khandhas that write this message. It is also ridiculous to say "there are no materialities, no earth, no Sun, no Cosmos; there are only atoms. These celestrial bodies are not real." It all sound ridiculous only because the ultimate-reality convention does not allow anything else to be accepted as "realities". T: There are realities at the micro-level and also at the macro-level. The two levels of reality are integrated. To deny one and accept the other is ridiculous. > The controversy on ā€˜personā€™ is ended. But I did not see any controversy at the beginning! Be realistic, Tep === #130379 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 9:06 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Hello Rob E > > > Well that makes one of us - I've been out of it lately. I must be more detached than you. :-) > We are unlikely to know that. All kusala moments are accompanied by alobha, but kusala moments are very rare. A moment of friendliness arises, with alobha. Very very rare. Most friendliness is with attachment. A moment of understanding realities, awareness of kusala as I post, of friendliness as I write. Awareness of kusala. I think a out this. Probably with attachment. Akusala. Fleeting moments of kusala in a day. If we try to make a practice out of them, it is all for nought. SN 1:1 is very very deep. All suttas are, they are not for casual study and underlining and cutting and pasting. Lobha does that. Phil #130380 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 1, 2013 12:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: step on railway tracks. No train in the present. sukinderpal Hi Tep, > Sukin: So why think about another time, place and posture re: > meditation? Why not the nama or rupa which appears now? > Alex: Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine > presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. > > Alex is too indirect to get your attention, Sukin. Let me be direct! :) > > Are you able to experience by direct knowing of "the nama or rupa > which appears now"? > No. > If you are not, then stop acting like a parrot who can talk but does > not understand even a single word it is talking. > What is your objection to the idea that understanding begins with pariyatti and only later there will be patipatti before finally pativedha? > Be realistic and study what the Buddha taught at the level that you > may understand, e.g. abandoning evil and unskilled states (such as the > five hindrances) NOW. > I keep saying that my understanding is only pariyatti level, is this being unrealistic? What about you? Do you assume patipatti during any particular activity? If so, is this being realistic? > [I suspect you didn't read the Suttas, otherwise you would have known > what the Buddha taught.] > Reading Suttas will definitely condition right understanding? Everyone who reads the Suttas has right understanding? > Importantly, do not forget that the meditation schemes for developing > concentration (samadhi) are indeed one of the three major components > of the Buddha's Teachings. See the Vism. Purification of > Consciousness, Part III, Chapters VI, VII, VIII, XI and XII. > I believe that there have been discussions regarding this on DSG. Are you assuming that I have never read them or is it that you would like to enter into a new round of discussion with me? > >Sukin ( in an older message): "Since I don't believe that you are > agreeing with my conclusion that all formal meditation practices are > motivated by attachment and wrong view, I would like you to describe > to me, which kind of meditation practice you think agrees with samatha > bhavana and which with vipassana bhavana." > > My reply to you in DSG message #130244 gives details about the two > meditation methods taught by the Buddha: samatha & vipassana. But it > got rejected! To be fair, show me first that you understand these > meditation schemes taught by the Buddha and why you have rejected them! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130244 > I think what you are saying is that you didn't like my response. This is what I wrote: Quote: "I wasn't asking for a general description from the texts, but what you do or what is taught nowadays by others with whom you agree. You will have seen it pointed out often that what the texts say are descriptive in nature. That meditation teachers teach formal practice and students follow them on the other hand, this is from reading the texts as recommendations to "do". I see a big difference in understanding between these two attitudes and therefore was hoping to address this." How did you come to the conclusion that my response was a rejection of the Buddha's words? It was a rejection of your approach, including here where you ask me to express my understanding after you reduce the Buddha's words to being "meditation schemes". Sukin #130381 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 1, 2013 12:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] step on railway tracks. No train in the present. sukinderpal Hi Alex, > > >S:Right now means right now and there is only "now". So why think about > >another time, place and posture re: meditation? Why not the nama or > >rupa which appears now? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Why not step onto railway tracks in front of a speeding train? The train > is not there yet. Nothing to worry about... Only namas and rupa. > Its like this Alex, there is no me or you, but there are namas and rupas. Sanna, thinking, intention, attention, attachment, fear, all these are the realities which will arise in situations like the one you describe. No me to decide whether to stand in front of the train or to avoid doing this. And of course the thinking / reaction now, is based on past arising of nama and rupa including the experience of earth element by body consciousness and consequent mental pain, and also of thinking about different situations where things could be much worse, including death. Understanding that there are only nama and rupa does not somehow change how one normally reacts to conventional situations since the namas and rupas likely to arise, will continue doing so. You seem to think that understanding that there is no "self" must lead to behaviors suggestive of "nothing exists". But we are all saying that only namas and rupas exist, and this is regardless