#131000 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 2:45 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention moellerdieter Hi Howard, your prompt response is appreciated ;-) I 'll comment other parts of the essay later THE PALI SELF AS FUNCTIONALIST --------------------------- HCW: The title itself is a bit off-putting, as there is no "Pali self"! LOL! --------------------------- D: right, but they meant the language in distinction of Sanskrit , i.e. the different understanding of Mahayana > > The Buddha's response to the Axial Age's discovery of the self was strik­ingly unique: he proposed the doctrine of no-self (anatman), which literally means no atman, the Hindu soul substance. This conceptual innovation was so provocative that it was bound to invite misinterpreta­tion, and unfounded charges of Buddhist "nihilism" continue even to this day. The Buddha an­ticipated Hume's view that the self is an ensemble of feelings, perceptions, dispositions, and awareness (the skandhas) that is the center of agency and moral responsibility.22 The Buddha's view, however, is different from Hume's, primarily because the Buddha appeared to support real causal efficacy among internally related phenomena. (We believe that Hume may have been misled by the current scientific model of externally related atoms.) While Hume decon­structed any theory of causality, the Buddha reconstructed causal relations with his theory of inter­dependent coorigination. The Buddha agrees with Hume about the absence of causal power but disagrees with him about the absence of causal relations. ---------------------------- HCW: I think this last is a fair assessment. But I'm wary about the assertion that "the self" is an assembly of dhammas. It would be better to say the Buddha taught that there are assemblies of dhammas, but none constitutes a self or includes a self. --------------------------- D: yes assemblies or grouping of dhammas. But are the khandhas dhammas? For example the assembly of parts resulting in a cart , demonstrates the whole is more than the sum of its parts. In respect to a human we may think about 'Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total), is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties, should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts. (Wiki) I recall a discussion with Sarah about this point. None of these constitute a Self and I think we should avoid to equal the term person with Self. As we know the self or I is based on identification by clinging in any of the khandhas (this I am, this is mine etc.). The khandhas are not self, but the stream , the process within , directed by elements of D.O. leading to attachment is of self nature , though without substance. As the Pali philosopher Buddhaghosa said: "There is no real production; there is only interdependence."23 ------------------------- HCW: I didn't know that Buddhaghosa said that. It is also what Nagarjuna later taught, and I like it. --------------------------- D: I recognized that some secondary sources are quoted in this essay .. one needs to check with the context.. what is real production? (excluded e.g. the gathering ' kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed , craving is the moisture ' ? ) > The Buddha rejected the soul-as-spiritual-substance view of the Upani­shads, Jainism, and Samkhya-Yoga, and he deconstructed the "spectator" self of these philosophies 2,500 years before recent thinkers dismantled the Cartesian self. As opposed to strict deconstruction, for example, Pali Buddhists hold that selves, though neither the same nor different throughout their lives, are nevertheless responsible for their actions. --------------------------- HCW: No, they don't hold that, because they do not accept ANY self except as convenient, everyday terminology. --------------------------- D. and having the D.O. process in mind (Pali Buddhism, therefore, should be aligned with the school of constructive postmodernism.) These selves are also real in the sense that they are constituted by relations with their bodies, other selves, and all other entities. -------------------------- HCW: I would sooner say that these assemblages, being collections of closely interelated phenomena, are not total fictions. However, I hasten to add that 1)they are not individuals, 2)they are not cognizable without thinking, and, 3)they are NOT selves nor does any have a self. -------------------------- D: 1 and 2 not cleear to me .. perhaps the expression 'these selves' is confusing This is why the Pali self should be viewed in relational or process terms rather than the skeptical implica­tions of the no-self doctrine, which many later Buddhists supported. The Pali self is relational primarily in the sense of its dependence on the five skandhas and the internal relations this dependence entails. ------------------------- HCW: Such assemblages are normally called "persons" and not "selves," and none has a self, own-being, or identity (in the philosophical sense of the term 'identity'). -------------------------- D: when above is meant that the self is a conditioned (by ignorance, delusion..etc) process leading to attachment , I would agree > > Another positive way to express nonsubstantiality is to describe the Buddhist self as "functional." In fact, each of theskandhas should be seen as functions rather than entities. On this point, Kalupahana makes good use of James, who while denying a soul sub­stance, maintained that consciousness is a function. ----------------------- HCW: Yes, a function, or, better, I think: an occurrence/event. (When one hears "function," one is inclined to ask "Function of what?".) D: I think about the process/stream a function of occuring events .. a function of urge (tanha) with its background of ignorance,delusion ------------------------ As Kalupa­hana states: "Rupa or material form accounts for the function of identification; vedana or feeling and samjna or perception represent the function of experience, emotive as well as cognitive; sanskara or disposition stands for the function of individuation; vijnana or consciousness explains the function of continuity in experience."24 Both Kalupahana and Peter Harvey describe the Pali self in the positive terms of psychophysical unity, process, and interrelation. According to Harvey, the Buddha never rejected the existence of a life-principle (jiva), which "is not a separate part of a person, but is a process which occurs when certain conditions are present. . . ."25 Not only are there significant parallels to James, but the Buddha's process self compares favorably to that of today's process philosophers, following in the footsteps of Whitehead and Hartshorne, who are also the founding fathers of constructive postmodernism. > > From this analysis we can clearly see that the Pali self is a robust personal agent fully capable of maintaining its personal integrity and taking full responsibility for its actions. --------------------------- HCW: This is merely a useful mode of conventional speech but taken literally, IMO, is simply false. ------------------------ D: when you think of the process nature which leads to a self identity , it is ok IMO - (This of course assumes the truth of compatiblism.) This view of the self is also fully somatic, giving full value to the body and the emotions. At the same time it is embedded in a social and organic nexus of cosmic relations. Hindu philosopher Surendra Verma is unduly puzzled when he asks how it was possible for the Buddha to be filled with thoughts and emotions and "at the same time preaching. . . the nonexistence of the soul."26 Like many other commentators, Verma simply does not understand the meaning of the Buddha's Middle Way, in this case the mean between annihiliationism (no self at all-substantial or otherwise) on the one hand and eternalism (substantial self) on the other. What appears not only puzzling but impossible is for the Hindu atman, a Stoic soul, or a Kantian noumenal self--pure spiritual substances all--to have any relation at all with the finite world, let alone with the emotions and the body. =============================== I like to emphasize that not ony "Verma simply does not understand the meaning of the Buddha's Middle Way "(unfortunately) , "in this case the mean between annihiliationism (no self at all-substantial or otherwise) on the one hand and eternalism (substantial self) on the other" with Metta Dieter P. S. The world of conditioned dhammas, as it actually is, I believe is a world without selves and without substance - a world of mere empty appearance, and when not viewed as such is samsara, is a realm of suffering. /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) D: I think you agree that such view must be understood as perfected by insight, which assumes deepest penetration (by the Noble Path training) . #131001 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 6:44 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > your prompt response is appreciated ;-) --------------------------- HCW: :-) It happens on occasion! LOL! --------------------------- > I 'll comment other parts of the essay later --------------------------- HCW: Ok, good. --------------------------- > > > THE PALI SELF AS FUNCTIONALIST > --------------------------- > HCW: > The title itself is a bit off-putting, as there is no "Pali self"! LOL! > --------------------------- > > D: right, but they meant the language in distinction of Sanskrit , i.e. the different understanding of Mahayana > > > > > > The Buddha's response to the Axial Age's discovery of the self was strik­ingly unique: he proposed the doctrine of no-self (anatman), which literally means no atman, the Hindu soul substance. This conceptual innovation was so provocative that it was bound to invite misinterpreta­tion, and unfounded charges of Buddhist "nihilism" continue even to this day. The Buddha an­ticipated Hume's view that the self is an ensemble of feelings, perceptions, dispositions, and awareness (the skandhas) that is the center of agency and moral responsibility.22 The Buddha's view, however, is different from Hume's, primarily because the Buddha appeared to support real causal efficacy among internally related phenomena. (We believe that Hume may have been misled by the current scientific model of externally related atoms.) While Hume decon­structed any theory of causality, the Buddha reconstructed causal relations with his theory of inter­dependent coorigination. The Buddha agrees with Hume about the absence of causal power but disagrees with him about the absence of causal relations. > ---------------------------- > HCW: > I think this last is a fair assessment. But I'm wary about the assertion that "the self" is an assembly of dhammas. It would be better to say the Buddha taught that there are assemblies of dhammas, but none constitutes a self or includes a self. > --------------------------- > > D: yes assemblies or grouping of dhammas. But are the khandhas dhammas? --------------------------- HCW: What do you mean here by "the khandhas"? Many of the folks here on DSG use 'khandha' and 'dhamma' synonomously, but I take exception to that usage: The khandhas are heaps/collections. There are exactly 5 altogether, wheras there are infinitely many dhammas. --------------------------- > For example the assembly of parts resulting in a cart , demonstrates the whole is more than the sum of its parts. > In respect to a human we may think about 'Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total), is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties, should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts. (Wiki) > I recall a discussion with Sarah about this point. ---------------------------- HCW: This is okay, so lomg as one keeps in mind that a complex (a "whole" in your terms) is not an individual phenomenon, and is (properly) spoken of as "a thing" only for convenience. ------------------------------ > > None of these constitute a Self and I think we should avoid to equal the term person with Self. ------------------------- HCW: I quite agree. A person is not and has not a self. -------------------------- > As we know the self or I is based on identification by clinging in any of the khandhas (this I am, this is mine etc.). > The khandhas are not self, but the stream , the process within , directed by elements of D.O. leading to attachment is of self nature , though without substance. --------------------------- HCW: What does it mean for a namarupic stream to "be of self nature"? Such a stream includes, except in the case of arahants, the recurring sense of self, but, in fact, there is no self there and no self-nature there. --------------------------- > > > > > > As the Pali philosopher Buddhaghosa said: "There is no real production; there is only interdependence."23 > ------------------------- > HCW: > I didn't know that Buddhaghosa said that. It is also what Nagarjuna later taught, and I like it. > --------------------------- > > D: I recognized that some secondary sources are quoted in this essay .. one needs to check with the context.. > > what is real production? (excluded e.g. the gathering ' kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed , craving is the moisture ' ? ) > > > > > The Buddha rejected the soul-as-spiritual-substance view of the Upani­shads, Jainism, and Samkhya-Yoga, and he deconstructed the "spectator" self of these philosophies 2,500 years before recent thinkers dismantled the Cartesian self. As opposed to strict deconstruction, for example, Pali Buddhists hold that selves, though neither the same nor different throughout their lives, are nevertheless responsible for their actions. > --------------------------- > HCW: > No, they don't hold that, because they do not accept ANY self except as convenient, everyday terminology. > --------------------------- > > D. and having the D.O. process in mind --------------------------- HCW: ??? ------------------------- > > (Pali Buddhism, therefore, should be aligned with the school of constructive postmodernism.) These selves are also real in the sense that they are constituted by relations with their bodies, other selves, and all other entities. > -------------------------- > HCW: > I would sooner say that these assemblages, being collections of closely interelated phenomena, are not total fictions. However, I hasten to add that 1)they are not individuals, 2)they are not cognizable without thinking, and, 3)they are NOT selves nor does any have a self. > -------------------------- > > D: 1 and 2 not cleear to me .. perhaps the expression 'these selves' is confusing --------------------------- HCW: The expression 'these selves' is not a good replacement for 'these persons"/"these assemblies"/"these namarupic streams", for the latter expressions refer merely to collections of dhammas, whereas the term 'selves' refers, I believe, to total fictions. ----------------------------- > > This is why the Pali self should be viewed in relational or process terms rather than the skeptical implica­tions of the no-self doctrine, which many later Buddhists supported. The Pali self is relational primarily in the sense of its dependence on the five skandhas and the internal relations this dependence entails. > ------------------------- > HCW: > Such assemblages are normally called "persons" and not "selves," and none has a self, own-being, or identity (in the philosophical sense of the term 'identity'). > -------------------------- > > D: when above is meant that the self is a conditioned (by ignorance, delusion..etc) process leading to attachment , I would agree ------------------------- HCW: ??? ------------------------ > > > > > Another positive way to express nonsubstantiality is to describe the Buddhist self as "functional." In fact, each of theskandhas should be seen as functions rather than entities. On this point, Kalupahana makes good use of James, who while denying a soul sub­stance, maintained that consciousness is a function. > ----------------------- > HCW: > Yes, a function, or, better, I think: an occurrence/event. (When one hears "function," one is inclined to ask "Function of what?".) > > > D: I think about the process/stream a function of occuring events .. a function of urge (tanha) with its background of ignorance,delusion ------------------------------- HCW: I don't follow this. ------------------------------ > > ------------------------ > As Kalupa­hana states: "Rupa or material form accounts for the function of identification; vedana or feeling and samjna or perception represent the function of experience, emotive as well as cognitive; sanskara or disposition stands for the function of individuation; vijnana or consciousness explains the function of continuity in experience."24 Both Kalupahana and Peter Harvey describe the Pali self in the positive terms of psychophysical unity, process, and interrelation. According to Harvey, the Buddha never rejected the existence of a life-principle (jiva), which "is not a separate part of a person, but is a process which occurs when certain conditions are present. . . ."25 Not only are there significant parallels to James, but the Buddha's process self compares favorably to that of today's process philosophers, following in the footsteps of Whitehead and Hartshorne, who are also the founding fathers of constructive postmodernism. > > > > From this analysis we can clearly see that the Pali self is a robust personal agent fully capable of maintaining its personal integrity and taking full responsibility for its actions. > --------------------------- > HCW: > This is merely a useful mode of conventional speech but taken literally, IMO, is simply false. > ------------------------ > > D: when you think of the process nature which leads to a self identity , it is ok IMO --------------------------- HCW: That sentence holds nothing "ok" for me. --------------------------- > - > (This of course assumes the truth of compatiblism.) This view of the self is also fully somatic, giving full value to the body and the emotions. At the same time it is embedded in a social and organic nexus of cosmic relations. Hindu philosopher Surendra Verma is unduly puzzled when he asks how it was possible for the Buddha to be filled with thoughts and emotions and "at the same time preaching. . . the nonexistence of the soul."26 Like many other commentators, Verma simply does not understand the meaning of the Buddha's Middle Way, in this case the mean between annihiliationism (no self at all-substantial or otherwise) on the one hand and eternalism (substantial self) on the other. What appears not only puzzling but impossible is for the Hindu atman, a Stoic soul, or a Kantian noumenal self--pure spiritual substances all--to have any relation at all with the finite world, let alone with the emotions and the body. > =============================== > > I like to emphasize that not ony "Verma simply does not understand the meaning of the Buddha's Middle Way "(unfortunately) , "in this case the mean between annihiliationism (no self at all-substantial or otherwise) on the one hand and eternalism (substantial self) on the other" > > with Metta Dieter > > > P. S. The world of conditioned dhammas, as it actually is, I believe is a world without selves and without substance - a world of mere empty appearance, and when not viewed as such is samsara, is a realm of suffering. > > /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ > > (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) > > D: I think you agree that such view must be understood as perfected by insight, which assumes deepest penetration (by the Noble Path training) . ------------------------------ HCW: Yes, indeed I do agree. :-) =============================== With metta, Howard /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #131002 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 8:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E hantun1 Dear Partner Sarah, Once again, I thank you for your very useful post #130995. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130995 In the message, I find a quote from SN22.85 Yamaka Sutta. So I read the sutta, and find the following passages. [translation is by Bhikkhu Bodhi and the numbering is done by me.] -------------------- (1) "Ta.m ki.m ma~n~nasi, aavuso yamaka, ruupa.m tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso" -- "vedana.m tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso" -- "sa~n~na.m [pe] sa"nkhaare [pe] vi~n~naa.na.m tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso". (1) "What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathaagat?" "No, friend." "Do you regard feeling -- perception -- volitional formations -- consciousness as the Tathaagata?" "No, friend." (2) "Ta.m ki.m ma~n~nasi, aavuso yamaka, ruupasmi.m tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso". "A~n~natra ruupaa tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso". "Vedanaaya -- a~n~natra vedanaaya [pe] sa~n~naaya -- a~n~natra sa~n~naaya [pe] sa"nkhaaresu -- a~n~natra sa"nkhaarehi [pe] vi~n~naa.nasmi.m tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso". "A~n~natra vi~n~naa.naa tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso". (2) "What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathaagata as in form?" "No, friend." "Do you regard the Tathaagata as apart from form?" "No, friend." "Do you regard the Tathaagata as in feeling? As apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?" "No, friend." (3) "Ta.m ki.m ma~n~nasi, aavuso yamaka, ruupa.m -- vedana.m -- sa~n~na.m -- sa"nkhaare -- vi~n~naa.na.m tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso". "Ta.m ki.m ma~n~nasi, aavuso yamaka, aya.m so aruupii – avedano -- asa~n~nii -- asa"nkhaaro -- avi~n~naa.no tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso". (3) "What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness [taken together] as the Tathaagata?" "No, friend." "What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathaagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?" "No, friend." (4) "Ettha ca te, aavuso yamaka, di.t.theva dhamme saccato thetato tathaagate anupalabbhiyamaane, kalla.m nu te ta.m veyyaakara.na.m -- 'tathaaha.m bhagavataa dhamma.m desita.m aajaanaami, yathaa khii.naasavo bhikkhu kaayassa bhedaa ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti para.m mara.naa'"ti? (4) "But, friend, when the Tathaagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death'?" -------------------- Han: The above extract shows the ultimate realities. There is no doubt about that. But I feel disappointed to read Tathaagata being used in such an example. I am now reflecting (with the prayer beads) the Nine Attributes of Lord Buddha every day. I have absolute faith in Lord Buddha and His immeasurable Sabba~n~n uta ~Naa.na. In my heart Lord Buddha is still living as the Blessed One, the Arahant (the Exalted One), the Fully Enlightened One, and the Omniscient One. So I do not think this sutta will be one of my favourites. You can say anything to me. You can say that I have mistaken the attachment to the Lord Buddha as the faith in the Lord Buddha. I will not mind. with metta and respect, Your Born-rebel Partner Han #131003 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:09 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention kenhowardau Hi Dieter and Howard, I find your conversation very confusing, but I am guessing that Dieter is saying the Buddha did believe in a self, and Howard is saying the Buddha did not believe in a self. If that is the case then I am on Howard's side. However, I am worried that Howard, though fighting valiantly, has no ammunition. Howard argues that conditioned dhammas have no real existence. He says Nibbana is the only reality, and anything else (that may be thought to exist) is actually just a mistaken view of Nibbana. (!) Therefore, when Dieter claims the khandhas are not absolute realities Howard is unable to say anything useful on the matter. He writes: > Many of the folks here on DSG use 'khandha' and 'dhamma' synonomously, but I take exception to that usage: The khandhas are heaps/collections. There are exactly 5 altogether, whereas there are infinitely many dhammas. > KH: Apart from the fact that there are *not* infinite dhammas (there are fewer than one hundred) there is the obvious question, "Heaps of what?" If we are to believe there is really only Nibbana then we must be talking about heaps of Nibbana. (!) If the khandhas were "Nibbana wrongly viewed" no less than flying purple elephants were "nibbana wrongly viewed" then the the khandhas would be of no use in explaining the Dhamma. More specifically, they would be of no use in countering Dieter's claim that the Buddha believed in a self. Ken H #131004 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 12:16 pm Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Dieter) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Dieter and Howard, > > I find your conversation very confusing, but I am guessing that Dieter is saying the Buddha did believe in a self, and Howard is saying the Buddha did not believe in a self. > > If that is the case then I am on Howard's side. However, I am worried that Howard, though fighting valiantly, has no ammunition. > > Howard argues that conditioned dhammas have no real existence. He says Nibbana is the only reality, and anything else (that may be thought to exist) is actually just a mistaken view of Nibbana. (!) ------------------------------ HCW: I quoted the *Buddha* saying that only nibbana is real. Take the matter up with him, Ken. ;-) ------------------------------ > > Therefore, when Dieter claims the khandhas are not absolute realities Howard is unable to say anything useful on the matter. He writes: > > > Many of the folks here on DSG use 'khandha' and 'dhamma' synonomously, but I take exception to that usage: The khandhas are heaps/collections. There are exactly 5 altogether, whereas there are infinitely many dhammas. > > > KH: Apart from the fact that there are *not* infinite dhammas (there are fewer than one hundred) ----------------------------- HCW: Fewer than 100 types/categories of dhammas, but an infinite number of individual dhammas. Is there but one hardness, Ken, that ever arises? One warmth? Are all instances of thinking that occur one and the same? Are all visible objects one and the same? Are there not more than 100 visible objects alone? Are there not more than 100 odors alone? ---------------------------- there is the obvious question, "Heaps of what?" If we are to believe there is really only Nibbana then we must be talking about heaps of Nibbana. (!) ------------------------------- HCW: Nope. You are confusing reality, i.e., nibbana, with mere appearances. ----------------------------- > > If the khandhas were "Nibbana wrongly viewed" no less than flying purple elephants were "nibbana wrongly viewed" then the the khandhas would be of no use in explaining the Dhamma. > > More specifically, they would be of no use in countering Dieter's claim that the Buddha believed in a self. ------------------------------- HCW: I truly haven't a clue what you're talking about. ----------------------------- > > Ken H > ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #131005 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 12:18 pm Subject: Qus for Ajahn Sujin sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, Rob E, Nina, Alex,& all, lf any of you have any qus for A.Sujin, most welcome to send them as we'll have 3 days with her in Kaeng Krachan. Metta Sarah ===== #131006 From: "Tony H" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 3:56 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) tony.humphreys Hi Ken, KH: That is what Nagarjuna wanted us to believe. He caused a schism in the sangha. Those who believed anatta meant "no soul" went one way (Theravada) and those who believed anatta meant "no conditioned realities" went the other way (Mahayana). Can you offer a refutation of Nargajunas stance and where he made this distinction? Nargajuna pops up occaisionaly in here but little if anything in terms of a categorical and methodical refuting of his interpretation. If he can be proven through logic to be wrong then he should be ignored. If his take stands up to logic then he is right and others are wrong. I think this would help. Tony... #131007 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 4:24 pm Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------ <. . .