of whether anyone believes in it or not. > > Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine presently > arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to do. > How did you arrive at this conclusion? Do not give quotes, but instead reasoning based on your own understanding. Metta, Sukin #130382 From: "azita" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) gazita2002 hallo Yawares, thank you for posting this story. I also like it very much. I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. Its a good reminder that anywhere in samsara can be unpleasant at times, some realms more that others. The only way out of samsara is the development of right view of realities now as they arise and fall away - like seeing now, visible object now. Not at all easy but necessary if there is to be any release from dukkha. Patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Members, > > A member@ DhammaWheel posted this story that so new to me...I like it alot..please let me share with you all. > > ***************** > > The Deva Bhikkhu > [Presented by PLWK @ DhammaWheel (From Sayādaw U Pandita)] > > 6. Chariot to Nibbāna > > Once, when the Buddha was staying in the Jeta Grove near the ancient city of Sāvatthī in India, he was visited in the wee hours of the night by a deva, come down from the heaven realms with a retinue of a thousand companions. > > Although the deva's radiance filled the entire grove, he was nonetheless visibly distraught. He paid respects to the Buddha and then launched into the following lament: "O Lord Buddha," he cried, "devaland is so noisy! It's full of racket from all these devas. They look like petas (unhappy ghosts) to me, frolicking in their own land. Confusing it is to be in such a place. Please show me a way out!" > > This was an odd speech for a deva to make. The heaven realms are characterized by delight. Their residents, elegant and musically inclined, hardly resemble petas who live in extreme misery and suffering some petas are said to have gigantic bellies and pinhole mouths, so that they feel a constant, terrible hunger which they cannot satisfy. > > Using his psychic powers, the Buddha investigated the deva's past. He learned that only recently this deva had been a human being, a practitioner of the Dhamma. As a young man he had had such faith in the Buddha's doctrine that he left home to become a bhikkhu. After the required five years under a teacher, he had mastered the rules of conduct and community life and had become self-sufficient in his meditation practice. Then he retired to a forest alone. Because of his tremendous wish to become an arahant, the bhikkhu's practice was extremely strenuous. So as to devote as much time as possible to meditation, he slept not at all and hardly ate. Alas, he damaged his health. Gas accumulated in his belly, causing bloating and knife-like pains. Nonetheless the bhikkhu practiced on single-mindedly, without adjusting his habits. The pains grew worse and worse, until one day, in the middle of walking meditation, they cut off his life. > > The bhikkhu was instantly reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods, one of several deva realms. Suddenly, as if from a dream, he awoke dressed in golden finery and standing at the gates of a glittering mansion. Inside that celestial palace were a thousand devas, dressed up and waiting for him to arrive. He was to be their master. They were delighted to see him appear at the gate! Shouting in glee, they brought out their instruments to entertain him. > > Amidst all this, our poor hero had no chance to notice that he had died and been reborn. Thinking that all these celestial beings were no more than lay devotees come to pay him respects, the new deva lowered his eyes to the ground, and modestly pulled up a corner of his golden outfit to cover his shoulder. From these gestures, the devas guessed his situation and cried, "You're in deva-land now. This isn't the time to meditate. It's time to have fun and frolic. Come on, let's dance!" > > Our hero barely heard them, for he was practicing sense restraint. Finally some of the devas went into the mansion and brought out a full-length mirror. Aghast, the new deva saw that he was a monk no more. There was no place in the entire heaven realm quiet enough to practice. He was trapped. > > In dismay he thought, " When I left my home and took robes, I wanted only the highest bliss, arahantship. I'm like the boxer who enters a competition hoping for a gold medal and is given a cabbage instead!" > > The ex-bhikkhu was afraid even to set foot inside the gate of his mansion. He knew his strength of mind would not last against these pleasures, far more intense than those of our human world. Suddenly he realized that as a deva he had the power to visit the human realm where the Buddha was teaching. This realization cheered him up. > > "I can get celestial riches any time," he thought, "but the opportunity to meet a Buddha is truly rare." Without a second thought he flew off, followed by his thousand companions. > > Finding the Buddha in the Jeta Grove, the deva approached him and asked for help. The Buddha, impressed by his commitment to practice, gave the following instructions: > > "O deva, straight is the path you have trodden. It will lead you to that safe haven, free from fear, which is your goal. You shall ride in chariot that is perfectly silent. Its two wheels are mental and physical effort. Conscience is its backrest. Mindfulness is the armor that surrounds this chariot, and right view is the charioteer. Anyone, woman or man, possessing such a chariot and driving it well, shall have no doubt of reaching nibbāna." > > ***********To be continued************ > > yawares > #130383 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 1, 2013 2:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Hi Tep, > > >T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti > is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as > 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > > >S: OK. So practice is actually panna cetasika which like lobha, dosa > or metta, is a sankhara dhamma, therefore arises by conditions and not > subject to the control of will, right? > > T: It is an inappropriate question, since you and I are unable to > experience ultimate realities. > Why does one listen to the