> > HCW: I truly haven't a clue what you're talking about. ------ KH: Surely you have at least a clue of what I am talking about. For example, how many times have you quoted the Dvayatanupassana Sutta at DSG and received a reply from (mostly) Nina, Sarah or Jon explaining the Theravada interpretation of "not real" in that sutta? And yet you still say, "I quoted the *Buddha* saying that only nibbana is real. Take the matter up with him, Ken." Anyway, don't let me spoil the discussion you are having with Dieter. I think (though I am not sure) that Dieter has finally admitted to taking the Thanissaro line, "Anatta does not mean no self." It will be good to finally get this out in the open. Ken H #131008 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 5:00 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) kenhowardau Hi Tony, ----------- >> KH: That is what Nagarjuna wanted us to believe. He caused a schism in the sangha. Those who believed anatta meant "no soul" went one way (Theravada) and those who believed anatta meant "no conditioned realities" went the other way (Mahayana). > T: Can you offer a refutation of Nargajunas stance and where he made this distinction? ------------- KH: I have very little knowledge of Nagarjuna's stance apart from the bits and pieces that have been related here at DSG. I believe Nagarjuna said anatta meant that dhammas lacked "own being" and I believe various Mahayana traditions have adopted that teaching. They say there is really only one, great, all encompassing, Ocean of Being. And they say anything resembling a conditioned nama or rupa has no "own being" but is ultimately just a ripple on that great ocean. (Or, as Howard would say, it is just Nibbana wrongly perceived.) As far as a refutation Nagarjuna's stance is concerned I would have to say that everything taught in the Pali Tipitaka screamed a refutation of it. Where would you like me to start? --------------------- > T: Nargajuna pops up occasionally in here but little if anything in terms of a categorical and methodical refuting of his interpretation. If he can be proven through logic to be wrong then he should be ignored. If his take stands up to logic then he is right and others are wrong. > I think this would help. --------------------- KH: Please start a thread on this topic. It would be best if you could give us a specific proposition put forward by Nagarjuna so we could discuss the proposition rather than discuss Nagarjuna himself. We don't want a sectarian war. :-) Ken H #131009 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) moellerdieter Hi Ken H ( et al) , you wrote: I have very little knowledge of Nagarjuna's stance apart from the bits and pieces that have been related here at DSG D: below you may to get some details in your inquisitorial proceedings... with Metta Dieter http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/budfree.htm NAGARJUNA AND THE SELF A South Indian philosopher sometimes called the "second Buddha," Nagarjuna stands ambivalently at the beginnings of Mahayana philosophy. His arguments are subtle, sophisticated, and complex. Their interpretation is made more difficult because they are written as beautifully crafted quatrains whose density require extra concentration. As a transitional thinker, Nagarjuna is taken by some commentators (David Kalupahana and Jay Garfield) as continuing the Pali tradition and by others (Frederick Streng and T. Wood) as making a clean break with it. The latter school of interpretation reads Nagarjuna's quatrains as thoroughly dialectical refutations of any positive thesis, even the minimalist claims of Pali realism. There is general consensus that the Yogacara school of Vasubandhu and Asanga reject Nagarjuna's views, whatever they are, in favor of an objective idealism roughly similar to Hegel's. Unfortunately, we do not have space to deal with Yogacara except only in an indirect way. As we have seen, Pali Buddhists do not deny the appearance of an empirical self (jiva); rather, they deny that, corresponding to this appearance, there is anything enduring, separate, or independent. These may just be three different ways of saying the same thing, but since they represent three different types of Buddhist arguments, they merit separate presentations. First, there is no self that endures. What we see is constantly changing and there is nothing that stays the same. The traditional argument here proceeds by elimination: the physical bodies change; feelings, beliefs, desires, and intentions all change; consciousness is intermittent; and our self-conceptions change over time. None of the things we can point to as the self remains the same. Therefore the self does not endure. The argument is similar to the one given by Hume. Second, the self is not separate from the causes and conditions that give rise to it. A standard metaphor for this comes from the Dhammapada, a Pali text from the 3rd century BCE. The appearance of a rainbow arises out of a certain combination of mist and light. Remove either one of these and the rainbow no longer exists. Similarly, the appearance of a self arises out of conditions: oxygen, food, parents, etc. Without them, there would be no self. This argument can be made on a general level, as just done, or on a particular level. You wouldn't be the person you are if your family, friends, and acquaintances all weren't the people they are, if you hadn't had the experiences you've had, lived in the society you live in, etc. If we define the constellation of these conditions as one's "world," we can say that the self cannot be separated, either practically or logically, from the world in which it exists. Third, the self is not independent, which is a rough approximation of a Sanskrit term svabhava, meaning "self-nature" or "own being." Nagarjuna uses reductio ad absurdum arguments to demonstrate the incoherence of attempts to say anything about an independently existing self. If the self existed on its own, it could not change or stay the same, could not be unified or composite, could not know or be known, etc. And yet, if we cannot say that the self really exists, by the same token we cannot say that the self really does not exist. We cannot say anything at all about it as an independently existing thing. What we are left with is an empirical or a thoroughly conventional self, depending on the way we read Nagarjuna. The Pali versus Mahayana distinction is now not very helpful, so henceforth we will distinguish between "constructive postmodernism" (CPM) and a skeptical "deconstructive postmodernism" (DPM). Many commentators have interpreted Nagarjuna as anticipating the deconstruction of French postmodernism.30 We prefer to interpret the Buddha's philosophical intentions as anticipating CPM, but we are not certain that Nagarjuna can be interpreted under this rubric. We have already referred to more detailed discussions of these two positions in the endnotes, but suffice it to say that CPM is generally realist and supportive of the canons of logic and evidence, while DPM rejects realism and any logocentric methodology. Nagarjuna is a consummate logician and never rejects logic as a standard, so this obviously causes problems for any DPM reading of him. Nevertheless, in our conclusions we will assume that Nagarjuna cannot fully accommodated within the CPM model. Let us compare the translations of two quatrains on "agent/producer" and "action/product" to demonstrate not only the different interpretations but also the difficulty in deciphering the poetry of Nagarjuna's The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. (Hereafter the Karika, an abbreviation of the Sanskrit title Mulamadhyama-karika.) Here are Jay Garfield's and Frederick Streng's translations of the last two verses of Chapter 8: Action depends upon the agent. The agent itself depends on action. One cannot see any way To establish them differently. From this elimination ["giving up"] of [substantial] agent and action, One should elucidate appropriation ["acquiring"] in the same way. Through action and agent All remaining things should be understood. (Garfield) The producer proceeds being dependent on the product, And the product proceeds being dependent on the producer. The cause for realization is seen in nothing else. In the same way one should understand the "acquiring" on the basis of the "giving up" of the producer and the product. By means of [this analysis] the product and Producer all other things should be dissolved (Streng).31 Even without knowing Tibetan (the original Sanskrit text has been lost), we can see that Garfield's translation is more elegant. Moreover, we can see Streng's skeptical conclusion that distinctions between agents, their actions, and all other things "should be dissolved." (The Yogacara idealist would say "dissolved in the Buddha Mind.") Garfield's rendering is very different: he takes Streng's "giving up" only as denying agents and their actions any self-being, not rejecting their existence altogether. We propose that the phrase "phenomenal self" be used for the Pali tradition and CPM interpretation while reserving "conventional" as a placeholder term for the deluded self who thinks it lives in a real world of interdependent things and events. This conventional self exists only by analogy to the appearance of the color spectrum as it is refracted through a prism. If the prism represents ignorance, then upon enlightenment the phenomenal world proves to be an illusion. If we complete the analogy by speaking of the white light that is refracted, the Yogacara idealists would call that the Buddha Mind while the skeptical Nagarjuna would deny its existence as well. For Mahayana Buddhists following the skeptical Nagarjuna the conventional self has a practical purpose only. Clinging to a notion of self that has self-being, its own perceptions, and possessions is the origin of suffering. Therefore, the use of conventions is governed not by their truth or reference to reality, but by their effectiveness in diagnosing the human predicament and allowing us to see the "emptiness" (shunyata) of all things that we thought were permanent and that we thought were somehow ours. From this standpoint, appeals to determinism in one moment and to personal responsibility in the next do not represent an inconsistency; rather, it is a recognition that different forms of rhetoric will be effective in different situations. (By contrast the Pali Buddhists have a realist concept of truth and meaning and that is why they are able to embrace a compatiblist position on free-will.) If the self is thoroughly conventional, then to ask whether it is free or determined is like asking "What is the sound of one clapping"? Zen Buddhists were profoundly influenced by what they took to be Nagarjuna's skepticism. Not all quatrains in the Karita, however, give us equally plausible readings. Here are two in Garfield's translation that summarize nicely the point of the preceding paragraph: If there were no self, Where would the self's (properties) be? From the pacification of the self and what belongs to it, One abstains from grasping onto "I" and "mine." When views of "I" and "mine" are extinguished, Whether with respect to the internal or external, The appropriator ceases. This having ceased, birth ceases (18:2, 4). This quatrain can be rendered intelligible from either a CPM or DPM position, but other quatrains in this chapter appear to give the former approach no support: What language expresses is nonexistent. The sphere of thought is nonexistent. Unarisen and unceased, like Nirvana Is the nature of things. One can salvage the CPM position only by some clever qualifications, and then only partially. When Nagarjuna speaks of denying existence, he denies only absolute existence, the negation of which is absolute nonexistence. (Nagarjuna agrees with Parmenides in rejecting this as inexpressible and meaningless.) But from a CPM standpoint, the nonexistence in this quatrain must be a relative non-being that corresponds to the relative being of interdependent existence that is expressible and meaningful. (A thing's relative non-being is everything that it is not, which is actually all the other things that it is dependent upon.) The CPM interpretation of this quatrain runs aground with the conclusion that Nirvana and all things are "unarisen and unceased." This quatrain appears to undermine the DPM interpretation as well, because it implies that Nirvana is the only "thing" that has self-being. Tibetan Buddhists influenced by Yogacara idealism hold that Nagarjuna intended only to reject the self-being of phenomenal reality not the ultimate reality that is the Dharmakaya. This is the cosmic body of the Buddha into which all selves that reach Nirvana dissolve. Here is one of their own quatrains: If emptiness were the method, then Buddhahood could not be. Since other Than this cause there would be no other fruit, The method is not emptiness.32 Not many Mahayana Buddhists, except those in some Zen schools, were willing to follow Nagarjuna in rejecting all metaphysical views of the Buddha and his cosmic body. While Nagarjuna's deconstruction is logically rigorous, it was obviously not religiously satisfying for most Buddhists. NAGARJUNA ON CAUSES AND CONDITIONS In his interpretation of the Karita Garfield maintains that Nagarjuna preserves a distinction between conditionality and causality. Garfield maintains that Nagarjuna holds a positive view of conditionality as explained above, and he demonstrates that Nagarjuna rejects only the view of causes as having some occult power to produce effects. For this argument let us look at the first verse of the first chapter of the Karita: Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise. This is the famous Buddhist "neither-nor dialectic" in action-also called the "four-corned negation" in Indian logic.33 It is meant to exhaust any possibility of "causality talk," and each of the four options actually represent previous Indian philosophical schools. The first chapter's second verse contains a very rare phenomenon in the Karita, a positive view of conditionality that Nagarjuna does not dialectically destroy: There are four conditions: efficient condition; Percept-object condition; immediate condition; Dominant condition, just so. There is no fifth condition. The fourth verse makes it clear that causality understood as a metaphysical power is not a part of conditionality: Power to act does not have conditions. There is no power to act without conditions. There are no conditions without power to act. Nor do any have the power to act. We will now offer an example (inspired by Garfield) that demonstrates how one can conceive of conditionality in its four instances without causality. A person takes a match and strikes it, which is the efficient condition. The match lights because there is enough oxygen, it is not too wet, and the tip of the match has not worn to the point of nonignition, which are some of the immediate conditions. The percept-object conditions are those within any perceiver that allows the eyes to see. Finally, the person has struck the match so that she can see whether what she took for a snake in the dark was perhaps just a piece of rope. This is the dominant condition, the purpose of any action; a Buddhist "final cause" if you will. Please note that our example has not appealed to any occult causes or powers as a way of explaining what happens. There are of course other translations and interpretations of these quatrains, some of which support the skeptical DPM position. These readings generally tend to conflate causes and conditions, and in alternative translations of verses three and ten Nagarjuna appears to reject the existence of relational existence and the impossibility of anything whatsoever arising. Here are the two quatrains from A. L. Herman's revision of Theodore Stcherbatsky's translation: In these four conditions we can find No self-nature (svabhava) Where there is no self-existence, There can be no relational existence (parabhava). If existing things have no self-nature Then they have no real existence The [formula] "this being, that appears" Then loses every meaning. (1: 3,10)34 Note here the clear negation of the two principal features of the doctrine of interdependent coorigination: the denial of relational existence and the rejection of conditionality. This view of Nagarjuna's argument anticipates Bradley's famous attempt to show that an ontology based exclusively on internal relations is just as unintelligible as one based on external relations. We summarize Bradley's argument as follows: If A is internally related to B and R is the relation, one would then need R' to relate R to A, R'' that relates to R to B, R''' that relates R'' to R' ad infinitum. Bradley's conclusion is that either A and B are totally separate or they are identical.35 Therefore, a putative realism of distinct but interrelated entities by necessity collapses into an either an absolute monism (the Yogacara position--they would have loved Bradley) or a denial of any intelligible view of reality at all. Appealing to Whitehead's doctrine of asymmetrical relations (e.g., that the present is internal to the past but the past remains external), one could assume that the Buddha would agree with him, because he did not explicitly affirm a doctrine of full internal relations as some Mahayanist Buddhists did. #131010 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ------ > D: below you may to get some details in your inquisitorial proceedings... ------- KH: Thanks Dieter, I am sure you mean well, but the extract you have given me is incomprehensible. For example, the second paragraph begins by saying "Pali Buddhists do not deny the appearance of an empirical self." What does that mean? If it means they don't deny there can be a concept of a self, why doesn't the author say that? Instead, we are told what the self is and what the self is not. But that is not the Buddha's teaching, is it? The Buddha did not take a stand on worldly concepts such as an empirical self. The suttas explain he did not take a stand on whether the self existed or did not exist, or if it both existed and did not exist, or if it neither existed nor did not exist. In fact, he said if we understood the Dhamma to be taking any of those stands that would be our wrong view (miccha-ditthi). What the Buddha did take a stand on was that *in ultimate reality* there were only dhammas, and all dhammas were devoid of a self or anything pertaining to a self. Anyway, after that unfortunate start I found the rest equally incomprehensible. There was something in there about Nagarjuna but I couldn't make it out. Please give me a summary in plain language. That might be a way of starting the new thread I suggested to Tony. Ken H #131011 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 7:21 pm Subject: back nilovg Dear Sarah and friends, Thanking you for your kindness, I am back. Nina #131012 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 8:10 pm Subject: Re: back kenhowardau Wonderful news! Welcome back, Nina. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and friends, > > Thanking you for your kindness, I am back. > > Nina > #131013 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 8:53 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma sprlrt Hi Azita (Ann, Jagkrit), Don't thank me... (but it's nice to know that my transcriptions are appreciated, thank you :) Alberto ************************* 2. (in HH, 11th, am-A, 13m.30) TA: Is thinking real? thinking thinks, if thinking doesn't think about self, can there be such idea about self? if there is no experiencing of visible object and so on, can there be thinking about this or that as I, or things, or self? so, there is not just seeing, there is thinking after seeing; and there is not just hearing, because there is thinking after hearing too; so thinking follows any experience through any doorway, and it can think differently, some might think that there is no self, and some might think that there is a self; some might think that seeing is permanent, but some know, from everything which happens in a day, that nothing is permanent at all; seeing just arises and sees, that's all, it cannot think, but after seeing, the memory of what is seen conditions the idea of something or someone, all the time, as permanent; but if it comes to understand each reality as it is, which one can be taken for self? because thinking also arises and falls away. While one is fast asleep, does one know who one is? what name, how many friends, where one is? no idea at all, because this is the function of realities from the first moment of life, which keeps on by conditions; in a day there is seeing, and then there is hearing and everything; but while one is fast asleep, where are all those things gone? never come back at all, so where is the self, the permanent one? Because everything is so short, it's conditioned and it falls away unknowingly, even right now while we're talking about it, seeing sees and is gone, because there is hearing and thinking; so this will condition some understanding about: life is not permanent; and what is life? usually is seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and thinking; so they are not permanent, the whole life; and nobody can control, or nobody can make anything up, that's why it's dhamma, everything is dhamma; it doesn't belong to anyone, and it's no one at all; that can be proved, and developed, with more and more understanding about whatever appears right now; because we think that we see people and things, but in reality it's only that which can see, only; and we call it visible object, even if we don't call it anything at all, it is seen, right? that which is seen now, is it near or far? no idea, because it's only that which is seen; but if there's a question about whether is far or near, it's thinking, not seeing; so in a day there is always thinking and thinking and thinking. Is thinking light or dark? thinking itself; sound, is it light or dark? everything is in darkness, only visible object is not dark; at moment of hearing, that which experiences, in darkness, and sound appears, also in darkness; but it seems like there is light all day, but actually it's not; so if one just understands just one characteristic of a reality at a time, one will begin to see what life is, and what we take for life; without all these realities there's no life at all. #131014 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 8:57 pm Subject: Re: back moellerdieter Dear Nina, I learnt about your trouble recently and hope you are on the way of whole recovery with the help of family and friends. with my best wishes Dieter #131015 From: sprlrt@... Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:15 pm Subject: Re: back sprlrt Dear Nina, welcome back from me too! - Alberto #131016 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:35 pm Subject: Re: back sarahprocter... Dear Nina, So glad. We've just arrived at Kaeng Krachan and I'm having a snack outside with Pinna, Ell, David, Jon and Lan who all send very best wishes! Tomorrow we'll see Ajahn Sujin and Khun Duangduen for discussion. Just settling in this evening. Lan's been asking Jon lots of difficult dhamma qus on the journey down here:-) Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and friends, > > Thanking you for your kindness, I am back. ======= #131017 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:37 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 26. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Chapter 4, 'Understanding of the Present Moment' In the "Mughapakkha Jaataka" (no. 538) we read about the life of the Bodhisatta as prince Temiya who pretended to be cripple, deaf and dumb. He did not want to become a king so that he would be in a situation to commit akusala kamma. The King wanted to find out whether he was really cripple, deaf and dumb and let him undergo all kinds of trials and tribulations. Finally the King was advised to bury him alive. When the charioteer was digging the hole for his grave, Temiya was adorned by Sakka [7] with heavenly ornaments. He became an ascetic and preached to his parents about impermanence: "It is death who smites this world, old age who watches at our gate, And it is the nights which pass and win their purpose soon or late. As when the lady at her loom sits weaving all the day, Her task grows ever less and less- so waste our lives away. As speeds the hurrying river's course on, with no backward flow, So in its course the life of men does ever forward go; And as the river sweeps away trees from its banks upturn, So are we men carried along by age and death in headlong ruin." He explained to his father that he did not want the kingdom, stating that wealth, youth, wife and children and all other joys do not last. He said: "Do what you have to do today, Who can ensure the morrow's sun? Death is the Master-general Who gives his guarantee to none." Lodewijk and I often spoke about the lady sitting at her loom and weaving until her task is done. A life comes to its end so soon. The text can remind us not to put off our task of developing right understanding of any reality which appears now. The Bodhisatta was unshakable in his resolution to develop right understanding. Also when he was put to severe tests, he did not prefer anything else to the development of wisdom. We are likely to be forgetful of what is really worthwhile in our life. Wisdom is more precious than any kind of possession, honour or praise. [7] King of the Devas. (To be continued) #131018 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 10:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] back hantun1 Dear Nina, I am very glad to know that you are back. But please go slow and take care! with metta and respect, Han From: Nina van Gorkom vangorko@... Dear Sarah and friends, Thanking you for your kindness, I am back. Nina #131019 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 11:00 pm Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > ------ > <. . .> > > HCW: I truly haven't a clue what you're talking about. > ------ > > KH: Surely you have at least a clue of what I am talking about. For example, how many times have you quoted the Dvayatanupassana Sutta at DSG and received a reply from (mostly) Nina, Sarah or Jon explaining the Theravada interpretation of "not real" in that sutta? ------------------------------- HCW: No, I did NOT understand your point. (I was speaking truthfully - hope that's okay. ;-) As regards that sutta, I find it clear. ------------------------------ > > And yet you still say, "I quoted the *Buddha* saying that only nibbana is real. Take the matter up with him, Ken." > > Anyway, don't let me spoil the discussion you are having with Dieter. I think (though I am not sure) that Dieter has finally admitted to taking the Thanissaro line, "Anatta does not mean no self." > > It will be good to finally get this out in the open. --------------------------------- HCW: Oh yes!! Then we could all shun him except for occasional pointing at him with shock and fear! One must, of course, warn believers of the presence of infidels! ;-)) -------------------------------- > > Ken H > ============================== With metta, Howard, Infidel in Chief /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #131020 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 11:19 pm Subject: Re: back upasaka_howard Hi, Nina! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and friends, > > Thanking you for your kindness, I am back. ----------------------------- HCW: How wonderful!!! :-) ---------------------------- > > Nina > ========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #131021 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 1:07 am Subject: thanks nilovg Dear Sarah, Han, Dieter, Alberto,Tam junior, Ken H, Thanks for your kindness. I am still with a walker and even a glass of water takes me ages. I cannot be active yet. Nina. #131022 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 1:20 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) moellerdieter Hi Ken H, you wrote: Anyway, after that unfortunate start I found the rest equally incomprehensible. There was something in there about Nagarjuna but I couldn't make it out. Please give me a summary in plain language. (Ken H to Howard: Anyway, don't let me spoil the discussion you are having with Dieter. I think (though I am not sure) that Dieter has finally admitted to taking the Thanissaro line, "Anatta does not mean no self.") D: very clever, Ken .. are you laying out the bait in order to show the heresy you are always suspecting in my messages.. ? :-) As you may have recognized from our previous exchange , you get my opinion about a certain topic but I will not continue to discuss with you any further...( at least not until you change your attitude) I recommend to google for another source or ask the forum who would be willing / interested to make the text comprehensible for you. nevertheless with Metta ;-) Dieter #131023 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 2:35 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention moellerdieter Hi Howard, D: yes assemblies or grouping of dhammas. But are the khandhas dhammas? --------------------------- HCW: What do you mean here by "the khandhas"? Many of the folks here on DSG use 'khandha' and 'dhamma' synonomously, but I take exception to that usage: The khandhas are heaps/collections. There are exactly 5 altogether, wheras there are infinitely many dhammas. --------------------------- D: Khandha is a 'heap ', a group of specified dhammas which function by a defined way (therefore I find the translation 'aggregate' useful). The category is not the same as its parts..i.e. to use 'khandhas' and 'dhammas' synonomously isn't correct . I recall that Sarah quoted some canonical examples , but -IMHO- the issue isn't really significant.. > For example the assembly of parts resulting in a cart , demonstrates the whole is more than the sum of its parts. > In respect to a human we may think about 'Holism (from .λο, holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total), is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties, should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts. (Wiki) > I recall a discussion with Sarah about this point. ---------------------------- HCW: This is okay, so lomg as one keeps in mind that a complex (a "whole" in your terms) is not an individual phenomenon, and is (properly) spoken of as "a thing" only for convenience. ------------------------------ D: I see that as a fact ..the gathering of the 5 (or 3 ) khandhas can be understood as a complementary resulting in a living being ..similar what is light to the colours . Not sure what you mean by not an individual phenomenon.. , the dhammas involved in the stream are 'personal' (prev.kamma) > > None of these constitute a Self and I think we should avoid to equal the term person with Self. ------------------------- HCW: I quite agree. A person is not and has not a self. -------------------------- > As we know the self or I is based on identification by clinging in any of the khandhas (this I am, this is mine etc.). > The khandhas are not self, but the stream , the process within , directed by elements of D.O. leading to attachment is of self nature , though without substance. --------------------------- HCW: What does it mean for a namarupic stream to "be of self nature"? Such a stream includes, except in the case of arahants, the recurring sense of self, but, in fact, there is no self there and no self-nature there. --------------------------- D: the point is -as I see it- reflection , which presents the idea of self... carried within the process of D.O. and appears after vedana- (tanha-upadana- bhava etc.) >> > The Buddha rejected the soul-as-spiritual-substance view of the Upani­shads, Jainism, and Samkhya-Yoga, and he deconstructed the "spectator" self of these philosophies 2,500 years before recent thinkers dismantled the Cartesian self. As opposed to strict deconstruction, for example, Pali Buddhists hold that selves, though neither the same nor different throughout their lives, are nevertheless responsible for their actions. > --------------------------- > HCW: > No, they don't hold that, because they do not accept ANY self except as convenient, everyday terminology. > --------------------------- > > D. and having the D.O. process in mind --------------------------- HCW: ??? ------------------------- D:and except having the D.O. process in mind , in particular the delusion of self , shown to be a process driven by ignorance .. > > (Pali Buddhism, therefore, should be aligned with the school of constructive postmodernism.) These selves are also real in the sense that they are constituted by relations with their bodies, other selves, and all other entities. > -------------------------- > HCW: > I would sooner say that these assemblages, being collections of closely interelated phenomena, are not total fictions. However, I hasten to add that 1)they are not individuals, 2)they are not cognizable without thinking, and, 3)they are NOT selves nor does any have a self. > -------------------------- > > D: 1 and 2 not cleear to me .. perhaps the expression 'these selves' is confusing --------------------------- HCW: The expression 'these selves' is not a good replacement for 'these persons"/"these assemblies"/"these namarupic streams", for the latter expressions refer merely to collections of dhammas, whereas the term 'selves' refers, I believe, to total fictions. ----------------------------- D: but there is attachment, identification , although a misunderstood 'mirage' > > This is why the Pali self should be viewed in relational or process terms rather than the skeptical implica­tions of the no-self doctrine, which many later Buddhists supported. The Pali self is relational primarily in the sense of its dependence on the five skandhas and the internal relations this dependence entails. > ------------------------- > HCW: > Such assemblages are normally called "persons" and not "selves," and none has a self, own-being, or identity (in the philosophical sense of the term 'identity'). > -------------------------- > > D: when above is meant that the self is a conditioned (by ignorance, delusion..etc) process leading to attachment , I would agree ------------------------- HCW: ??? ------------------------ D: ??? : ? as commented before > > > > > Another positive way to express nonsubstantiality is to describe the Buddhist self as "functional." In fact, each of theskandhas should be seen as functions rather than entities. On this point, Kalupahana makes good use of James, who while denying a soul sub­stance, maintained that consciousness is a function. > ----------------------- > HCW: > Yes, a function, or, better, I think: an occurrence/event. (When one hears "function," one is inclined to ask "Function of what?".) > > > D: I think about the process/stream a function of occuring events .. a function of urge (tanha) with its background of ignorance,delusion ------------------------------- HCW: I don't follow this. ------------------------------ D: the function of 'seeing , hearing ..etc only ' becomes 'selfish' by reflection: I see , I hear etc. > > ------------------------ > As Kalupa­hana states: "Rupa or material form accounts for the function of identification; vedana or feeling and samjna or perception represent the function of experience, emotive as well as cognitive; sanskara or disposition stands for the function of individuation; vijnana or consciousness explains the function of continuity in experience."24 Both Kalupahana and Peter Harvey describe the Pali self in the positive terms of psychophysical unity, process, and interrelation. According to Harvey, the Buddha never rejected the existence of a life-principle (jiva), which "is not a separate part of a person, but is a process which occurs when certain conditions are present. . . ."25 Not only are there significant parallels to James, but the Buddha's process self compares favorably to that of today's process philosophers, following in the footsteps of Whitehead and Hartshorne, who are also the founding fathers of constructive postmodernism. > > > > From this analysis we can clearly see that the Pali self is a robust personal agent fully capable of maintaining its personal integrity and taking full responsibility for its actions. > --------------------------- > HCW: > This is merely a useful mode of conventional speech but taken literally, IMO, is simply false. > ------------------------ > > D: when you think of the process nature which leads to a self identity , it is ok IMO --------------------------- HCW: That sentence holds nothing "ok" for me. --------------------------- D: ok too .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #131024 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 3:44 am Subject: Re: back glenjohnann Dear Nina, Sarah and all So very happy to see you back on line, Nina. We've missed you! Hello to all at KK! Wishes for more useful discussions. Looking forward to hearing about them, if anyone is inclined to share some of the high points with us. Driving to Whistler yesterday Glen and I heard an item on the radio entitled "Why something and not nothing?". Reminded me of Glen's question to Achan Sujin about 7 years ago at KK - why isn't there just nothing? And Achan's answer "something, nothing". The answers on the radio program were, predictably, all speculative, philosophical, metaphysical etc. Was an opportunity for Glen and I to have a rare discussion about why I thought it was all useless speculation - and talk a bit about absolute realities. The more one develops confidence in the teachings of the Buddha, the less one is inclined to indulge in or give credence to speculative thinking on such subjects. That the teachings of the Buddha are verifiable in daily life, now, is what makes it so compelling. Best wishes to all Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Nina, > > So glad. We've just arrived at Kaeng Krachan and I'm having a snack outside with Pinna, Ell, David, Jon and Lan who all send very best wishes! > > Tomorrow we'll see Ajahn Sujin and Khun Duangduen for discussion. Just settling in this evening. Lan's been asking Jon lots of difficult dhamma qus on the journey down here:-) > > Metta > > Sarah > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > > Dear Sarah and friends, > > > > Thanking you for your kindness, I am back. > ======= > #131025 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 3:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: back nilovg Hi Howard, :-) Nina. Op 3-jun-2013, om 15:19 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > HCW: > How wonderful!!! :-) #131026 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 7:46 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---- >> KH: It will be good to finally get this out in the open. > HCW: Oh yes!! Then we could all shun him except for occasional pointing at him with shock and fear! One must, of course, warn believers of the presence of infidels! ;-)) ---- KH: Has there ever been any shunning or pointing at DSG? It seems to me that we treat "infidel" members even more warmly than we treat like-minded members. Dieter would have nothing to lose by *openly* adopting the Thanissaro line: The Not-self Strategy By Thanissaro Bhikkhu Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali canon the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply. The evidence for this reading of the Canon centers on four points: 1. The one passage where the Buddha is asked point-blank to take a position on the ontological question of whether or not there is a self, he refuses to answer. 2. The passages which state most categorically that there is no self are qualified in such a way that they cover all of describable reality, but not all of reality which may be experienced. 3. Views that there is no self are ranked with views that there is a self as a "fetter of views" which a person aiming at release from suffering would do well to avoid. 4. The person who has attained the goal of release views reality in such a way that all views even such basic notions as self & no-self, true & false can have no hold power over the mind. KH: May I ask, is that what Dieter, Tep, Alex and others are trying to tell us? Or is my question out of order? Ken H #131027 From: "connie" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 7:49 am Subject: Re: back nichiconn :) #131028 From: "azita" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 7:52 am Subject: Re: Qus for Ajahn Sujin gazita2002 Hallo Sarah, no questions at the moment, and please give her my 'hallo and how are you' greetings. Hallo to others who may be there as well patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Lukas, Rob E, Nina, Alex,& all, > > lf any of you have any qus for A.Sujin, most welcome to send them as we'll have 3 days with her in Kaeng Krachan. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #131029 From: "azita" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 8:07 am Subject: Re: back gazita2002 Dear Nina, so good to have you back, hope you are well. I am reading 'Perfections' for a second time, well, about to start my third read. Would like to include an excerpt: Khanti is a condition for the development of all kusala, whereas impatience conditions the arising of all kinds of evil through citta and then thro the body and thro speech. Adhivaasana-khanti is endurance with regard to all situations in daily life, to our environment, and this is the highest asceticism. Being an impatient person, I found the perfection of Khanti very important. However, without some knowledge of anatta, there is a wrong concept that 'I' can become a more patient person. It is probably better to see whatever arises, kusala or akusala, as just that - not me. not mine, not myself. Thank you Nina, take care, may all beings be happy azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and friends, > > Thanking you for your kindness, I am back. > > Nina > #131030 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 8:43 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > D: yes assemblies or grouping of dhammas. But are the khandhas dhammas? > --------------------------- > HCW: > What do you mean here by "the khandhas"? Many of the folks here on DSG use 'khandha' and 'dhamma' synonomously, but I take exception to that usage: The khandhas are heaps/collections. There are exactly 5 altogether, wheras there are infinitely many dhammas. > --------------------------- > > D: Khandha is a 'heap ', a group of specified dhammas which function by a defined way (therefore I find the translation 'aggregate' useful). > The category is not the same as its parts..i.e. to use 'khandhas' and 'dhammas' synonomously isn't correct . ---------------------------------- HCW: We agree on this. ----------------------------- I recall that Sarah quoted some canonical examples , but -IMHO- the issue isn't really significant.. > > > > > > > > For example the assembly of parts resulting in a cart , demonstrates the whole is more than the sum of its parts. > > In respect to a human we may think about 'Holism (from .