Buddha's teachings? Is it not to understand something one otherwise would never come to know by oneself or from any other teacher? Does this not therefore make a difference in one's outlook? And one keeps on listening because one sees the value of such understanding. It is all about "understanding" beginning with the intellectual level and only later can there be direct understanding, is it not? So why talk in terms of direct experience and use this to reject the necessary initial level of understanding? The experience of ultimate realities? Well, we all experience ultimate realities and even refer to them all day! What is lacking is the understanding that they are indeed ultimate realities and not a "self" who owns, is within, separate from or identical with, the khandhas. This is intellectual understanding which is supposed to have an effect in the general outlook without which there can't be direct understanding. And this general effect must include from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of self-view? And you are telling us that there is no such thing, but instead that we must go by the dictates of this self-view until stream-entry happens. In effect you are suggesting a path of atta sanna as means of attaining anatta sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view. This can't happen, can it? > Of course, over there --we are told by Abhidhammikas who are not > Arahants-- there are no control, no you, no me, no discussion, no > meditation, no learning, no practice, no Dhamma -- just the ultimate > realities alone. How do you verify the accuracy of their statements? > Is seeing now "me"? Does it not fall away because otherwise the other experiences such as thinking, touching and hearing wouldn't occur? Seeing experiences visible object and arises at the eye, hearing hears sound and arises at the ear, is this not indication that they are conditioned differently? Seeing experiences visible object or color and the thinking is what defines people, objects and situations, in the same way that hearing hears sound and thinking thinks bell or horn, this can be understood too, now, can it not? The non-Arahant Abhidhammikka's words vs. yours, whose words do I therefore find reasonable, now you tell me!! > Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away right now? You are talking about a very high level of wisdom and this is why in another post I asked about lower levels of wisdom. You are assuming that if there is not direct understanding of rise and fall, this means that there is no understanding at all, and therefore one should not talk about and go by such ideas. One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a beginner go by and why? > ....................... > > >T: I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. > > > >S:I have only heard it through others too. I don't have a problem > with the suggestion though, do you? > > T: Thank you for telling the truth. I think anyone can suggest > anything he/she wants; but we have the right not to listen. > There is no need to believe anyone. However, one side is talking about that which can be verified now, whereas the other, like the blind man attempting to lead other blind men, is talking about following suggestions with reference to anything but "now". Some people love stories about "self" moving in time, doing and achieving this and that. Others recognize to some extent the deception in such kind of thinking and are therefore in the process of making such stories loose their power of appeal. You are obviously in the first category and that is why you don't like to listen to someone who is in the other category. Metta, Sukin #130384 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 4:03 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) philofillet Hi Azita (and Yawares) > thank you for posting this story. I also like it very much. I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. Surely the deva realm is unvaried in pleasant vipaka, which is why it is not a realm for awakening. I would suggest that the story must be flawed. But if there is evidence in the tipitika that experience in the deva realm can possibly be unpleasant to its inhabitants, I will stand corrected. I think it's an important point because it gets at why our human birth is so precious. The mixture of pleasant and unpleasant sensory experience is unique to the human realm, at least that is how I have understood it. Phil > > Its a good reminder that anywhere in samsara can be unpleasant at times, some > > The bhikkhu was instantly reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods, one of several deva realms. Suddenly, as if from a dream, he awoke dressed in golden finery and standing at the gates of a glittering mansion. Inside that celestial palace were a thousand devas, dressed up and waiting for him to arrive. He was to be their master. They were delighted to see him appear at the gate! Shouting in glee, they brought out their instruments to entertain him. > > > > Amidst all this, our poor hero had no chance to notice that he had died and been reborn. Thinking that all these celestial beings were no more than lay devotees come to pay him respects, the new deva lowered his eyes to the ground, and modestly pulled up a corner of his golden outfit to cover his shoulder. From these gestures, the devas guessed his situation and cried, "You're in deva-land now. This isn't the time to meditate. It's time to have fun and frolic. Come on, let's dance!" > > > > Our hero barely heard them, for he was practicing sense restraint. Finally some of the devas went into the mansion and brought out a full-length mirror. Aghast, the new deva saw that he was a monk no more. There was no place in the entire heaven realm quiet enough to practice. He was trapped. > > > > In dismay he thought, " When I left my home and took robes, I wanted only the highest bliss, arahantship. I'm like the boxer who enters a competition hoping for a gold medal and is given a cabbage instead!" > > > > The ex-bhikkhu was afraid even to set foot inside the gate of his mansion. He knew his strength of mind would not last against these pleasures, far more intense than those of our human world. Suddenly he realized that as a deva he had the power to visit the human realm where the Buddha was teaching. This realization cheered him up. > > > > "I can get celestial riches any time," he thought, "but the opportunity to meet a Buddha is truly rare." Without a second thought he flew off, followed by his thousand companions. > > > > Finding the Buddha in the Jeta Grove, the deva approached him and asked for help. The Buddha, impressed by his commitment to practice, gave the following instructions: > > > > "O deva, straight is the path you have trodden. It will lead you to that safe haven, free from fear, which is your goal. You shall ride in chariot that is perfectly silent. Its two wheels are mental and physical effort. Conscience is its backrest. Mindfulness is the armor that surrounds this chariot, and right view is the charioteer. Anyone, woman or man, possessing such a chariot and driving it well, shall have no doubt of reaching nibbāna." > > > > ***********To be continued************ > > > > yawares > > > #130385 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 7:44 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) kenhowardau Hi Azita, --- <. . .> > A: I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. > Its a good reminder that anywhere in samsara can be unpleasant at times, some realms more that others. The only way out of samsara is the development of right view of realities now as they arise and fall away - like seeing now, visible object now. Not at all easy but necessary if there is to be any release from dukkha. --- KH: I think you were right the first time; devaland is full of *pleasant* sounds. Pleasant sounds are just as suitable for vipassana jhana as unpleasant sounds are, so what was the problem? I think the problem was that particular monk was also practising samatha jhana, which required silence. Nice to see a happy ending though. :-) Ken H #130386 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 9:07 pm Subject: There is no self = wrong reflection (MN2) truth_aerator Dear Sukinder, all, >S:Its like this Alex, there is no me or you, but there are namas and >rupas. Sanna, thinking, intention, attention, attachment, fear, all >these are the realities which will arise in situations like the one >you describe. No me to decide whether to stand in front of the train >or to avoid doing this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So... There is no me (Alex), and no you. That is precisely the speculative view that Buddha rejected in MN2 which doesn't lead to breaking 3 fetters. ================================== "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html ========================= "Am I not" and "I have no self" are all considered to be inappropriate reflection. Furthermore, appropriate reflection is in framework of 4NT. >A:Without deep meditational calm (samatha) one can't examine >presently arisen namarupas as hindrances are too strong for that to >do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >S:How did you arrive at this conclusion? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Through my very limited (so far) experience. I can notice my hindrances better when I am not restless, and when my senses are not overloaded. With best wishes, Alex #130387 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Sukin, all, >S:Why does one listen to the Buddha's teachings? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To know how to practice. >Is it not to understand something one otherwise would never come to >know by oneself or from any other teacher? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This understanding is useless unless one puts it to use. One can know that smoking is bad, yet still smokes. Why? Due to craving. And here is the difficulty lies. To resist the craving. >Does this not therefore make a difference in one's outlook? Very little after a while. >And one keeps on listening because one sees the value of such >understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its almost useless unless one puts it into a practice. Knowing to swim and swimming are different. >The experience of ultimate realities? Well, we all experience >ultimate realities and even refer to them all day! >>>>>>>>>>>> This is irrelevant to the path. Appropriate attention is to contemplate 4NT rather than existence/non-existence. See MN2 > > > Of course, over there --we are told by Abhidhammikas who are not > > Arahants-- there are no control, no you, no me, no discussion, no > > meditation, no learning, no practice, no Dhamma -- just the >ultimate realities alone. >>>>>>>>>>> That is not what suttas or Abhidhamma teaches. >Is seeing now "me"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong reflection. See MN#2. >...this can be understood too, now, can it not? Better is to reflect on 4NT. See MN2 >Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away >right now? >>>>>>>>>> A better thing to see is arising and passing away of dukkha. MN2. >One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a >beginner go by and why? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All relevant teaching minus improper speculative theories. >Some people love stories about "self" moving in time, doing and >achieving this and that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talking that "self doesn't exist... Thus no control..." is exactly the same kind of speculative story about self, that doesn't (supposedly) exist. With best wishes, Alex #130388 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 10:07 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) yawares1 Dear Azita, Thank you for reading my post...love your comment! yawares --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > > hallo Yawares, > > thank you for posting this story. I also like it very much. I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. > > Its a good reminder that anywhere in samsara can be unpleasant at times, some realms more that others. > The only way out of samsara is the development of right view of realities now as they arise and fall away - like seeing now, visible object now. Not at all easy but necessary if there is to be any release from dukkha. > > Patience, courage and good cheer > azita > > > > #130389 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 10:12 pm Subject: Re: The Deva Bhikkhu (reborn in heaven and not happy!!!) yawares1 Dear Philip, Thank you for reading my post...please read the CONTINUE part today..more