λο, holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total), is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties, should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts. (Wiki) > > I recall a discussion with Sarah about this point. > ---------------------------- > HCW: > This is okay, so lomg as one keeps in mind that a complex (a "whole" in your terms) is not an individual phenomenon, and is (properly) spoken of as "a thing" only for convenience. > ------------------------------ > > D: I see that as a fact ..the gathering of the 5 (or 3 ) khandhas can be understood as a complementary resulting in a living being ..similar what is light to the colours . Not sure what you mean by not an individual phenomenon.. , the dhammas involved in the stream are 'personal' (prev.kamma) ------------------------------- HCW: By "not an indvidual phenomenon," I mean not a single element, but a *collection* of elements. ----------------------------- > > > > > None of these constitute a Self and I think we should avoid to equal the term person with Self. > ------------------------- > HCW: > I quite agree. A person is not and has not a self. > -------------------------- > > As we know the self or I is based on identification by clinging in any of the khandhas (this I am, this is mine etc.). --------------------------- HCW: Not "the self" but "the IDEA of the self." ----------------------------- > > The khandhas are not self, but the stream , the process within , directed by elements of D.O. leading to attachment is of self nature , though without substance. > --------------------------- > HCW: > What does it mean for a namarupic stream to "be of self nature"? Such a stream includes, except in the case of arahants, the recurring sense of self, but, in fact, there is no self there and no self-nature there. > --------------------------- > > D: the point is -as I see it- reflection , which presents the idea of self... carried within the process of D.O. and appears after vedana- (tanha-upadana- bhava etc.) ---------------------------- HCW: Yes, the IDEA of self. So, the namarupic is not of self-nature but is defiled by sense of self. -------------------------- > > > >> > The Buddha rejected the soul-as-spiritual-substance view of the Upani­shads, Jainism, and Samkhya-Yoga, and he deconstructed the "spectator" self of these philosophies 2,500 years before recent thinkers dismantled the Cartesian self. As opposed to strict deconstruction, for example, Pali Buddhists hold that selves, though neither the same nor different throughout their lives, are nevertheless responsible for their actions. > > --------------------------- > > HCW: > > No, they don't hold that, because they do not accept ANY self except as convenient, everyday terminology. > > --------------------------- > > > > D. and having the D.O. process in mind > --------------------------- > HCW: > ??? > ------------------------- > > > D:and except having the D.O. process in mind , in particular the delusion of self , shown to be a process driven by ignorance .. > > > > > (Pali Buddhism, therefore, should be aligned with the school of constructive postmodernism.) These selves are also real in the sense that they are constituted by relations with their bodies, other selves, and all other entities. > > -------------------------- > > HCW: > > I would sooner say that these assemblages, being collections of closely interelated phenomena, are not total fictions. However, I hasten to add that 1)they are not individuals, 2)they are not cognizable without thinking, and, 3)they are NOT selves nor does any have a self. > > -------------------------- > > > > D: 1 and 2 not cleear to me .. perhaps the expression 'these selves' is confusing > --------------------------- > HCW: > The expression 'these selves' is not a good replacement for 'these persons"/"these assemblies"/"these namarupic streams", for the latter expressions refer merely to collections of dhammas, whereas the term 'selves' refers, I believe, to total fictions. > ----------------------------- > > D: but there is attachment, identification , although a misunderstood 'mirage' ----------------------------- HCW: Yes, the mirage/illusion of self. ----------------------------- > > > > This is why the Pali self should be viewed in relational or process terms rather than the skeptical implica­tions of the no-self doctrine, which many later Buddhists supported. The Pali self is relational primarily in the sense of its dependence on the five skandhas and the internal relations this dependence entails. > > ------------------------- > > HCW: > > Such assemblages are normally called "persons" and not "selves," and none has a self, own-being, or identity (in the philosophical sense of the term 'identity'). > > -------------------------- > > > > D: when above is meant that the self is a conditioned (by ignorance, delusion..etc) process leading to attachment , I would agree > ------------------------- > HCW: > ??? > ------------------------ > > > D: ??? : ? > as commented before > > > > > > > > Another positive way to express nonsubstantiality is to describe the Buddhist self as "functional." In fact, each of theskandhas should be seen as functions rather than entities. On this point, Kalupahana makes good use of James, who while denying a soul sub­stance, maintained that consciousness is a function. > > ----------------------- > > HCW: > > Yes, a function, or, better, I think: an occurrence/event. (When one hears "function," one is inclined to ask "Function of what?".) > > > > > > D: I think about the process/stream a function of occuring events .. a function of urge (tanha) with its background of ignorance,delusion > ------------------------------- > HCW: > I don't follow this. > ------------------------------ > > D: the function of 'seeing , hearing ..etc only ' becomes 'selfish' by reflection: I see , I hear etc. --------------------------- HCW: Yes. ----------------------- > > > > > > > > ------------------------ > > As Kalupa­hana states: "Rupa or material form accounts for the function of identification; vedana or feeling and samjna or perception represent the function of experience, emotive as well as cognitive; sanskara or disposition stands for the function of individuation; vijnana or consciousness explains the function of continuity in experience."24 Both Kalupahana and Peter Harvey describe the Pali self in the positive terms of psychophysical unity, process, and interrelation. According to Harvey, the Buddha never rejected the existence of a life-principle (jiva), which "is not a separate part of a person, but is a process which occurs when certain conditions are present. . . ."25 Not only are there significant parallels to James, but the Buddha's process self compares favorably to that of today's process philosophers, following in the footsteps of Whitehead and Hartshorne, who are also the founding fathers of constructive postmodernism. > > > > > > From this analysis we can clearly see that the Pali self is a robust personal agent fully capable of maintaining its personal integrity and taking full responsibility for its actions. > > --------------------------- > > HCW: > > This is merely a useful mode of conventional speech but taken literally, IMO, is simply false. > > ------------------------ > > > > D: when you think of the process nature which leads to a self identity , it is ok IMO > --------------------------- > HCW: > That sentence holds nothing "ok" for me. > --------------------------- > > D: ok too .. ;-) ---------------------------- HCW: :-) --------------------------- > > > > > with Metta Dieter =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #131031 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 8:54 am Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > ---- > >> KH: It will be good to finally get this out in the open. > > > HCW: Oh yes!! Then we could all shun him except for occasional pointing at him with shock and fear! One must, of course, warn believers of the presence of infidels! ;-)) > ---- > > KH: Has there ever been any shunning or pointing at DSG? It seems to me that we treat "infidel" members even more warmly than we treat like-minded members. ---------------------------- HCW: 'Cause infidels are SCARY!!! LOL! ----------------------------- > > Dieter would have nothing to lose by *openly* adopting the Thanissaro line: > > The Not-self Strategy By Thanissaro Bhikkhu > Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali canon the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply. > The evidence for this reading of the Canon centers on four points: > 1. The one passage where the Buddha is asked point-blank to take a position on the ontological question of whether or not there is a self, he refuses to answer. > 2. The passages which state most categorically that there is no self are qualified in such a way that they cover all of describable reality, but not all of reality which may be experienced. > 3. Views that there is no self are ranked with views that there is a self as a "fetter of views" which a person aiming at release from suffering would do well to avoid. > 4. The person who has attained the goal of release views reality in such a way that all views even such basic notions as self & no-self, true & false can have no hold power over the mind. > > > KH: May I ask, is that what Dieter, Tep, Alex and others are trying to tell us? Or is my question out of order? ------------------------------- HCW: Merely as a request for information & clarification, your question is quite fine, IMO. You should ask Dieter, Tep, Alex etc for an answer, but I believe the answer to be "No". :-) As an aside, in case you don't know yet, I can say with assurance that that happens to not be MY perspective. ------------------------------- > > Ken H > ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #131032 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 10:32 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) thomaslaw03 --- "Ken H" wrote: > ... > What the Buddha did take a stand on was that *in ultimate reality* there were only dhammas, ... Which sutta (s) you refer to? I hope you are not just making it up for your Dhammas. Thomas Law #131033 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 1:40 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) kenhowardau Hi Thomas, --- > > KH: What the Buddha did take a stand on was that *in ultimate reality* there were only dhammas, ... > T: Which sutta (s) you refer to? --- KH: Usually on this point someone at DSG will quote the Sabba Sutta, or the Loka Sutta, or any of the suttas where the Buddha explains "the all" "the world" "the universe." In those suttas he says the All is the eye, eye consciousness, eye object, eye contact etc., (and so on for each of the six worlds). Would you agree that those things are all dhammas? Better still I like to quote the First (Setting the Wheel in Motion) Sutta where the Buddha answers the question `what is suffering (dukkha, the first noble truth)?" He concludes his answer with, "In short, the five aggregates of clinging are dukkha." I believe the translation "in short" can be understood as "ultimately" or "in ultimate reality." So, from the First Sutta on, the Dhamma is consistently all about khandhas, conditioned paramattha dhammas. --------------------- > T: I hope you are not just making it up for your Dhammas. -------- KH: I understand your concern. For the first twenty-five years of my Dhamma studies I was led astray by people who made up their own Dhammas. I hope you will eventually agree, as I do, that the true Dhamma is the one that is explained here at DSG -- the one in which anatta means no control. Ken H #131034 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 2:54 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > S: As discussed and clarified in the Teachings, it makes no sense to say to avoid the use of conventional language. No suggestion at all that this is appropriate. > ... > >R: There is a conclusion drawn from "only dhammas" that ordinary activities and intentions are somehow wrong and do not reflect realities. > ..... > S: I think it's the other way round. There are only realities and what we refer to as "ordinary activities and intentions" reflect those realities. They are stories about those realities. > ... That suggests that we do experience those realities and that our conventional ideas of what we are experiencing is based on them. Thus there is a relationship between what we experience conceptually and what is actually taking place. For instance, we may deduce a table from the experience of "hardness" and other qualities which sanna marks and accumulates and coordinates to form an idea of a less momentary object. The table may be a concept but it is based on the dhammas experienced. > >Thus meditation and other forms are dismissed. > .... > S: The question always comes back to "what is meditation?" What is the reality now? The question what is meditation is always a good one, and the reality now is always the subject of meditation. The conventional activity meditation also reflects the conceptual understanding of the intnetino to be aware of dhammas. That intention is expressed in a conventional way through that activity. It is the intention to be aware of the present dhamma that motivates meditation and there can be understanding that the occurrence of direct understanding cannot be controlled. But it also can arise. > >I think that the intention even to do ordinary things reflects some sort of cetana and that the activities can be the expression of that cetana, even if it is not thought of in terms of dhammas at the time. > .... > > S: Like an intention to go shopping? Straw man? :-) Cetana and activities have a relationship. > Usually, no idea about dhammas, just thinking about various ideas - like a dream, with no understanding at all. > > Usually at such a time, there's just lots of ignorance and attachment, but understanding can begin to know any dhammas that appear if there has been sufficient wise attention and consideration. The desire to engage in Buddhist meditation is one expression of such consideration. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #131035 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 3:12 pm Subject: Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention epsteinrob Hi Howard and Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > 3. Views that there is no self are ranked with views that there is a self as a "fetter of views" which a person aiming at release from suffering would do well to avoid. ... > > KH: May I ask, is that what Dieter, Tep, Alex and others are trying to tell us? Or is my question out of order? > ------------------------------- > HCW: > Merely as a request for information & clarification, your question is quite fine, IMO. You should ask Dieter, Tep, Alex etc for an answer, but I believe the answer to be "No". :-) > As an aside, in case you don't know yet, I can say with assurance that that happens to not be MY perspective. > ------------------------------- I don't know how many times one has to tell some people around here that "there is no self" before they believe you. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #131036 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 3:25 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) thomaslaw03 Ken H, ------- KH: "In short, the five aggregates of clinging are dukkha." I believe the translation "in short" can be understood as "ultimately" or "in ultimate reality." So, from the First Sutta on, the Dhamma is consistently all about khandhas, conditioned paramattha dhammas. T: No, it should not be understood as "ultimately" or "in ultimate reality." The English words (ultimate reality) can also mean in philosophy any metaphysical ideas/concepts of entity. It is better just using the actual terms/meanings, the five aggregates of clinging, dukkha, which are phenomena (dhammas) arisen by causal condition. ------- KH: the one in which anatta means no control. T: Anatta means not-self, not belonging to self. ------- Thomas #131037 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 6:41 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) kenhowardau Hi Thomas, ------- >> KH: "In short, the five aggregates of clinging are dukkha." I believe the translation "in short" can be understood as "ultimately" or "in ultimate reality." <. . .> > T: No, it should not be understood as "ultimately" or "in ultimate reality." --------- KH: Far enough! As I said before, I appreciate scepticism where interpretations of the Dhamma are concerned. So you tell me, when the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta says, "Now this, oh bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, decay is suffering . . . . not to get what one desires is suffering," why does it conclude with, "In brief, the five aggregates of clinging are suffering"? What does "in brief" mean in that context? Does it indicate a switch from conventional language teaching to ultimate language teaching? (Saying the same thing but in a different way?) If not, then what? ------------------ >> KH: the one in which anatta means no control. > T: Anatta means not-self, not belonging to self. ------------------- KH: Yes, all dhammas are devoid of you, and of me, and of anyone else. That leaves them under the control of . . . . . who? Ken H #131038 From: han tun Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 10:43 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (10) hantun1 Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 54. The Tathaagata [AN 4. 23 Loka Sutta] [Han: This sutta explains why Tathaagata is called Tathaagata.] Monks, the world is fully understood by the Tathaagata; the Tathaagata is released from the world. The origin of the world is fully understood by the Tathaagata; the origin of the world is abandoned by the Tathaagata. The cessation of the world is fully understood by the Tathaagata; the cessation of the world has been realised by the Tathaagata. The path to the cessation of the world is fully understood by the Tathaagata; the path to the cessation of the world has been developed by the Tathaagata. [Han: In another book by Bhikkhu Bodhi, there is a Note saying that A"nguttara Nikaaya A.t.thakathaa identifies the world (loka) with the truth of suffering. The four tasks that the Tathaagata has accomplished here correspond to the four tasks regarding the four noble truths: (i) full understanding the truth of suffering; (ii) abandoning the truth of its origin; (iii) realizing its cessation; (iv) and developing the path.] (1) Monks, in the world with its devas, Maara and Brahmaa, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed and cognized, attained, searched into, pondered over by the mind -- all that is fully understood by the Tathaagata. That is why he is called the Tathaagata. (2) Moreover, monks, whatever the Tathaagata speaks, utters, and proclaims from the day of his perfect enlightenment up to the day when he utterly passes away into the Nibbaana-element without residue left -- all that is just so and not otherwise. Therefore he is called the Tathaagata. (3) Monks, as the Tathaagata speaks, so he acts; as he acts, so he speaks. Therefore he is called the Tathaagata. (4) Monks, in the whole world with its devas, Maara and Brahmaa, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, devas and humans, the Tathaagata is the conqueror, unconquered, one who sees-at-will, the wielder of power. Therefore he is called the Tathaagata. By comprehending all the world, All in the world just as it is, From all the world he is released; In all the world he clings to nothing. He is the all-victorious sage, The liberator from all bonds, By him the highest peace was won: Nibbāna that is free of fear. A taintless Enlightened One, Free from all woe, with doubt destroyed, Has made an end to all kamma, Set free in the destruction of life's props. Exalted One, he is the Buddha, The lion without compare; For the divine and human worlds He has set rolling the Supreme Wheel. Therefore devas and human beings Who go for refuge to the Buddha, Meet him full of reverence, The mighty one free from self-doubt. "Tamed, of the tamed he is the best; Calmed, of the calm he is the first; Freed, of the free he is supreme; Crossed over, the best of those who cross." So saying, they pay him reverence, The mighty one free from self-doubt; In all the worlds of devas and humans There is none who ever equals you! with metta, Han #131039 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: back nilovg Dear Azita, Op 4-jun-2013, om 0:07 heeft azita het volgende geschreven: > However, without some knowledge of anatta, there is a wrong > concept that 'I' can become a more patient person. It is probably > better to see whatever arises, kusala or akusala, as just that - > not me. not mine, not myself. ----- N: Such an idea creeps in all the time. Good to be reminded. I had many occasions to be impatient, even a little. Waiting for the sisters to help me etc. Nina. #131040 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 11:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: back jagkrit2012 Dear Nina I'm so glad that you are getting better and back to help us understand more on dhamma. Today is a first day of KK discussion, and we're all missing you. Than Acharn again stressed about right understand and said that the best reality of the world is panna. Best wishes Jagkrit #131041 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 12:49 am Subject: Re: back jagkrit2012 Dear Ann Hello from KK, We just started dhamma discussion today and we all miss you and your participation. (But I'm Looking forward to seeing you in Saigon meeting) >A:..... The more one develops confidence in the teachings of the Buddha, the less one is inclined to indulge in or give credence to speculative thinking on such subjects. That the teachings of the Buddha are verifiable in daily life, now, is what makes it so compelling. JK: Yes, indeed, the teaching of the Buddha is so compelling because all is about the truth. Than Acharn said that right wording or saccha vaacha from the teaching can help us understand the truth and we have to be courageous to understand the truth, not try to doing something without right understanding. Best wishes Jagkrit #131042 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] back sukinderpal Dear Nina, Welcome back. Metta, Sukin On 6/3/2013 4:21 PM, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and friends, > > Thanking you for your kindness, I am back. > > Nina > > #131043 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 1:41 am Subject: Re: thanks moellerdieter Dear Nina, (Sarah and all) you wrote. Thanks for your kindness. I am still with a walker and even a glass of water takes me ages. I cannot be active yet. D: I try to imagine the inconvenience ..hopefully you have efficient help around. Supposing that talking about Dhamma respectively dhammas will likely keep you in good spirit , I do not hesitate to ask for your comment about a wheel publication , I stumbled upon recently. Do you agree that this explanation of Dhamma Theory is similar to (what I believe is the core) of Ajahn Sujin's teaching respectively where do you see differences? Please do not hesitate to postpone your answer due to the unfavorable circumstances you have to face at the moment THE DHAMMA THEORY Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma Prof. Dr. Y. Karunadasa The Wheel Publication No. 412/413 http://www.zeh-verlag.de/download/dhammatheory.pdf . I copied an extract from the introduction to provide some ideas about the study of 20 pages. (see below ) with Metta Dieter "All the different modes of analysis and classification found in the Abhidhamma stem from a single philosophical principle, which gave direction and shape to the entire project of systematization. This principle is the notion that all the phenomena of empirical existence are made up of a number of elementary constituents, the ultimate realities behind the manifest phenomena. These elementary constituents, the building blocks of experience, are called dhammas.1 The dhamma theory is not merely one principle among others in the body of Abhidhamma philosophy but the base upon which the entire system rests. It would thus be quite fitting to call this theory the cornerstone of the Abhidhamma. But the dhamma theory was intended from the start to be more than a mere hypothetical scheme. It arose from the need to make sense out of experiences in meditation and was designed as a guide for meditative contemplation and insight. The Buddha had taught that to see the world correctly is to see -- not persons and substances -- but bare phenomena (suddhadhamma) arising and perishing in accordance with their conditions. The task the Abhidhamma specialists set themselves was to specify exactly what these "bare phenomena" are and to show how they relate to other "bare phenomena" to make up our "common sense" picture of the world. " n the present paper I will attempt to trace the main stages in the origin and development of the dhamma theory and to explore its philosophical implications. Part I will discuss the early version of the theory as represented by the Abhidhamma Pitaka. At this stage the theory was not yet precisely articulated but remained in the background as the unspoken premise of Abhidhamma analysis. It was during the commentarial period that an attempt was made to work out the implications of early Abhidhamma thought, and it is this development that I will treat in Part II. Finally, in Part III, I will discuss two other topics that received philosophical study as a consequence of the dhamma theory, namely, the category of the nominal and the conceptual (paatti) and the theory of the twofold truth. Both of these were considered necessary measures to preserve the validity of the dhamma theory in relation to our routine, everyday understanding of ourselves and the world in which we dwell. The Early Version of the Dhamma Theory Although the dhamma theory is an Abhidhammic innovation, the antecedent trends that led to its formulation and its basic ingredients can be traced to the early Buddhist scriptures which seek to analyse empiric individuality and its relation to the external world. In the discourses of the Buddha there are five such modes of analysis. The first, the analysis into nama and rupa,2 is the most elementary in the sense that it specifies the two main components, the mental and the corporeal aspects, of the empiric individual. The second is that into the five khandhas (aggregates): corporeality (rupa), sensation (vedana), perception (saa), mental formations (sankhara), and consciousness (viaa).3 The third is that into six dhatus (elements): earth (pathavi), water (apo), temperature (tejo), air (vayo), space (akasa), and consciousness (viaa).4 The fourth is that into twelve ayatanas (avenues of sense-perception and mental cognition): the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind; and their corresponding objects: visible form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and mental objects.5 The fifth is that into eighteen dhatus (elements), an elaboration of the immediately preceding mode obtained by the addition of the six kinds of consciousness which arise from the contact between the sense organs and their objects. The six additional items are the visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and mental consciousnesses.6 etc. etc. #131044 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 2:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (3) Intention moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: HCW: By "not an indvidual phenomenon," I mean not a single element, but a *collection* of elements. ----------------------------- D: agreed .. > > > > None of these constitute a Self and I think we should avoid to equal the term person with Self. > ------------------------- > HCW: > I quite agree. A person is not and has not a self. > -------------------------- > > As we know the self or I is based on identification by clinging in any of the khandhas (this I am, this is mine etc.). --------------------------- HCW: Not "the self" but "the IDEA of the self." ----------------------------- D: thinking about a difference ..seems to me leading to mirror in the mirror.. > > The khandhas are not self, but the stream , the process within , directed by elements of D.O. leading to attachment is of self nature , though without substance. > --------------------------- > HCW: > What does it mean for a namarupic stream to "be of self nature"? Such a stream includes, except in the case of arahants, the recurring sense of self, but, in fact, there is no self there and no self-nature there. > --------------------------- > > D: the point is -as I see it- reflection , which presents the idea of self... carried within the process of D.O. and appears after vedana- (tanha-upadana- bhava etc.) ---------------------------- HCW: Yes, the IDEA of self. So, the namarupic is not of self-nature but is defiled by sense of self. -------------------------- D: agreed > > HCW: > The expression 'these selves' is not a good replacement for 'these persons"/"these assemblies"/"these namarupic streams", for the latter expressions refer merely to collections of dhammas, whereas the term 'selves' refers, I believe, to total fictions. > ----------------------------- > > D: but there is attachment, identification , although a misunderstood 'mirage' ----------------------------- HCW: Yes, the mirage/illusion of self. ----------------------------- > > > > D: the function of 'seeing , hearing ..etc only ' becomes 'selfish' by reflection: I see , I hear etc. --------------------------- HCW: Yes. ----------------------- D: hence the reflection concerns the All of the 6 senses media . Coming back to the point of intention: ( avijja -) sankhara conditions vinnana -nama /rupa.., which is volition from the accumulated past or " old kamma brought into existence and created by volition .." i.e. the here-and now we are re-acting to ( = " And what is new kamma? The action one performs now by body speech and mind .. " (compare SN 35,145 ) Crucial here are the cetasikas , in particular the 50 of the mental formations , sankhara khandha. The function of this aggregate is defined (SN XII 2) by volition , contact and attention (in respect to the All) and here we can trace the so-called 'free will' , can't we ?. with Metta Dieter #131045 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 3:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] back nilovg Dear Sukin, thank you for your kindness, Nina. Op 4-jun-2013, om 17:30 heeft Sukinder het volgende geschreven: #131046 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 3:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Dieter and Ann. nilovg Dear Dieter and Ann, Thanks Dieter for your concern. I hope Ann will add to my post. When I was in revalidation, she skyped and took a lot of time to read posts of Alberto to me. She said she wahted to discuss these points more. Here I go. Op 4-jun-2013, om 17:41 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > Do you agree that this explanation of Dhamma Theory is similar to > (what I believe is the core) of Ajahn Sujin's teaching respectively > where do you see differences? ------ N: Karunadasa does not write anything wrong, but what is stressed by Acharn Sujin is not stressed by anyone else. Thus, we may read K. but how will the reader take it? "Don' t forget this moment". "Study the Dhamma now". As I discussed with Ann, we learnt about naama and ruupa, but do we understand their characteristics when they appear one at a time, without any thinking? Thinking comes in all the time, and that with an idea of "I am thinking". Then we only know concepts of realities, not realities, and it is not I who knows. Anatta, anatta, this is stressed and not by way of theory. Pa~n~naa works its way and that is why Acharn says: we cannot do anything. All this has nothing to do with a theory of Dhamma, no theory at all. Nina. #131047 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 3:58 am Subject: To Dieter and Ann, 2. nilovg Dear Dieter and Ann, another transcription from Alberto: We can begin to understand what life really is. Nina. #131048 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 4:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: back nilovg Dear Jagkrit, Op 4-jun-2013, om 16:49 heeft jagkrit2012 het volgende geschreven: > The more one develops confidence in the teachings of the Buddha, > the less one is inclined to indulge in or give credence to > speculative thinking on such subjects. That the teachings of the > Buddha are verifiable in daily life, now, is what makes it so > compelling. ----- N: No thinking, but direct awareness, that is what we have to learn. As you repeated, we have to be courageous to know the truth. Never give up, but without an idea of self who never gives up. ------ Nina. #131049 From: "Gregory E. LeBlanc, L.Ac." Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Dieter and Ann, 2. gleblanc108 Greetings Nina and all, Is it correct in this understanding of Dhamma to say that before thinking everything experienced in present moment is Buddhism? That confusing thinking for reality is the conventional vs. ultimate reality? Therefore attachment to concepts is the defilement and cause of Dukkha. Thank you Greg Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > >Dear Dieter and Ann, another transcription from Alberto: > >unknowingly, even right now while we're talking about it, seeing sees >and is gone, because there is hearing and thinking; so this will >condition some understanding about: life is not permanent; and what >is life? usually is seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and >thinking; so they are not permanent, the whole life; and nobody can >control, or nobody can make anything up, that's why it's dhamma, >everything is dhamma; it doesn't belong to anyone, and it's no one at >all; that can be proved, and developed, with more and more >understanding about whatever appears right now; because we think that >we see people and things, but in reality it's only that which can >see, only; and we call it visible object, even if we don't call it >anything at all, it is seen, right? that which is seen now, is it >near or far? no idea, because it's only that which is seen; but if >there's a question about whether is far or near, it's thinking, not >seeing; so in a day there is always thinking and thinking and thinking. <...> #131050 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 10:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: to Dieter and Ann. philofillet Dear Nina It is very good you are feeling stronger and are back, and very good that Alberto and Sarah posted transcripts, thank you for that. Without that DSG is a lot of cutting and pasting of sutta passages and that is such a naturally appealing thing to do, but appealing to what? Lobha, moha manna, other kilesas. We can read them but they are descriptions of advanced understanding. People never get that, and they remain lost in their web of wrong ideas. They need a wise Dhamma friend to help them cut through that and begin at the beginning gradually (and un-thrillingly) developing understanding of the dhammas that are arising now, not in some imagined understanding of D.O or whatever advanced topic they cling to so happily. We all have suffered from that and still do at times when we study details of Abhidhamma. But at least we have a friend who brings us back again and again to what can be known NOW. . Anyways, welcome back. I will be absent because there aren't conditions for me to behave patiently and kindly to our wise friend's self-confident opponents. But it is such a breath of fresh understanding for DSG to have you back. Mudita! Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Dieter and Ann, > Thanks Dieter for your concern. > I hope Ann will add to my post. When I was in revalidation, she > skyped and took a lot of time to read posts of Alberto to me. She > said she wahted to discuss these points more. > Here I go. > Op 4-jun-2013, om 17:41 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > > Do you agree that this explanation of Dhamma Theory is similar to > > (what I believe is the core) of Ajahn Sujin's teaching respectively > > where do you see differences? > ------ > N: Karunadasa does not write anything wrong, but what is stressed by > Acharn Sujin is not stressed by anyone else. Thus, we may read K. but > how will the reader take it? > "Don' t forget this moment". "Study the Dhamma now". As I discussed > with Ann, we learnt about naama and ruupa, but do we understand their > characteristics when they appear one at a time, without any thinking? > Thinking comes in all the time, and that with an idea of "I am > thinking". Then we only know concepts of realities, not realities, > and it is not I who knows. Anatta, anatta, this is stressed and not > by way of theory. Pa~n~naa works its way and that is why Acharn says: > we cannot do anything. > All this has nothing to do with a theory of Dhamma, no theory at all. > Nina. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #131051 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 10:45 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 27. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 4, `Understanding of the Present Moment' (cont'd): We have learnt that what we take for a person or self are naama and ruupa. We were often reminded by Acharn that we may say that there are naama and ruupa, but that their characteristics can be known only right at the moment they appear. Then we do not need the words naama and ruupa, we do not have to think about them. There is a reality that experiences and a reality that is experienced. We pay attention mostly to the object that is experienced but we should remember that if there is no reality that experiences, nothing can appear, there is no world. Acharn wanted to help us to understand the characteristic that appears right now instead of thinking about it. When we think about seeing and visible object we only know concepts of realities. Acharn said: "We do not have to say that seeing is naama, visible object is ruupa. There is no need to say this because that is only remembrance of the terms one has heard many times and thought about. But what about this moment of seeing? It is so real, because whatever is seen, is seen now and that which is seen is not that which experiences or that which sees it. We do not have to say: `It is naama which sees and ruupa which is seen.' This is not necessary. That is not the way to understand it. The way to understand it is knowing that when there is seeing right now that this is seeing. What does it see, what is seen? The thing that is seen is not the seeing. So, there is the beginning of understanding the nature of a reality which can be seen as just that which can be seen, not: that which can be heard." (To be continued) #131052 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 11:09 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) thomaslaw03 Ken H, > ------- > KH: "In short, the five aggregates of clinging are dukkha." I believe the translation "in short" can be understood as "ultimately" or "in ultimate > reality." . . . > > T: No, it should not be understood as "ultimately" or "in ultimate reality." > > KH: Far enough! As I said before, I appreciate scepticism where interpretations of the Dhamma are concerned. > > So you tell me, when the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta says, "Now this, oh bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, decay is suffering . . . . not to get what one desires is suffering," why does it conclude with, "In brief, the five aggregates of clinging are suffering"? > > What does "in brief" mean in that context? Does it indicate a switch from conventional language teaching to ultimate language teaching? (Saying the same thing but in a different way?) If not, then what? > T: It (sa.mkhittena, sankhitta, pp. of sankhipati) means "in short, concisely" in that context. Do not just make it up for your Dhammas. > ------------------ > KH: the one in which anatta means no control. > > T: Anatta means not-self, not belonging to self. > > > KH: Yes, all dhammas are devoid of you, and of me, and of anyone else. That leaves them under the control of . . . . . who? > T: They are arisen by causal condition (pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa). ------------ Thomas #131053 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 2:38 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! for Ken (et al) kenhowardau Hi Thomas, ---- T: It (sa.mkhittena, sankhitta, pp. of sankhipati) means "in short, concisely" in that context. ------ KH: Yes, of course you are right. (I think I am right too, by the way.) But I wonder if you know why you are right. Do you agree that the Buddha's description of dukkha in that sutta began with conventional terminology and ended with Abhidhamma terminology? If you do agree, what does that mean to you? Does it tell you that conventional things can be dukkha? Or does it tell you only conditioned dhammas are dukkha? -------------- > T: Do not just make it up for your Dhammas. -------------- KH: I am not making anything up. Are you? Do you, for example, practice something called vipassana meditation? If so, did you make it up, or did you find it in the Tipitaka? Where in the Tipitaka is vipassana meditation even mentioned, let alone taught? ---------------------- <. . .> > T: They are arisen by causal condition (pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa). ---------------------- KH The question was, "Are dhammas controlled by anyone?" Do you have any intentions of making progress towards enlightenment and of practising right-mindfulness? In other words, do you believe in control over dhammas? Ken H #131054 From: sprlrt@... Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 9:26 pm Subject: Re: TA on dream sprlrt (transcript of Than Acharn talk, recorded in Hua Hin, 11th, am-A, 31m.30) - 2 - TA: And what is a dream? Because we call it 'a dream', so it must be different from this moment; what did one dream about last night? what did appear in a moment of dream? it's not now; and what is the difference between a dream and not a dream? in a dream there's no actual seeing, not the actual appearing of visible object, no sound or anything at all; it's only thinking about that, by conditions; who knows about what one will dream tonight, or tomorrow, but there are conditions for that to arise; and we know that it's just a dream because realities do not appear as they do now, that's why we call it dream. But in another sense, since one cannot get anything from a dream at all, it's like: no one can get anything out of this moment as concrete or permanent thing, it's only object of experiencing, that's all. #131055 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 10:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TA on dream nilovg Dear Alberto, Thank you. We are actually dreaming al day instead of understanding what is real. Nina. Op 5-jun-2013, om 13:26 heeft sprlrt@... het volgende geschreven: > TA: And what is a dream? Because we call it 'a dream', so it must > be different from this moment; #131056 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 10:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Phil. nilovg Dear Phil, I always like it to answer you and write to you. You always have good remarks, to the point. Op 5-jun-2013, om 2:14 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > They need a wise Dhamma friend to help them cut through that and > begin at the beginning gradually (and un-thrillingly) developing > understanding of the dhammas that are arising now, not in some > imagined understanding of D.O or whatever advanced topic they cling > to so happily. ------- N: The level of pariyatti is necessary, so long as one sees that it always concerns this moment. So good that Acharn explains that whatever appears is only, only a reality. In that way we shall know what paramattha dhamma is, what dhamma is. She helps people to understand dhamma now, otherwise they will always stay at the level of book knowledge. Nobody else can explain it the way she does. Why is courage emphasized? Because knowing dhamma now leads to detachment and one is more inclined to attachment. Detachment is against the stream. Nina. #131057 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 3:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Dieter and Ann. moellerdieter Dear Nina, Ann (and all interested..), you wrote: Thanks Dieter for your concern. I hope Ann will add to my post. When I was in revalidation, she skyped and took a lot of time to read posts of Alberto to me. She said she wahted to discuss these points more. D: nice to learn ..I just thought : even at the time of misery , there can be some sunshine in the dark ... ;-) (D:Do you agree that this explanation of Dhamma Theory is similar to > (what I believe is the core) of Ajahn Sujin's teaching respectively > where do you see differences? ) ------ N: Karunadasa does not write anything wrong, but what is stressed by Acharn Sujin is not stressed by anyone else. Thus, we may read K. but how will the reader take it? "Don' t forget this moment". "Study the Dhamma now". As I discussed with Ann, we learnt about naama and ruupa, but do we understand their characteristics when they appear one at a time, without any thinking? Thinking comes in all the time, and that with an idea of "I am thinking". Then we only know concepts of realities, not realities, and it is not I who knows. Anatta, anatta, this is stressed and not by way of theory. Pa~n~naa works its way and that is why Acharn says: we cannot do anything. All this has nothing to do with a theory of Dhamma, no theory at all. D: I am not clear what you mean by 'no theory at all'? Acharn (and you) assume obviously basic knowledge of the theory , i.e. pariyatti translated into patipatti , the study of Dhamma now. I do agree with you that the study of nama and rupas is ideally done without thinking about the characteristics , which is concept and 'clouds' the pure seeing, hearing, etc... Furthermore we agree about the I involvement .. I quote from the recent discussion with Howard: "D: the point is -as I see it- reflection , which presents the idea of self... carried within the process of D.O. and appears after vedana- (tanha-upadana- bhava etc.) ---------------------------- HCW: Yes, the IDEA of self. So, the namarupic is not of self-nature but is defiled by sense of self. -------------------------- D: agreed" unquote I like to point out that I said 'study of nama and rupas is ideally done ' , here as well we need to assume that the usually 'high speed' of mind and body is calmed down in order to avoid the interference of thinking . There is action necessary ( lessen the 5 hindrances) in order to experience non-action , i.e. reality instead of concept. When K. states "In the discourses of the Buddha there are five such modes of analysis. The first, the analysis into nama and rupa,2 is the most elementary in the sense that it specifies the two main components, the mental and the corporeal aspects, of the empiric individual. The second is that into the five khandhas (aggregates): corporeality (rupa), sensation (vedana), perception (saa), mental formations (sankhara), and consciousness (viaa).3 The third is that into six dhatus (elements): earth (pathavi), water (apo), temperature (tejo), air (vayo), space (akasa), and consciousness (viaa).4 The fourth is that into twelve ayatanas (avenues of sense-perception and mental cognition): the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind; and their corresponding objects: visible form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and mental objects.5 The fifth is that into eighteen dhatus (elements), an elaboration of the immediately preceding mode obtained by the addition of the six kinds of consciousness which arise from the contact between the sense organs and their objects. The six additional items are the visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and mental consciousnesses.6 " I recall familiar terrain in DSG discussions , at least with the first three modes mentioned above.. with Metta Dieter "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." (Immanuell Kant) #131058 From: han tun Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 7:04 am Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (11) hantun1 Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 56 The Lion [AN 4.33 Siiha Sutta] Monks, the lion, the king of beasts, comes forth from his lair in the evening. Then he stretches himself, surveys the four directions all around, and roars three times his lion's roar, after which he sets out in search of prey. Now whatever animals hear the lion's roar are for the most part gripped by fear, excitement and terror. Those animals which live in holes hide in their holes; those which live in the forest resort to the forest; and the birds rise into the sky. All the royal elephants living in villages, towns or capital cities, tethered with strong leather thongs, burst and break those thongs and, voiding urine and excrement, they run here and there full of fear. So much power, O monks, has the lion, the king of beasts, over the animals, so mighty is his influence and majesty. Just so, monks, the Tathaagata arises in the world, an arahant, fully enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, sublime, knower of the world, unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One. He teaches the Dhamma thus: "Such is personality, such is the origin of personality, such is the cessation of personality, such is the path leading to the cessation of personality." [Han: Here, "iti sakkaayo, iti sakkaayasamudayo, iti sakkaayanirodho, iti sakkaayanirodhagaaminii pa.tipadaa" is translated as "Such is personality, such is the origin of personality, such is the cessation of personality, such is the path leading to the cessation of personality." In another book by Bhikkhu Bodhi, it is translated as "Such is personal existence, such the origin of personal existence, such the cessation of personal existence, such the way to the cessation of personal existence."] Then, monks, whatever devas there be -- long-lived, lovely, full of happiness, living for a long time in their lofty celestial abodes -- they too, when hearing the Tathaagata's teaching of the Dhamma, are for the most part gripped by fear, excitement and terror, and exclaim: "Oh, we who thought ourselves to be permanent are really impermanent. We who thought ourselves to be secure are really insecure. We who thought ourselves to be eternal are really non-eternal. So indeed we are impermanent, insecure, and non-eternal, and are within the sphere of personality." [Han: Here, "Maya.m kira bho, aniccaa addhuvaa asassataa sakkaayapariyaapannaa" is translated as "So indeed we are impermanent, insecure, and non-eternal, and are within the sphere of personality." In another book by Bhikkhu Bodhi, it is translated as "It seems that we are impermanent, transient, non-eternal, included in personal existence."] So much power, O monks, has the Tathaagata over the world with its devas, so mighty is his influence and majesty. with metta, Han #131059 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 10:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: back tambach Dear Nina, I am glad you are back and operational again. I hope the recovery will be as smooth as possible, well, a chance to develop many paramis anyway :-) Looking forward to reading your contributions. Metta, Tam #131060 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 11:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin tambach Dear Sarah, Tks for offering us this opportunity. There's a sutta I read some time ago and would like to understand more about the meaning (Suda sutta in Samyutta Nikaya - TB's translation -http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html): "In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.[3] He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact. As a result, he is not rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, nor with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk does not take note of his own mind.