information/explanation. Thanks, yawares --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Azita (and Yawares) > > > thank you for posting this story. I also like it very much. I laughed at "devaland is so noisy. Its full of racket from all these devas," because I thought that it would be a pleasant place for beings who were born there, but obviously not so. > > Surely the deva realm is unvaried in pleasant vipaka, which is why it is not a realm for awakening. I would suggest that the story must be flawed. But if there is evidence in the tipitika that experience in the deva realm can possibly be unpleasant to its inhabitants, I will stand corrected. I think it's an important point because it gets at why our human birth is so precious. The mixture of pleasant and unpleasant sensory experience is unique to the human realm, at least that is how I have understood it. > > Phil #130390 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 10:58 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Sukin, - S: >One listens to the Buddha's teachings to understand something one otherwise would never come to know by oneself or from any other teacher. One keeps on listening because one sees the value of such understanding. It is all about "understanding" beginning with the intellectual level and only later can there be direct understanding. So why talk in terms of direct experience and use this to reject the necessary initial level of understanding? T: What you think you are listening to may not always be what-the-Buddha-taught. So you have to double-check it with several suttas. If you listen to a wrong idea, and keep on listening, it will be like mud accumulation on a pig's tail! The poor pig runs around crying in pain, but it does not "understand now" what is causing the pains. T: I do not deny that every beginner needs intellectual (not stupid) understanding; but intellectual ideas may still be incorrect. How may an assumed-correct intellectual understanding of what-is-heard progress toward direct knowing of the khandhas that they are anicca.m, dukkha.m, anatta? Direct experience of the dhammas such as sense objects, sense media, and the five aggregates is absolutely important for direct knowing, i.e., "knowledge and vision of things as they really are" (yathabhuta~nanadassana) that supports disenchantment (nibbida) leading to the cessation of dukkha. The Upanisa Sutta shows the dependent conditions. Maybe it's time you properly educate yourself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html .............. S: >We all experience ultimate realities and even refer to them all day. What is lacking is intellectual understanding that they are indeed ultimate realities and not a "self" who owns, is within, separate from or identical with, the khandhas. This understanding is supposed to have an effect in the general outlook without which there can't be direct understanding. And this general effect must include from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of self-view. T: No, all of us do not experience ultimate realities (paramattha-dhammas) that arise and pass away rapidly; our perceptions are perverted (vipallasa) so our minds do not have samadhi at the level of right concentration to know and see the ultimate realities, Sukin. What you are claiming to understand ultimate realities as "indeed ultimate realities and not a 'self' who owns, is within, separate from or identical with, the khandhas" is just a false claim caused by ignorance. You still have the 20 self-identifications (attaditthi), don't you? Thus it is impossible to pretend that you have the outlook that "include from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of self-view". You may be confused, Sukin. S: >You are telling us that there is no such thing, but instead that we must go by the dictates of this self-view until stream-entry happens. In effect you are suggesting a path of atta sanna as means of attaining anatta sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view. This can't happen, can it? T: I think you misquoted me. Please provide an evidence to show my writing that supports using "atta sanna as means of attaining anatta sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view". Wrong views must be abandoned and right view is to be developed. Period. ........... > >T: Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away right now? S: > You are talking about a very high level of wisdom and this is why in another post I asked about lower levels of wisdom. You are assuming that if there is not direct understanding of rise and fall, this means that there is no understanding at all, and therefore one should not talk about and go by such ideas. T: For one who knows that he/she has a low level of wisdom , there should be no claim of understanding of ultimate realities. Period. Muddy understanding can become less muddy and finally progresses to direct knowing through following the Buddha's teachings about sila, sense restraint, and samatha-vipassana meditation. >S: One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a beginner go by and why? T: Everything the Buddha taught about sila (starting with the Five Precepts), samadhi and panna at the level that he/she can understand and verify. Then apply what-the-Buddha-taught to everyday living. .............. >S: one side is talking about that which can be verified now, whereas the other, like the blind man attempting to lead other blind men, is talking about following suggestions with reference to anything but "now". Some people love stories about "self" moving in time, doing and achieving this and that. Others recognize to some extent the deception in such kind of thinking and are therefore in the process of making such stories loose their power of appeal. You are obviously in the first category and that is why you don't like to listen to someone who is in the other category. T: This accusation that everybody else, except you and some DSG members you know, has the Self Demon lurking behind is based on a wrong view: "I don't have self-views, they do". Be wise & fair, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > > > >T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti > > is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as > > 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > > > > >S: OK. So practice is