[4] "In the same way, there are cases where a wise, experienced, skillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself... feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind becomes concentrated, his defilements are abandoned. He takes note of that fact. As a result, he is rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, together with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the wise, experienced, skillful monk picks up on the theme of his own mind. I am a bit unclear about "He doesn't take note of that fact", or "he takes note of that fact". What does that means? In the Vietnamese translation, there's a different rendering, something to do with nimita or features... Metta, Tam B lf any of you have any qus for A.Sujin, most welcome to send them as we'll have 3 days with her in Kaeng Krachan. Metta Sarah ===== #131061 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 11:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin tambach Dear Sarah, Here is another one: we read in "a survey of paramatha dhammas", chapter 13: "There are two types of cittas performing five functions, which are the function of rebirth, bhavanga, santíraùa, tadålambana and dying, namely: investigating-consciousness accompanied by indifferent feeling that is akusala vipåka and investigating-consciousness accompanied by indifferent feeling that is kusala vipåka." When satirana citta is said to perform the function of bhavanga, does that mean it arises after receiving-consciousness which performs the function of cuti-citta, and that arises after sense-consciousness? Quite a puzzle, since normally those cittas have one of the five sense-objects as object, whereas bhavanga citta has a different object. What is then the proper understanding of this detail? Thanks and metta, Tam B #131062 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: back nilovg Dear Tam Bach, Op 6-jun-2013, om 2:56 heeft Tam Bach het volgende geschreven: > I am glad you are back and operational again. I hope the recovery > will be as smooth as possible, well, a chance to develop many > paramis anyway :-) ----- N: Thank you. Acharn's book on the paramis I reread during my stay in the revalidation. I felt I needed to be reminded, especially parience! And upekkhaa! Like the Bodhisatta who was pestered by naughty children and stayed in a cemetery to have more chance to be insulted and develop patience. A moving story. Nina. #131063 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 5:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Dieter and Ann. nilovg Dear Dieter, you really consider Dhamma subjects. I appreciate that. Op 5-jun-2013, om 19:43 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > D: nice to learn ..I just thought : even at the time of misery , > there can be some sunshine in the dark ... ;-) > ----- > N: I found that too, a chance to consider more the perfections. To rmember what is really true in life: realities now, and not the stories of pain, discomfort, etc. we are clinging to so much with an idea of self who experiences all those things. ------- > D: <... Pa~n~naa works its way and that is why Acharn says: we > cannot do anything. All Dhamma, no theory at all. > > D: I am not clear what you mean by 'no theory at all'? Acharn (and > you) assume obviously basic knowledge of the theory , i.e. > pariyatti translated into patipatti , the study of Dhamma now. > I do agree with you that the study of nama and rupas is ideally > done without thinking about the characteristics , which is concept > and 'clouds' the pure seeing, hearing, etc... > ------- N: It is done, yeah, yeah, that is so tricky and subtle. Nothing is actually done, but we are so used to a self who does something. But if we realize this it already helps. A subtle point, that is why Acharn says that the dhamma is so subtle. ------- > > D: I like to point out that I said 'study of nama and rupas is > ideally done ' , here as well we need to assume that the usually > 'high speed' of mind and body is calmed down in order to avoid the > interference of thinking . There is action necessary ( lessen the 5 > hindrances) in order to experience non-action , i.e. reality > instead of concept. > ------ N: There is no need to think of high speed. Reaities arise and fall away so fast but characteristics appear now and then. Nobody can calm down high speed, self again. First things first: whatever appears is only a dhamma, that is all. There is a dhamma that experiences and a dhamma that does not experience anything. This is enough for the moment. ------- > > D: When K. states > > "In the discourses of the Buddha there are five such modes of > analysis. The first, the analysis into nama and rupa,2 > is the most elementary in the sense that it specifies the two main > components, the mental and the corporeal > aspects, of the empiric individual. The second is that into the > five khandhas..... > --------- N: Yes, we read in the suttas all the time about naama and ruupa, the khandhas, the dhaatus, the ayaatanas. That is right. But what are they? Do we realize that all these elements are appearing now? They are only elements, they cannot be owned by a self. It is not enough to read and remember these different classifications, but they are appearing now, now. Right now. When we have understood this, we read the whole Tipitaka in a different way, pertaining to the present moment. Each sutta becomes so much more meaningful. ------ > > D: "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without > experience is mere intellectual play." (Immanuell Kant) > ------ N: Good old Kant. ------ Nina. #131064 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin nilovg Dear Tam Bach, Op 6-jun-2013, om 3:09 heeft Tam Bach het volgende geschreven: > I am a bit unclear about "He doesn't take note of that fact", or > "he takes note of that fact". What does that means? In the > Vietnamese translation, there's a different rendering, something to > do with nimita or features... ------ N: The English translation is confusing: concentrated, focussed. But we can read all this with understanding that there are only citta, cetasika and ruupa which perform their functions. It is pa~n~naa which understands that realities are such or such. He takes note of that fact: there is understanding that understands. We can translate it in paramattha terms. In suttas often conventional terms like taking note of are used to point to realities. ------ Nina. #131065 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 5:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin nilovg Dear Tam Bach, Op 6-jun-2013, om 3:21 heeft Tam Bach het volgende geschreven: > When satirana citta is said to perform the function of bhavanga, > does that mean it arises after receiving-consciousness which > performs the function of cuti-citta, and that arises after sense- > consciousness? > > Quite a puzzle, since normally those cittas have one of the five > sense-objects as object, whereas bhavanga citta has a different > object. ----- N: Santirana citta performs different functions, and when it performs the function of bhavanga it does not arise after the receiving- consciousness. This means: it is the same type of citta with the same types of cetasikas accompanied, ahetuka, vipaakacitta. That is all. Your question reminds me of the questions of Lodewijk about this. He found it always diffficult to grasp it. The meaning is merely: the same type of citta can perform different functions. It is just called santiranacitta. ------ Nina. #131066 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 5:44 pm Subject: Re: on dream sprlrt Dear Nina, (Phil), You're very welcome. I must also thank Sarah and Jon for providing the audio files, Ajahn for her talks, and also everyone who asked her questions; a team effort :-) Alberto PS I've realized I've made some English mistakes which are not in the recordings, like 'Did you remember...' (instead of 'Do you...', right?). #131067 From: "Tony H" Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 6:42 pm Subject: Nargajunas Stance... tony.humphreys Ken...the new thread as you suggested. These explanations (below) are vivid and extremely clear. My belief is that if understood they will be believed as truths. However, in the smallest of nutshells, I would explain Nargajunas stance like this: Nothing exists independently and is therefore lacking any inherent existnce. This is unrefutable and a relentless fact. Things do exist, but not in the way that they appear. Their mode of existence is illusory. This is true for anything and everything that can be brought to the table...including that which you call Ultimate Realities. Nothing at all anywhere ever, escapes the logic of irreducability... Althought not mentioning Nargajuna directly this is a good explanation of Shunyata that fits with Nargajunas intention perfectly. http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html Try this, originally from a BuddhaDharma ariticle lost in the dim and distant past I am afriad. so no direct references...: ************************ Beyond No-Self According to many Buddhist schools, grasping at the notion of a real and substantial self is the root of ignorance. But while insight into the truth of personal selflessness, or no-self, is an important step, says the Dalai Lama in his new book, The Middle Way, it doesn't go far enough. The teaching on the twelve links of dependent origination is common to all Buddhist traditions; however, the interpretation of the twelve links, their processes, and particularly the explanation of the first link, ignorance, is different for the Madhyamaka school than it is for the other philosophical schools. The other schools define fundamental ignorance as grasping at the self-existence of the person. Grasping at the self-existence of a person means believing there is a self that is somehow distinct from our body and mindour aggregates. Such a self is thought to act like a master over the physical and mental components of a person. The seventh-century Indian Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti gives an example of this belief in his Exposition of Valid Cognition (Pramanavarttika): Say an old person whose body is deteriorating and is full of aches is given the opportunity to exchange his body for a much healthier body. From the depths of his mind would emerge a ready willingness to take part in such an exchange. This suggests that deep down, we believe in a self that is distinct from our body, yet somehow master over it. Similarly, if a person with a poor memory or some other mental deficiency were given an opportunity to exchange his or her mind for a fresh one with superior cognitive powers, again from the depth of the heart would arise a real willingness to enter into the transaction. This suggests that not only in relation to our body but also in relation to our mental faculties, we believe in a self who would benefit from such an exchange, a self that it is somehow the ruler or master of the body and mind. The other schools define grasping at self-existence as the belief in this kind of discrete selfa self-sufficient and substantially real master that is in charge of the servant body-and-mind. For them, the negation of that kind of self is the full meaning of selflessness, or no-self. When we search for such a self by investigating whether it is separate from the psychophysical aggregates or identical to them, we discover that no such self exists. The other schools' interpretation of the twelve links of dependent origination therefore defines fundamental ignorance as grasping at such a self-sufficient and substantially real self. Madhyamikas would agree that gaining insight into such a selflessness does open the way to reversing the cycle. However, as Nagarjuna argues, while this is a form of grasping at selfhood, it does not get at the subtlest meaning of selflessness. With insight into this grosser type of selflessness, you can reverse some habits related to the grosser afflictions. But wherever there is grasping at an intrinsic existence of the aggregatesthe body and mind there will always be a danger of grasping at a self or "I" based on those aggregates. As Nagarjuna writes in his Precious Garland (Ratnavali): As long as there is grasping at the aggregates, there is grasping at self; when there is grasping at self there is karma, and from it comes birth. Nagarjuna argues that just as grasping at the intrinsic existence of the person or self is fundamental ignorance, grasping at the intrinsic existence of the aggregates is also grasping at self-existence. Madhyamikas therefore distinguish two kinds of emptinessthe lack of any self that is separate from the aggregates, which they call the emptiness of self, and the lack of intrinsic existence of the aggregates themselvesand by extension all phenomenawhich they call the emptiness of phenomena. Realizing the first kind of emptiness, Nagarjuna and his followers argue, may temporarily suppress manifest afflictions, but it can never eradicate the subtle grasping at the true existence of things. To understand the meaning of the first link, fundamental ignorance, in its subtlest sense, we must identify and understand it as grasping at the intrinsic existence of all phenomenaincluding the aggregates, sense spheres, and all external objectsand not merely our sense of "I." ... But here again, we cannot speak of knowledge without speaking of an individual who has or does not have knowledge. We come back again to the question of the self. What exactly is its nature? This type of inquiry predates the Buddha. Such questioning was already prevalent in India before the Buddha arrived. Until he taught, the dominant belief was that since everyone has an innate sense of selfhood, a natural instinctive notion of "I am," there must be some enduring thing that is the real self. Since the physical and mental faculties that constitute our existence are transientthey change, age, and then one day ceasethey cannot be the true self. Were they the real self, then our intuition of an enduring self that is somehow independent but also a master of our body and mind would have to be false. Thus, before the Buddha, the concept of the self as independent and separate from the physical and the mental faculties, was commonly accepted. Innate grasping of selfhood is reinforced by this kind of philosophical reflection. These Indian philosophers maintained that the self did not undergo a process of change. We say, "when I was young, I was like this," and "when I am older, I will do this," and these philosophers asserted that these statements presume the presence of an unchanging entity that constitutes our identity throughout the different stages of our life. These thinkers also maintained that since highly advanced meditators could recall their past lives, this supported their position that the self takes rebirth, moving from one life to the next. They maintained that this true self was unchanging and eternal and, somehow, independent of the physical and the mental aggregates. That was largely the consensus before the Buddha. The Buddha argued against this position. Not only is our intuition of an inborn self a delusion, he said, the philosophical tenets that strengthen and reinforce such a belief are a source of all kinds of false views. The Buddhist sutras therefore refer to the belief in selfhood itself as the mind of the deceiver Marathe embodiment of delusionand as the source of all problems. The Buddha rejected the idea of a self that is somehow independent of the body and mind. Does that mean that the person does not, in any sense whatsoever, exist at all? Buddha responded that the person does indeed exist, but only in relation to the physical and mental aggregates and in dependence on them. Thus the existence of the individual is accepted only as a dependent entity and not as an independent, absolute reality. Buddhist philosophical schools therefore all agree that an independent self, separate from the body and mind, cannot be found. However, when we say "I do this" or "I do that," what exactly is the true referent of the person? What exactly is the person then? Diverse opinions arose among the Buddhist schools regarding the exact identification of the nature of this dependent person. Given their shared acceptance of existence across lifetimes, all Buddhist philosophical schools rule out the continuum of the body as constituting the continuity of the person. Therefore, the differences of opinion surround the way that the continuum of consciousness could be the basis for locating the person or the individual. In a passage in his Precious Garland, Nagarjuna dissects the concept of a person and its identity by explaining that a person is not the earth element, water element, fire element, wind element, space, or consciousness. And apart from these, he asks, what else could a person be? To this he responds that a person exists as the convergence of these six constituents. The term "convergence" is the crucial word, as it suggests the interaction of the constituents in mutual interdependence. How do we understand the concept of dependence? It is helpful to reflect on a statement by Chandrakirti in his commentary on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Stanzas on the Middle Way, where the following explicit explanation of how to understand a buddha in terms of dependent origination is found. He writes, "What is it then? We posit the tathagata in dependence upon the aggregates, for it cannot be asserted to be either identical with or separate from the aggregates." His point is that if we search for the essence of something believing we can pinpoint some real thingsomething objectively real from its own side that exists as a valid referent of the term or conceptthen we will fail to find anything at all. Time and the Self In our day-to-day interactions, we often speak of time. We all take for granted the reality of time. Were we to search for what exactly time is, we could do so in two ways. One is to search with the belief that we should be able to find something objectively real that we can define as time. But we immediately run into a problem. We find that time can only be understood on the basis of something else, in relation to a particular phenomenon or event. The other way to search is in a relative framework, not presuming an objectively real entity. Take, for example, the present moment. If we search for the present moment believing that we should be able to find a unique entity in the temporal process, an objective "present," we won't find anything. As we dissect the temporal process, we instead discover that events are either past or yet to occur; we find only the past and future. Nothing is truly present because the very process of searching for it is itself a temporal process, which means that it is necessarily always at a remove from now. If, on the other hand, we search for the present within the relative framework of everyday convention, we can maintain the concept of the present. We can say "this present year," for example, within the broader context of many years. Within the framework of twelve months, we can speak of "the present month." Similarly, within that month, we can speak of "the present week," and so on, and in this relative context we can maintain coherently the notion of a present moment. But if we search for a real present that is present intrinsically, we cannot find it. In just the same way, we can ascertain the existence of a person within the conventional, relative framework without needing to search for some kind of objective, intrinsically real person that is the self. We can maintain our commonsense notion of the person or individual in relation to the physical and the mental faculties that comprise our particular existence. Because of this, in Nagarjuna's text we find references to things and events or phenomena existing only as labels, or within the framework of language and designation. Of the two possible modes of existenceobjectively real existence and nominal existenceobjectively real existence is untenable, as we have seen. Hence we can only speak of a self conventionally or nominallyin the framework of language and consensual reality. In brief, all phenomena exist merely in dependence upon their name, through the power of worldly convention. Since they do not exist objectively, phenomena are referred to in the texts as "mere terms," "mere conceptual constructs," and "mere conventions." ************************ Tony... #131068 From: "Tony H" Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 6:58 pm Subject: No Self or Not Self tony.humphreys In a previous thread - Ken H to Howard: Anyway, don't let me spoil the discussion you are having with Dieter. I think (though I am not sure) that Dieter has finally admitted to taking the Thanissaro line, "Anatta does not mean no self.") I prefer 'Not' Self....as 'No' self makes no sense. There is a self that appears to our mind. Its illusory, but there again so is everything else :) Tony... #131069 From: sprlrt@... Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 9:20 pm Subject: Re: Qus for Ajahn Sujin sprlrt Hi Sarah (Dieter), I was reading Dieter's extract of Karunadasa explaining his Abhidhamma theory, and I would like, it it's possible, to ask Ajahn to explain a little about the difference between the Dhamma as found in Suttapitaka and the Dhamma as found in the Abhidhammapitaka, and also about the meaning of pariyaaya and nippariyaaya in this context. Thanks very much, Alberto #131070 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 6, 2013 11:17 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 28. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 4, `Understanding of the Present Moment' (cont'd): Acharn kept on reminding us, saying: "There is seeing right now, seeing sees visible object." We immediately think of shape and form of things and we do not know the distinction between seeing and thinking about what is seen. Cittas arise and fall away in succession so rapidly that it seems that cittas such as seeing and perceiving shape and form occur at the same time, but in reality different types of citta arise in different processes. Many citttas arise and pass away between seeing and preceiving the shape and form of something, thinking of things and of persons we believe we see. When the ruupa that is visible object or colour associates with the ruupa that is eyesense, just for a short moment, there are conditions for seeing. Acharn said: "Without the reality that experiences an object, nothing can appear. One just pays attention to what is experienced and not to that which experiences. That which experiences can be understood as a reality. Without it there is no world, nothing can appear. By understanding this little by little one can know that at the moment of seeing, seeing is not visible object but that it sees a reality, no shape and form. Now it sees. It is very difficult to understand this because we have accumulated a lot of ignorance. We learnt only about concepts. We can come to understand what is meant by right understanding, pa~n~naa. It has to be right understanding of whatever appears now. Otherwise it is not pa~n~naa, it cannot understand the true nature of the reality which appears. It is only thinking, dreaming about different things. We can have theoretical understanding when we say: 'what is seen is visible object and then there is thinking of a concept'. And now? It is time to understand the distinction between that which is seen and that which is the object of thinking, taking it for something. Thinking of shape and form is not thinking in words. Thinking is not always thinking in words." (To be continued) #131071 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Dieter and Ann. moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: (D:D: I like to point out that I said 'study of nama and rupas is > ideally done ' , here as well we need to assume that the usually > 'high speed' of mind and body is calmed down in order to avoid the > interference of thinking . There is action necessary ( lessen the 5 > hindrances) in order to experience non-action , i.e. reality > instead of concept. N: There is no need to think of high speed. D: not 'to think of high speed '..but 'to think with (busy) high speed ' You certainly recall the Buddha's simile of a monkey jumping from branch to branch..our common state of mind is of that restless activity , spontaneous wandering , mostly accompanied by incessant chatter, the inner monolog. N: Reaities arise and fall away so fast but characteristics appear now and then. D: doesn't depend that (too) on our attention/focus? e.g. DN 22 '.. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. ' N:Nobody can calm down high speed, self again. D: ? ? ...the point is simple relaxation of this busy state (e.g. by attention to the breathing "He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication. (DN 22) Interesting is the relation of relaxation in respect to brain activity , measured by the EEG . There have been numerous scientific studies , which show that people with meditation experience slow down from the regular so called beta rhythmen (13 -30 cycles per second) typical for the everyday activity to the alpha rhythm (8-12 ) , which represents the relaxed wakeful attention , corresponding to the state of contemplation/meditation. The former may be necessary to cope with the hectic environment but when we go sight-seeing we don't use the high speed train respectively when we like to study the sight worth seeing (i.e. related to the 6senses media ) , we need to travel by pick- up train (I mean the one you are not allowed to pick-up flowers during journey) N: Yes, we read in the suttas all the time about naama and ruupa, the khandhas, the dhaatus, the ayaatanas. That is right. But what are they? Do we realize that all these elements are appearing now? They are only elements, they cannot be owned by a self. It is not enough to read and remember these different classifications, but they are appearing now, now. Right now. When we have understood this, we read the whole Tipitaka in a different way, pertaining to the present moment. Each sutta becomes so much more meaningful. ------ D: "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without > experience is mere intellectual play." (Immanuell Kant) > ------ N: Good old Kant. D: yup...pariyatti and patipatti ..he hit the nail right on the head with Metta Dieter #131072 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 7:24 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > >S: Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of > > > it, after having heard the teaching, penetrated the meaning and abandoned > > > ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. > > > > > But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , > > > penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain > > > distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. > .... > >R: I am wondering, for those who had not yet penetrated and to whom the Buddha communicated the Dhamma in conventional language, and who then penetrated the meaning, what was it in the conventional language the Buddha used that allowed them to penetrate to the realization of ultimate realities? > .... > S: It was due to their accumulated wisdom that when they heard the Teachings in ordinary language, expounded perfectly by the Buddha, that the truths about ultimate realities became clear. What would it mean to expound the Dhamma perfectly "in conventional language" if conventional language only hints at it? What makes it perfect enough to awaken people who are ready, even though conventional? > Like now - we've heard a lot about seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, for example - just dhammas. So whatever we read in the newspaper or whatever we hear on TV, we know there are just conditioned dhammas arising and falling away. So that information, understood in theory, prepares citta for seeing directly what it has heard about and marked through sanna as the definitino of realities? > Even though the Buddha used conventional language in most the suttas, it was made very clear that there are only khandhas, only elements arising and falling away. No self involved. There are many many suttas where he did not make this clear. He taught about different levels of reality in a variety of suttas and settings, and did not always discuss the kandhas. In the Metta sutta, he spends the whole sutta praising metta, and does not mention that the being it is directed to is conceptual: "Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child, even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless heart: Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without enmity or hate." > > In addition it strikes me as noteworthy that according to the above, the Buddha would speak to those who had not yet penetrated the understanding of paramatha dhammas in conventional language, and only after they had penetrated the meaning would he communicate to them in terms of ultimate realities. > .... > S: I think that those who've not yet "penetrated the understanding of paramatha dhammas" need to hear a lot of detail, a lot of reminders about khandhas, dhatus, present realities, anatta and so on. When there is no doubt about such realities, it doesn't matter what language is used. I realize that this is the view for the most part on dsg, but this is the opposite of what is said in the sutta, which suggests that the Buddha would speak in conventional terms to the uninitiated, and in dhamma terms to those who had greater understanding. > In the Buddha's time, there were so many disciples who only needed to hear a very little, like Bahiya or Sariputta. They had accumulated a lot of wisdom in past lives. Just a sentence about realities was enough. It's not like that for us. It seems that there were many different levels at the time of the Buddha as well. I don't think the ordinary monk doing the normal practice would necessarily get a sutta that memorialized his ordinary course of progress. When such an ordinary practice was memorialized, it is given as the common teaching, rather than highlighting an individual, as in the anapanasati sutta, which mentions a gathering of many different monks of different levels. > > So it seems to follow that perhaps we should do the same thing. It has been said recently that the Buddha communicated to those who had deeper understanding in conventional language since they all understood the real meaning, and that it is only necessary to speak in direct dhamma language to those who cannot understand that conventional speech actually refers to ultimate realities. It seems that the commentary here is saying that it works in the opposite order. > .... > S: If we never hear that there are just those kinds of dhammas which can experience an object and those kinds of dhammas which never experience an object, will there ever be the understanding of realities as not-self? Well that begs the question of why the Buddha would speak in ordinary language most of the time. > Of course, the "penny drops" at different times and in different ways for us all. I found it so helpful to hear about how only visible object is seen, how only sound is heard and how this is followed by long stories. It became so obvious that no one could select what was seen or heard or what experience would arise next. I find that information very valuable too, but I don't hear the Buddha speaking about that at all. > It also became obvious that it was totally useless to focus on an object, to try to be aware of any object at all. Awareness and understanding could arise anytime at all. Without hearing about dhammas (realities) as anatta, it's impossible to discover this for ourselves. On this final point, I of course don't totally agree. The cetana involved in developing resolve to understand arising dhammas, whatever they may be, does not have to be self-based. Distraction, restlessness, etc. are obstacles to both samatha and sati, and creating a physical environment that minimizes these is not a symptom of control, but a sensible thing to do for part of the day. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #131073 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 8:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: to Phil. philofillet Dear Nina > > I always like it to answer you and write to you. You always have good > remarks, to the point. Ph: My behaviour is always very bad here. There is so much aversion about certain stories about certain people. Those stories have a lot of pull, kilesas function in line with the way they are deeply accumulated to do. Phil behaves hatefully, another story. But basic wisdom understands that there are just dhammas performing functions, and there is not painful concern about bad behaviour. It is understanding, that is better than struggling with self-pride to change it. And the wisdom develops gradually, and in line with that there is less and less bad behaviour. Now that her most vocal opponent seems to have disappeared lobha allows me to participate again for awhile. Lobha arranges the flowers the way lobha likes it and gets rid of the weeds. More importantly your arrival is the kusala push towards participation, understanding of Dhamma is the greatest treasure, pride about self-image pales in comparison. > > They need a wise Dhamma friend to help them cut through that and > > begin at the beginning gradually (and un-thrillingly) developing > > understanding of the dhammas that are arising now, not in some > > imagined understanding of D.O or whatever advanced topic they cling > > to so happily. > ------- > N: The level of pariyatti is necessary, so long as one sees that it > always concerns this moment. So good that Acharn explains that > whatever appears is only, only a reality. In that way we shall know > what paramattha dhamma is, what dhamma is. She helps people to > understand dhamma now, otherwise they will always stay at the level > of book knowledge. Nobody else can explain it the way she does. Truly. I guess that's why I feel frustrated here. Opinions and themes of debated are allowed to flourish here although they would just drop off the branch and die quickly on the ground during a live discussion. Because understanding is attending those live discussions thanks to her, the listener's understanding that agrees so quickly that debating difficult topics is useless compared to being brought back to seeing now, hearing now, which aren't sexy topics compared to discussionabout D.O etc. > Why is courage emphasized? Because knowing dhamma now leads to > detachment and one is more inclined to attachment. Detachment is > against the stream. > Ph: I would say that courage is emphasized because we understand that kusala must be accompanied by alobha but if we try to have kusala it will not be kusala. The way of the world is to try to have kusala , the whole Buddhist industry is based on trying to have kusala, but it is rooted in lobha, in greed for comfort, it is not kusala, there can only be a few moments of kusala in a day, arisingin an uncontrollable way, with alobha. I think that's what the courage is. But of course moments of courage are also rare and we can and do often try to have kusala when we listen when we study Abhidhamma, etc. Phil P.s I have wanted to ask you about something. One day I was sitting in the sauna here in Tokyo watching a television report about how couples in the Netherlands continue to show affection in public towards each other even after long years of marriage. (Very rare here. ) The camera showed a scene of an elderly couple holding hands as they walked in the street on a bad weather day. The couple looked so much like you and Lodewijk holding hands in the picture in the photo section of DSG. And I wanted to ask if you and Lodewyck sometimes wore similar grey raincoats when you went out together on bad weather days. I kind of think it was you! Silly I know, doesn't matter. #131074 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 10:00 am Subject: Re: A being: To Rob E epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > -------------- > <. . .> > > RE: . .. so there is a process and there is continuity, passed on from one dhamma to the next. For some reason you don't want to acknowledge this and insist that each dhamma is totally isolated, which it is not. > -------------- > > KH: Thanks for the reminder; that is what in insist on, more or less. Each moment of citta, cetasika and rupa *is* totally isolated. It is the entire universe. That's fine, but for once just tell me what importance you attach to accumulations, latent tendencies, kamma and vipaka, and all the other important things that take place over trillions of moments? How do you see those, and do you try to understand dhammas with no reference to these elements, since they all involve more than one moment to account for them? > ---------------------- > <. . .> > RE: The idea of self *does* continue from one citta to the next; otherwise the next citta to arise would be enlightened. > ---------------------- > > KH: As we have been reminded recently, dreaming can continue on. But that's different from a reality continuing on. Dreaming (thinking about conventional things) is a function performed by mind-door cittas. Bhavana/development of panna takes place and accumulates over many moments as well. Without accumulation over trillions of moments - no development of panna at all. > --------- > <. . .> > >> KH: he didn't have a stand on the everyday ordinary > self. All he taught was that, in ultimate reality, there was no self: there were only the presently arisen paramattha dhammas. > > > S: He taught that "that which we take for self," the various processes of experiencing and action, is actually composed of the kandhas, and is impersonal and free of self. He didn't have 'no stand' on the everyday self at all. He said all the ordinary processes we are familiar with which we take for self are not-self. > --------- > > KH: I see Sukin has explained, once and for all, the difference between saying "the self is the khandhas" and saying "the self is a conventional name used by the Buddha to designate the khandhas." Ha - well, Ken, fortunately or unfortunately it was me who said the above, not Sukin. That "S" should be replaced by an "R." That's a mistake. If you think that quote defines the difference, then we are on the same page on that subject. To me it doesn't make too much difference if you parse syntax and say that which is taken for self is called the kandhas, or that which is called the self is the kandhas. That which we take for self or call self is nothing but the kandhas, ie, there is nothing but the kandhas in any of those processes - seeing, thinking, etc. No self doing any of it. > Or, as Han has quoted: > "These, Citta, are worldly designations, worldly terms, worldly expressions, worldly descriptions with which the Tathagata expresses himself, without misunderstanding them." > > > KH: So that's all straightened out now. Isn't it? :-) I never had a problem with that in the first place, other than you constantly misinterpreting everything I say. :-) I've been saying "there is no self of any kind" since the beginning of time. :-) How much more clear can one possibly be? The Buddha taught that there is no self, only impersonal processes called the kandhas, which we mistakenly take for self. Is that clear enough? > -------------------- > >> KH: Yes, I think atheists do believe the self is made of those things. Their sort of belief is a bit different from the theist's atta-ditthi but, even so, it is atta-ditthi. > > > RE: Many of them don't believe in a self at all, just biological and chemical processes. It's not a correct view, but it's also not a belief in self. > --------------------- > > KH: According to my understanding every ultimate-reality belief, other than the Middle Way, involves some kind of atta belief. > > Even if we just believe in "the trigger." :-) What's "the trigger?" Sounds like a sex manual. Or a gun manual. > If you don't mind my asking, Robert, how did you come to be studying Buddhism? Were you a religious believer at the time, or were you an atheist? My spiritual beliefs have been pretty eclectic. In brief I can say that I went from atheism/humanism to an interest in zen at a young age which lasted a long time, to a kind of combination belief in an intelligence in the Universe but not a human sort of God-person, to focusing on Theravada in the last decade or two, including a more Theravadin form of meditation when I do meditate. Along the way I've studied/taught yoga, studied several forms of T'ai Chi, and some other systems as well that are more New Age type things. > ------------------ > <. . .> > > RE: The fact you acknowledge present and future dhammas shows that there are more than one, just not at the same time. It's a hair-splitting distinction, but keeps you from seeing the obvious importance of ongoing arising conditions, influences of one dhamma to the next and the role of accumulations and tendencies which are passed on from one dhamma to the next. Without them there would not only be no samsara, but no enlightenment either, which are dependent on bhavana - development. > --------------------- > > KH: Like it or not, the universe does last for just one moment of citta. The Big Bang, the Big Crunch and everything in between: they all take place in the present moment. Okay, sure, but what about accumulations and tendencies. What about bhavana and the path? Even the final path moments are more than one to reach enlightenment. What *do* you have to say about those multi-moment elements? Without them, there is no path, no samsara, nothing. > > RE: That was not nice to say I was obnoxious. You hurt my feelings. :-( > KH: I beg your humble pardon. :-) Thnx. ;-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #131075 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 10:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: to Phil. philofillet Hi again Nina Oops. My phone's spellcheck somehow turned Lodewijk into Lodewyck, an alternate spelling I guess. It also turn kusala into croissant, when I dictate to Siri, the voice recognition software. Suitable. Kusala is the sweet lovely thing that we all want to have with subtle greed. Phil > > P.s I have wanted to ask you about something. One day I was sitting in the sauna here in Tokyo watching a television report about how couples in the Netherlands continue to show affection in public towards each other even after long years of marriage. (Very rare here. ) The camera showed a scene of an elderly couple holding hands as they walked in the street on a bad weather day. The couple looked so much like you and Lodewijk holding hands in the picture in the photo section of DSG. And I wanted to ask if you and Lodewyck sometimes wore similar grey raincoats when you went out together on bad weather days. I kind of think it was you! Silly I know, doesn't matter. > #131076 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 12:07 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > Ken...the new thread as you suggested. > > These explanations (below) are vivid and extremely clear. My belief is that if understood they will be believed as truths. > Hi Tony, Thanks for doing this. I hope you realise you will never convince a Theravada student, just as my efforts will never convince a Mahayana student. :-) But it will be good if we can at least understand each other's points of view a little better. -------- > T: However, in the smallest of nutshells, I would explain Nargajunas stance like this: > Nothing exists independently and is therefore lacking any inherent existnce. This is unrefutable and a relentless fact. ---------- KH: Can you give a simile? Can you give a conventional example of why a thing that exists dependently must be an illusion? As you know, the Theravada Dhamma says the opposite of the Mahayana. It says dhammas that exist dependently *must have* inherent existence. For a simile, I would suggest a baby. A baby depends on its mother for its birth, its sustenance and its protection. (When a baby arises, persists and ceases, it does so dependently.) However, a baby also must have inherent characteristics (solidity and temperature etc) which enable it to be seen, heard, picked it up, carried around. In the conventionally known world anything that exists - dependently or otherwise - *must* be real. (existence and reality are synonymous.) ------------------ > Tony: Things do exist, but not in the way that they appear. Their mode of existence is illusory. ------------------ KH: Again, can you give a simile? Is there anything in the conventionally known world that exists but, at the same time, is illusory? I can't think of anything like that. As far as I know, the idea defies logic. ---------------------------- > Tony: This is true for anything and everything that can be brought to the table...including that which you call Ultimate Realities. ---------------------------- KH: I don't know what you mean by "everything that can be brought to the table" in this context. You seem to be saying, "This is true for concepts as well as for paramattha dhammas." Can you see the problem? Your Dhamma seems to apply, not only to dependent realities (cittas, cetasikas and rupas) but also to mere concepts (for example, to a flying purple elephant). A cynic might say your Dhamma applies to the world of fantasy. Anyway, those are two points that occur to me so far. I will comment on more of your post tomorrow. In the meantime, do you have anything to add on my points: 1) the apparent meaninglessness "a thing that exists dependently does not really exist at all" and 2) "your version of the Buddha's Dhamma applies to fantasy?" Ken H #131077 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 12:51 pm Subject: Re: A being: To Rob E epsteinrob Hi Sarah, and Han. Han, did I fail to reply to the Venerable's very wise comments? If so, it is because I was spending some time reading them, and trying to think what I would say back, and must have lost track of what I was doing. Sarah, thanks for bringing this up - I will reply below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Han, Rob E & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > > Han: I received the following reply. > > > The Buddha and the arahants (as well as knowledgeable disciples) can use such terms as satta, puggala, purisa, etc., without clinging to them, without mistaking them as a self. They even use the term attaa, attabhaava, and atta-patilaabha, as well as "aham" and "mama"--"I" and "mine"--without misapprehending them. See Potthapada Sutta, Digha Nikaya no. 9, section 440 in the Chattha Sangayana edition: Imaa kho citta, lokasama~n~naa lokaniruttiyo lokavohaaraa lokapa~n~nattiyo, yaahi tathaagato voharati aparaamasan"ti. "These, Citta, are worldly designations, worldly terms, worldly expressions, worldly descriptions with which the Tathagata expresses himself, without misunderstanding them."]] I would like to respond to the Venerable's good comments above. I understand that the designation of a person is done by one with wisdom with an understanding that these worldly terms stand for the temporary appearance of a person in the world, and that what we perceive as a person is a collection of perceptions, memories and interpretations. Still, a person has a familiar form, and it is a separate issue whether there is an entity called a "person," which there is not, and whether there is an appearance of familiar forms which we recognize as "that person," which there is. No one is silly enough to think that we are not seeing Person X or Person Y, or that we can not recognize them by familiar "visible object" and other dhammas that correspond to that particular individual. We all know that this is something that happens at any moment when we see someone and recognize them. So it is not the case that the appearance of a "person" is 100% fictitious. What is fictitious is that we mistake those aspects of that recognition that are merely conceptual for those which are actual. But none of the above goes to show that there is no such thing as a body or that there is no physical universe, or that there is no repetitive aspects of the people we see that are recognizable, leading to the sense of "this person" or "that person." Indeed, the monks of the Buddha's time did not accidentally mistake him for the local fishmonger or the local dice player. Everyone has distinguishing characteristics and these are not all imaginary, though they are associated with all sorts of proliferations that are merely thoughts or imaginings. As I have said before, I personally feel that to say that the physical universe does not exist is going too far to one extreme. It is one thing to say that there is no entity called a self, but only perceptual and conceptual experience that are selfless. It is another thing to say that the appearance of the physical organism is also completely imaginary. I think to say the first is correct, and to say the second strikes me as going too far. All the factors of personhood are selfless, temporary and unstable/unsatisfying. They all change constantly and transform over time. They are kandhas. But the kandhas that represent person X are distinguishable from the kandhas that represent person Y. The kandhas are not just a big wash where everything is the same. Different conditions lead to different sets of kandhas, each of which, while shifting and not-self, are none-the-less unique. > S: Many thanks for sharing your helpful correspondence with the Ven. Thank you from me too. Sarah, I think my comments above also pertain to your examples below, which are also very good, pointing to the fact that kandhas or dhammas can be referenced through ordinary speech, without mis-speaking, but with understanding of what is being referred to. Still there is nothing in any of these quotes that suggests that the psychophysical organism, though selfless, does not exist at all. I think it's important to distinguish what is definitely imaginary and a product of thought, from what may be in existence, even though we only perceive it one dhamma at a time. Best, Rob E. > Here is a further note to it from the commentary: > > [Note: Vohaaramattena so vohareyya. > Spk: "Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a > self,they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, `The aggregates > eat,the aggregates sit, the aggregates' bowl, the aggregates' robe'; for > no one would understand them."} > ..... > >DC: 2. Second reference [Po.t.thapaada] is a little complex. > > I read the whole paragraph. It reads: "So too, whenever the gross > > acquired self is present, we do not speak of the mind-made or formless > > acquired sefl; ... But, Citta, these are merely names, ..., designations > > in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without > > misapprehending them." So the word used is present. ... > .... > S: <...> > >"....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations > in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without > misapprehending them," (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, > 53, Walshe > trans.) ... > E.g."....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what > Belongs to self...." > (Alagadduupama Sutta ) > > "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found > [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." > (Yamaka Sutta) ------------------------ #131078 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 12:59 pm Subject: Re: back epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and friends, > > Thanking you for your kindness, I am back. Welcome back, Nina! I'm very glad you are recovered enough to come home, and I hope you will have a full recovery soon. Be well, take care, and great to have you able to participate again. Your knowledge and friendship mean a lot. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #131079 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 1:57 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... thomaslaw03 Ken H wrote: ---------- > ... > KH: ... the Theravada Dhamma says ... dhammas that exist dependently *must have* inherent existence. > > For a simile, I would suggest a baby. A baby depends on its mother for its birth, its sustenance and its protection. (When a baby arises, persists and ceases, it does so dependently.) However, a baby also must have inherent characteristics (solidity and temperature etc) which enable it to be seen, heard, picked it up, carried around. > > In the conventionally known world anything that exists - dependently or otherwise - *must* be real. (existence and reality are synonymous.) > T: Which Pali sutta (s) you refer to? Are you again just making it up for your Dhammas? According to the Middle Way teachings (such as SN 22.90: PTS iii, 134-5, mentioned before), this view of "existence" is one extreme, is clearly the self-based view of fantasy, and is meaningless argumentation (papa~nca). ------ Thomas #131080 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 2:11 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 29. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 4, `Understanding of the Present Moment' (cont'd): It may seem very simple to know that seeing is the experience of visible object and visible object is that which is seen. But this may be only theoretical understanding. Understanding the theory is quite different from the direct understanding of what appears at the present moment. Acharn said: "And now?" The different characteristics of dhammas have to be realized one at a time at the moment they appear, right now. Penetrating characteristics of realities that appear is more important than remembering their names. Whatever appears has to be realized as just a dhamma, so that we shall really be convinced of the fact that in reality there are only dhammas, no person or thing. Dhammas do not stay, they are only present for an extremely short time. No one can condition anything. (To be continued) #131081 From: han tun Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E hantun1 Dear Robert, Thank you very much for your kind comments. Your comments are very good and I really appreciate them. I am also thinking about it and my latest understanding of the topic is as follows. I will take my own case. (1) There are five aggregates [that constitute a person called "Han Tun"] which are made up of citta, cetasika and ruupa. These five aggregates or citta, cetasika and ruupa are the ultimate realities that really exist, although they are constantly arising and passing away at a tremendous speed. These five aggregates are "Sakkaaya" which means "the existing group" [Buddhist Dictionary]. (2) But if I misapprehend these five aggregates as "Han Tun" this is a wrong view [Sakkaaya-di.t.thi]. These five aggregates are "not Han Tun." "Han Tun" is just a worldly designation, worldly term, worldly expression, and a worldly description. (3) But at the same time it will be wrong to say that there is "no Han Tun" because the five aggregates that are designated (worldly) as "Han Tun" are really existing. with metta and respect, Han From: Robert E Hi Sarah, and Han. Han, did I fail to reply to the Venerable's very wise comments? If so, it is because I was spending some time reading them, and trying to think what I would say back, and must have lost track of what I was doing. ------------ I would like to respond to the Venerable's good comments above. I understand that the designation of a person is done by one with wisdom with an understanding that these worldly terms stand for the temporary appearance of a person in the world, and that what we perceive as a person is a collection of perceptions, memories and interpretations. Still, a person has a familiar form, and it is a separate issue whether there is an entity called a "person," which there is not, and whether there is an appearance of familiar forms which we recognize as "that person," which there is. No one is silly enough to think that we are not seeing Person X or Person Y, or that we can not recognize them by familiar "visible object" and other dhammas that correspond to that particular individual. We all know that this is something that happens at any moment when we see someone and recognize them. So it is not the case that the appearance of a "person" is 100% fictitious. What is fictitious is that we mistake those aspects of that recognition that are merely conceptual for those which are actual. But none of the above goes to show that there is no such thing as a body or that there is no physical universe, or that there is no repetitive aspects of the people we see that are recognizable, leading to the sense of "this person" or "that person." Indeed, the monks of the Buddha's time did not accidentally mistake him for the local fishmonger or the local dice player. Everyone has distinguishing characteristics and these are not all imaginary, though they are associated with all sorts of proliferations that are merely thoughts or imaginings. As I have said before, I personally feel that to say that the physical universe does not exist is going too far to one extreme. It is one thing to say that there is no entity called a self, but only perceptual and conceptual experience that are selfless. It is another thing to say that the appearance of the physical organism is also completely imaginary. I think to say the first is correct, and to say the second strikes me as going too far. All the factors of personhood are selfless, temporary and unstable/unsatisfying. They all change constantly and transform over time. They are kandhas. But the kandhas that represent person X are distinguishable from the kandhas that represent person Y. The kandhas are not just a big wash where everything is the same. Different conditions lead to different sets of kandhas, each of which, while shifting and not-self, are none-the-less unique. . #131082 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: back nilovg Dear Rob E, Thank you. For me it is also important to have contact with friends again. Nina. Op 7-jun-2013, om 4:59 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Be well, take care, and great to have you able to participate > again. Your knowledge and friendship mean a lot. #131083 From: han tun Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 5:59 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (12) hantun1 Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 112. Praising the Buddha [AN 5.194 Kaara.napaali Sutta] On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Vesaalii in the Great Forest, in the Hall with the Peaked Roof. At that time, a brahmin named Kaara.naPaali was engaged in supervising building work for the Licchavis. He saw another brahmin named Pi"ngiyaani approaching in the distance, and addressed him: "Where are you coming from at high noon?" "I am coming from the ascetic Gotama." "Well, what do you think of the ascetic Gotama's accomplishment in wisdom? Do you think he is a wise man?" "Who am I honourable sir, that I should comprehend the ascetic Gotama's accomplishment in wisdom? Certainly, only one who equals him could comprehend it." "It is very high praise, indeed, by which you extol the ascetic Gotama." "Who am I honourable sir, that I should praise him? Master Gotama is praised by the praised as best among devas and humans." "But what has the honourable Pi"ngiyaani noticed in the ascetic Gotama that he has such great faith in him?" "Just as a man who has found satisfaction in the choicest of tastes will not yearn for other tastes of an inferior kind; so too, dear sir, one will no longer have a liking for the doctrines of those many other ascetics and brahmins, after one has listened to Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts. "Just as a man weakened by hunger who comes upon a honey cake, wherever he eats of it he will enjoy a sweet, delicious taste; so too, dear sir, whatever one hears of Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts, one will derive from it satisfaction and confidence in one’s heart. "Just as a man who comes upon a piece of yellow or red sandalwood, wherever he smells it -- be it at the top, the middle or the lower end -- he will enjoy a fragrant, delicious scent; so too, dear sir, whatever one hears of Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts, one will derive from it happiness and joy. "Just as a capable physician might instantly cure a patient who is afflicted, in pain and gravely ill; so too, dear sir, whatever one hears of the Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts, one’s sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair will vanish. "Just as if there were a beautiful pond with a pleasant shore, its water clear, agreeable, cool and limpid, and a man came by, scorched and exhausted by the heat, fatigued, parched and thirsty, and he would step into the pond, bathe and drink, and thus all his affliction, fatigue and feverishness would be allayed; so too, dear sir, whenever one hears Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts, all one's affliction, fatigue and feverish burning are allayed." When Pi"ngiyaani had thus spoken, the brahmin Kaara.naPaali rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, and placing his right knee on the ground, he extended his hands in reverential salutation towards the Blessed One and uttered three times these inspired words: "Homage to him, the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One! "Homage to him, the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One! "Homage to him, the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One! "Excellent, Master Pi"ngiyaani! Excellent, Master Pi"ngiyaani! It is just as if one were to set upright what was overturned, or to reveal what was hidden, or to point out the way to one gone astray, or to hold a lamp in the darkness so that those who have eyes might see forms. Even so has the Dhamma been set forth in various ways by Master Pi"ngiyaani. "Now, Pi"ngiyaani, I go for refuge to that Master Gotama, to the Dhamma and to the Sangha of monks. Let Master Pi"ngiyaani accept me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from today until life's end." with metta, Han #131084 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 6:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: to Phil. sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Truly. I guess that's why I feel frustrated here. Opinions and themes of debated are allowed to flourish here although they would just drop off the branch and die quickly on the ground during a live discussion. ... Just dhammas. On our last afternoon, A.Sujin mentioned at one point that she liked to listen to other Teachers speaking on the radio, including those who have a wrong understanding of the Teachings. *** AS: Without studying the Buddha's Teachings, there is no way to know what is right and what is wrong. Sarah: Do you like to listen to just know what is their way of thinking? AS: To know what's right and what's wrong.. S: You like to listen to other wrong explanations? AS: Yes, to know how far it goes. Just to know how wrong it is. *** An example was also given of someone who recently came to the Thai session. He strongly proclaimed that the Abhidhamma was not the Buddha's Teaching and criticised Ajahn Sujin's explanations. I asked her what her reaction was on such occasions: AS: Hearing, thinking, knowing what's right and wrong and there can be metta. **** S: I can also assure you that during our discussions in Kaeng Krachan and even on the return van journey to Bangkok after the sessions, there was plenty of "debate" about "meditation" and "practice", plenty of "flourishing opinions" and no one "dropped of the branch" or "died quickly":-) Ajahn stressed again and again that there are just dhammas, all anatta. Always helpful. Metta Sarah ====== #131085 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 8:09 pm Subject: Discussion with A.Sujin, Kaeng Krachan 6.6.13 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, There was a useful discussion about the understanding of concepts and realities. Ajahn Sujin was saying how anyone can speak about them, but not necessarily with any understanding. "Without realities, can there be any concepts? Without seeing and thinking, can there be the idea of some thing? So there must be reality and thinking, (but usually) no understanding (of reality), taking it for some thing. Like now, one knows seeing is just a moment, but it arises and falls away in succession with many cittas in between. The other cittas do not appear at all and it seems like only seeing appears." She went on to talk about how the object, visible object, also arises and falls away countless times. It arises with the 4 primary rupas and also taste, smell and nutritive essence but they are not seen, forming up the shape and form. So there is the nimitta or sign of the visible object, the hardness, softness, heat and cold. It seems there is some thing, such as different eyebrows and different eyes. If each visible object, softness or hardness were not different, they could not condition that which appears differently. For example, there is hardness here and hardness there, arising and falling away, but each hardness is a different quality and quantity and it conditions different appearances like signs or marks, leading to different ideas of some thing and different concepts. Without shapes and forms, without different colours, there'd be no idea of what this object is, whether it's a table or a cup or anything. So when there is light which can be experienced through the eyes, giving rise to different shapes and forms, different signs, therefore there are different concepts. This is because of memory about what it is and this is what we mean by concept. Without the realities which arise and fall away in split seconds, there would not be the forming up of the nimitta or the shapes and forms which are remembered as some thing permanent. This occurs because of the rapid succession of the arising and falling away which can never be known without keen understanding. It is only such pa~n~naa (right understanding) which can know the difference between the moment of seeing, the object which is seen, the moment of hearing and the object of hearing - all as realities. Without understanding there are just concepts about realities as permanent things which don't arise and fall away instantly. The Buddha knew that realities are not understood because of ignorance. It covers up the truth and this is because such realities arise and fall away in succession so rapidly and this cannot be known just by thinking and considering. Like now - what's there at the moment of seeing? Only that which can be seen which is among all these rupas and it brings about a concept of something seen. ***** Metta Sarah ===== #131086 From: sprlrt@... Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 8:40 pm Subject: TA on metta sprlrt (Than Acharn, in Hua Hin, 8th, am-c, 8m.30 - http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/dsgAudio.html) TA: We're now trying to find out metta, whether metta is here or not, see; we cannot tell at all, because we are thinking about that; but actually at moment when metta arises, it's so clear, to see the difference between metta and anger or unpleasant feeling; by then you know, you don't have to call it anything, but it's the opposite of dosa; can you metta anyone who talks badly to you? when there are conditions only; and what conditions all kind of kusala? understanding. #131087 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 8:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: to Phil. philofillet Hi Sarah I always remember your saying during the battle royal about a year and a half ago that you couldn't understand why some people cared some people cared so much what other people thought. And of course the answer is different accumulations of kilesas, and those kilesas performing their functions. There are also cultural/geographical factors, perhaps there are some ways of writing/speaking that have certain associations, again due to accumulations and they can condition a lot of dosa. But beneath those stories it is all about dhammas and their functioning beyond control. Phil #131088 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 8:51 pm Subject: Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing? philofillet Dear group I would just like to say that rather than "there is no Nina" (to choose the name that was famously used in a talk ) it is much more helpful in my opinion to ask "Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing?" which I also heard once. The former sparks useless debate and causes confusion that distracts from our task of developing understanding of dhammas. The latter cannot be contested and is very helpful for developing understanding of Dhamma, and dhammas, in my opinion. But maybe I am missing something about the importance of establishing whether beings exist or not, as compared to the much greater importance of developing understanding of dhammas and their anataness, whether beings have existence or not. Phil #131089 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 9:21 pm Subject: Re: TA on metta philofillet Hi group Thank you, Alberto. > TA: We're now trying to find out metta, whether metta is here or not, see; we cannot tell at all, because we are thinking about that; but actually at moment when metta arises, it's so clear, to see the difference between metta and anger or unpleasant feeling; by then you know, you don't have to call it anything, but it's the opposite of dosa; can you metta anyone who talks badly to you? when there are conditions only; and what conditions all kind of kusala? understanding. Ph: Ajahn doesn't address the usual point, that what we take for metta is usually attachment or some other subtle form of akusala. Maybe we can understand that whether it it is akusala or not ( lobha or metta) it is not dosa. But I think it is not quite right to say that it is easy to see the difference between metta and dosa because we can't easily see the difference between metta and lobha. Maybe we can say it is easy to see the difference between dosa and mental states accompanied by pleasant mental feeling? Phil #131090 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 9:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: to Phil. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, just a small clarification on what you wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I always remember your saying during the battle royal about a year and a half ago that you couldn't understand why some people cared so much what other people thought. ... S: I'm quite sure I never said that I couldn't understand this. It's not difficult to understand such thoughts and feelings at all. Lots of attachment and aversion accumulated and ready to arise for all but the anagamis. .... >And of course the answer is different accumulations of kilesas, and those kilesas performing their functions. ... S: Yes. Good to know that this is the only problem! If there are no kilesa arising, no problem. ... >There are also cultural/geographical factors, perhaps there are some ways of writing/speaking that have certain associations, again due to accumulations and they can condition a lot of dosa. But beneath those stories it is all about dhammas and their functioning beyond control. ... S: Right! I thought of you at Kaeng Krachan as I did my morning tai chi basics and during the discussions. Hope you can join us next time! Metta Sarah ====== #131091 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 9:52 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > S: Didn't the Buddha teach there are only khandhas, only dhatus (elements) which are conditioned to arise and fall away (apart from nibbana, of course)? > > > > When you read the Anattalakkhana Sutta, isn't it very clear that such khandhas, such dhammas (realities) cannot be controlled in any way by anyone? > > > > T: I think it means they (khandhas, dhatus) are not belonging to self. ... S: ...and cannot be made to arise or fall away by anyone. "Bhikkhus, form....consciousness is not self. Were form...consciousness self, then this form...consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form...consciousness: 'Let my form...consciousness be thus, let my form....consciousness be not thus.' " I don't know what you mean when you said before that "a person (anyone) can be one of the factors in phenomena." ... > > I remembered that you live in NSW, Australia. Do you ever visit Sydney? If so, you're most welcome to visit us in Manly. We don't have a car, so tend not to travel far. > > > > T: What is your address in Manly? ... S: I'll give it to you later (off-list) when we arrange a get-together. Metta Sarah ====== #131092 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 9:56 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > I consider that the term dhammas should not be translated as realities within the content of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27). <...> > It is better to translate or understand the term being used in the sutta as "phenomena", i.e., phenomena (dhammas) arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". > > Any arguments? ... S: The point of using "realities" is to clear distinguish such dhammas from concepts. For example, seeing is a dhamma (reality), visible object is a dhamma, ignorance is a dhamma, but person or computer are concepts. We can just use dhammas, as long as it's clear what is being referred to. What are the realities/phenomena referred to in "paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" would you say? metta Sarah ===== #131093 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 10:06 pm Subject: Re: back sarahprocter... Dear Ann, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "glenjohnann" wrote: > Driving to Whistler yesterday Glen and I heard an item on the radio entitled "Why something and not nothing?". Reminded me of Glen's question to Achan Sujin about 7 years ago at KK - why isn't there just nothing? And Achan's answer "something, nothing". The answers on the radio program were, predictably, all speculative, philosophical, metaphysical etc. Was an opportunity for Glen and I to have a rare discussion about why I thought it was all useless speculation - and talk a bit about absolute realities. The more one develops confidence in the teachings of the Buddha, the less one is inclined to indulge in or give credence to speculative thinking on such subjects. That the teachings of the Buddha are verifiable in daily life, now, is what makes it so compelling. ... S: Well said! Maybe you can choose snippets from discussions or audio to read out to Glen to discuss further. Just one simple point at a time. He may appreciate the opportunity to listen more. Here's one: Is there a body? We had a lot of discussion on this topic. Someone may agree that only hardness is touched and it's not a body, only visible object is seen and it's not a body and so on. However, at the end, they may still say "there is a body" made up of all these experiences which distinguishes one person from another. It's the same with the point Phil has just raised. "Is seeing Nina?" "No." "Is hearing Nina?" "No". "But there is still a Nina made up of all these experiences, like the chariot", they may say. Atta-view is so deeply rooted. Metta Sarah ====== #131094 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 10:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Discussion with A.Sujin, Kaeng Krachan 6.6.13 nilovg Dear Sarah, this is a very important post to me. I was often wodering about the primaries as yakkas, or deceivers, and was about to ask a question about this. How do they deceive? What are they doing? This post makes it clearer to me, but perhaps Acharn can still elaborate about this. I have to reread this post again, consider again. Thanks a lot, Nina. Op 7-jun-2013, om 12:09 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > She went on to talk about how the object, visible object, also > arises and falls away countless times. It arises with the 4 primary > rupas and also taste, smell and nutritive essence but they are not > seen, forming up the shape and form. So there is the nimitta or > sign of the visible object, the hardness, softness, heat and > cold. It seems there is some thing, such as different eyebrows and > different eyes. If each visible object, softness or hardness were > not different, they could not condition that which appears > differently. For example, there is hardness here and hardness > there, arising and falling away, but each hardness is a different > quality and quantity and it conditions different appearances like > signs or marks, leading to different ideas of some thing and > different concepts. Without shapes and forms