actually panna cetasika which like lobha, dosa > > or metta, is a sankhara dhamma, therefore arises by conditions and not > > subject to the control of will, right? > > > > T: It is an inappropriate question, since you and I are unable to > > experience ultimate realities. > > > ... > > T: Thank you for telling the truth. I think anyone can suggest > > anything he/she wants; but we have the right not to listen. > > > > There is no need to believe anyone. However, one side is talking about > that which can be verified now, whereas the other, like the blind man > attempting to lead other blind men, is talking about following > suggestions with reference to anything but "now". Some people love > stories about "self" moving in time, doing and achieving this and that. > Others recognize to some extent the deception in such kind of thinking > and are therefore in the process of making such stories loose their > power of appeal. You are obviously in the first category and that is why > you don't like to listen to someone who is in the other category. > > Metta, > > Sukin #130391 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 11:16 pm Subject: THE DEVA BHIKKHU....continue!! yawares1 Dear Members, Please let me continue the story from yesterday: THE DEVA BHIKKHU *************** The Buddha's Progressive Instructions The Buddha's response was unusually succinct. Generally, he instructed people step by step, beginning with morality, progressing through the right view of kamma and concentration, before he began with insight practice. To illustrate this order of teaching, he once gave the example of an art master. Approached by a neophyte who wants to paint, the master does not just hand out a brush. The first lesson is stretching a canvas. Just as an artist cannot paint in empty air, so it is futile to begin vipassanā practice without a basis in morality and understanding of the law of kamma. Without these two things, there will be no surface, as it were, to receive concentration and wisdom. In some meditation centers, morality and kamma are ignored. Not much can result from meditation under these circumstances. The Buddha also tailored his instructions to his listeners' backgrounds or propensities. He saw that this unusual deva had been a mature bhikkhu and meditation practitioner, and that he had not broken his moral precepts during that abbreviated stop in the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods. There is a Pāli word, kāraka, meaning a dutiful and industrious person. Our bhikkhu had been one of these. He was not a yogi by name only; not a philosopher or a dreamer, lost in ideas and fantasies; nor a sluggard, gazing blankly at whatever objects arose. On the contrary, he was ardent and sincere. The bhikkhu walked the path with total commitment. His profound faith and confidence in the practice supported a capacity for sustained effort. Moment to moment, he tried to put into practice the instructions he had received. One might regard him as a veteran. *******to be continued********** yawares #130392 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 11:42 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt jonoabb Hi pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: Do you have anything in mind? > > > > In the case of the specified objects, it is the contemplation about the object that can condition calm. > > > pt: I don't know, didn't have anything specific in mind, just seemed logical there should be a citta like that. I mean, sort of a foundation for samatha bhavana with specific objects (much) later on. > =============== J: Actually, they are not so much *specific objects (of consciousness)* as *(general) subjects*, if you see what I mean. Take maranasati, for example. It's contemplation about the subject of death (with understanding), and this could occur in any number of circumstances: a discussion, seeing an accident, remembering somebody who has passed away, receive news about one's medical condition, etc. Likewise, the terms (vocabulary, imagery, etc.) in which the subject is contemplated will vary from one person to the next; there is no rule on the form of the thoughts, it's the substance that's significant. Similar considerations apply to the other objects/subjects. In the Vism translation the term 'meditation subject' is used. The Pali is 'kamma.t.thaana', and I understand the literal meaning of this is 'field of work'. > =============== > pt: Perhaps if it's the contemplation about the object that conditions calm as you say, maybe then the cake can be, erm, contemplated in that way... Yeah, that doesn't sound quite right. Anyway, thanks anyway. > =============== J: If we change that and say "It's the contemplation about the *subject matter* that conditions calm", it perhaps gives a better idea (and a different perspective). Jon #130393 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 11:45 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Sukin, all. Some thoughts: A person can be alcoholic because he doesn't know how to deal with problems in life and drinking is his means of temporary escape. He can know intellectually fully well that drinking is bad, and it harms himself and others. Yet he craves for it. Craving is not an intellectual, it is emotional problem. Should he study chemistry, biology, etc, and know everything about alcohol? PhD can be useless here as this is not an abstract problem to solve. Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on breaking the addiction. Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful at certain stage. Imagine if he uses "there is no wife" as an excuse to beat her after he gets drunk. Or "there is no me, so nobody suffers from drinking, no fists, and no wife". It is the same with Dhamma. One learns conceptually 4NT and basics of practice, and then does it. This is what suttas say. There were many cases in the suttas where a monk came to a Buddha, received a short instructions, and then ran into a forest where he realized Arhatship. With best wishes, Alex #130394 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 1, 2013 11:59 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon (and Alex, others) - > > It has been encouraging to me that our discussion sems to slowly make a progress. In this sense progress does not mean the same as practice. :-) > =============== J: :-)), :-)) > =============== > >J: There is no need to hypothesize the person who has never accumulated any "wisdom", "insight" or "understanding". As you yourself pointed out in an earlier message, there is already a certain amount of accumulated mundane awareness/insight, but it is weak. > > T: You are arguing like a lawyer! Here I am using the terminolgy of pa~n~naa, the quality that is not found in any ordinary person (puthujjana). > =============== J: (I must plead guilty, on occasion :-)) To my understanding, panna can be mundane or supramundane. Supramundane panna is the panna that accompanies magga citta, and so occurs only at actual supramundane path moments. The rest of the time (i.e., including for the enlightened being), panna is mundane. So to my understanding, panna can arise in the ordinary person. > =============== > >J: The development of the path (or "practice") is all about the arising of already developed, but weak, accumulated mundane awareness/insight. > > T: That, I agree. The "insight" of those "uninstructed, run-of-the mill" people is even lower. > =============== J: "Insight" as a translation of the Pali term "vipassana" refers to the mental factor of panna. > =============== > >J: And when such arising occurs, there is the co-arising mental factor of Right Effort that is spoken of in the texts. > > T: That is on the path. So where are you in your practice? With no practice, do-nothing, the best you can be is one of the "instructed" worldling, and may remain so many eons more! > =============== J: As far as I know, there is no reference in the texts to a person's practice (as in, your/his/my practice), only to the practice of the teachings, and this carries quite a different meaning. Whenever awareness/insight occurs there is the practice of -- and progress in :-)) -- the teachings. Jon #130395 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 12:19 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Alex 130344 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > > >J:The passage says that right view can be supported by any one or >more of 4 factors, namely, learning, discussion, tranquillity and >insight. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: It doesn't say any one. All those are required, including samatha. > =============== J: Actually, it's 'tranquillity' that is mentioned, but I agree that what is being referenced is probably samatha. However, in the absence of anything in the commentaries, this should not be taken as a reference to jhana only. I would see there as being a progression from learning to discussion to tranquillity/samatha to insight. It could be that the samatha is the reflection on the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as these are all included in the kamma.t.thaana for samatha development. Jon #130396 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 12:24 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 13. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): Our second trip outside Bangkok was to the North East, to Wang Nam Khiao, also called Korat. On the way we visited a museum of a petrified forest. It was an exposition of the geological history of the region and one could see many rare examples of petrified trees. It was crowded with school children so that we had to wait a long time and since our visit took many hours we arrived rather late in Wang Nam Khiao. This is a mountainous region where we went out for walks in the morning before breakfast. We stayed in peaceful bungalows with a balcony situated at the waterside. We had to walk from our bungalow to the restaurant for breakfast. For lunch we went out to a variety of places. The lunch tables were outside in the garden of the restaurant so that it seemed that we were in the middle of a forest. One of our outings was to the best restaurant in the region where very refined food was served and which, as healthy air was concerned, had the seventh place in the world. This made me think of Kuru where the outward conditions and the climate were most favorable for the development of the understanding of Dhamma. #130397 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 1:28 am Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Jon (Sarah, Rob E., Sukin)- >J: To my understanding, panna can be mundane or supramundane. Supramundane panna is the panna that accompanies magga citta, and so occurs only at actual supramundane path moments. The rest of the time (i.e., including for the enlightened being), panna is mundane. > So to my understanding, panna can arise in the ordinary person. T: I'm sorry to pronounce that you're wrong in two accounts. :-) First, panna is called "wisdom faculty" in the CMI (see p. 90). It is the mental factor #52 (see p. 79). Second, by definition panna is "knowing things as they really are", and as such, it is not found in ordinary men/women. :-) >J: "Insight" as a translation of the Pali term "vipassana" refers to the mental factor of panna. T: Excuse me? are you saying now that panna is a "citta" and vipassana is a cetasika? Or you are sayimg that both panna and vipassana are cetasika? Again, checking with the CMI Table 2.1 on P. 79, there is no 'vipassana' listed as a cetasika! The author must have lumped vipassana and panna together as wisdom/knowledge. [I think you know that I did not mean to find fault with you, just poking fun a little. Can't do the same to Sukin or KenH, though. :-)] ............ >J: As far as I know, there is no reference in the texts to a person's practice (as in, your/his/my practice), only to the practice of the teachings, and this carries quite a different meaning. T: Right, but it is simply because the ignorant assumption of "my practice" is due to self-views and craving that are relinquished in meditation [e.g. observe the following phase in the Satipatthana Sutta: "And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world."]. However, the Suttas do not make a big deal about the Self Demon (like here at DSG). Even Arahants and the Buddha used "I" and "mine" freely without fear that other monks or householders might criticize them! SN 1.25 Araha.m Sutta: The Arahant translated from the Pali by Maurice O'Connell Walshe [Deva:] He who's an Arahant, his work achieved, Free from taints, in final body clad, That monk still might use such words as "I." Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." ... Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits? [The Blessed One:] Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.[1] That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use.[2] Notes 1. Ya.m mata.m: "whatever is thought." Mrs Rhys Davids's emendation of yamata.m in the text (paraphrased as "conceits and deemings of the errant mind," following the Commentarial maƱƱana.m "imagining"). 2. Cf. DN 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them." ......... >J: Whenever awareness/insight occurs there is the practice of -- and progress in :-)) -- the teachings. T: I'd rather put is as follows: Whenever the practice according to the Dhamma makes a progress, there are awareness and insight during that time. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > #130398 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 3:39 am Subject: Words of Ajahn Sujin 4 (Gradual development of panna) philofillet Dear Group "When we learn little by little about naama and ruupa it is the development of understanding from one moment to another moment. However it is not the stage of clear comprehension when there is no doubt, when reality appears as it is. You do not have to name it or call it naama, or a reality which experiences an object. There is no time to think about words, because the characteristic of the reality which experiences, the faculty of experiencing is just there. There is no world we think of, such as this room, Poland or Thailand. Only that reality appears and this is the moment of clear comprehension. There is no doubt about the reality which can experience an object. There is no time to think of the meaning of what it is called. When there is an idea of what that reality is called, it is the I again. Before the I can be completely eradicated, right understanding can see that there is no other way but developing understanding. The way is not just wanting to have awareness, concentration or anything. Just understand." (End of passage) Phil #130399 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:18 am Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) epsteinrob Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E., - > > Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to contemplate both the Dhamma and the dhammas. > > >RE: I have always had the feeling that sabhava is not really defined... ...to me it seems very much like a sneaking idea of a 'self' or 'soul' quality ... something to hold onto... > > T: Sabhava, to my understanding, is the "core" quality (or qualities) that makes each category of things uniquely different. ... For example, an intrinsic quality of earth is hardness that makes it different than water whose essence is liquidity. I can see the essence of an element being that which makes it unique. Hardness for earth makes sense, as opposed to liquidity of water. That is a good example, good comparison to make the point. If that is what it is, that is a lot simpler I think than sabhava is sometimes made out. If that's what it is, I have no idea why anyone would want to translate it as "own-being" which has so many more implications - something of one's "own" has the connotation of a self; while "being" has the connotation of an entity, so I think that translation really mystifies the idea of that "essence." I wonder how sabhava literally translates...? > ...They don't disappear either, but remain accountable for all newly arisen phenomena of the same kind. They don't disappear with the falling away of the dhamma? That is hard to understand. How are they accountable? Do they have independent existence apart from the dhammas that have those qualities...? > ............. > >RE: The Buddha did not talk about things having special "essences" did he? He spoke about them being empty and temporary and not worth holding onto, not that they were possessed by wonderful uniquenesses of some kind. > > T: Broadly, he talked about two kinds of things: the conditioned and the unconditioned. > The three characteristics (anicca, dukha, anatta) are the global sabhava of all conditioned things and there are individual intrinsic qualities as well. Being impermanent, they are "empty and temporary and not worth holding onto" as you said. > Feelings, for example, are conditioned dhammas that are possessed of the three characteristics in addition to the intrinsic characteristic of being felt. Understood - this is very clear and makes sense. In a sense, there is the "unique" characteristic of each dhamma -- which seems to me to be mostly functional or descriptive of its natural quality -- ie, it makes sense that water would have flowing-ness, liquidity, fluidity - however you like - as its characteristic quality; and that earth would have hardness; and that then there are the three "universal" characteristics of all dhammas [except nibbana.] One question is whether all dhammas have only one specific unique characteristic or any number of them. Earth does not just have hardness as a characteristic, it has solidity and others - are they all parts of earth's sabhava, or is there only one main characteristic that is sabhava? Feeling has the characteristic of being felt, which is unique to it, but it also has characteristics of being contacted, being conscious of being felt, as there is no feeling without consciousness of feeling, etc. Maybe those are more secondary. For physical dhammas - rupas - such as hardness or the elements, it seems they have more co-equal characteristics on the physical level, but maybe there is just one major one and the others are subsidiary...? ... > ............. > >RE: What is the value of sabhava? And is it really something that exists? Why and how does a fleeting dhamma have an 'essence' that it possesses - its very own "own-being?" What does this say about a dhamma that is worthwhile in the understanding of dependent origination, detachment and understanding itself? That is what I'd like to know. > > T: Ha, ha ... I wish I knew the answer to everything you ask! But when we are trying to understand the ultimate realities, I feel like a plankton floating in the Atlantic Ocean. :) Thanks, Tep - I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. From a fellow plankton, hopefully not eaten by a fish in the near future, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - -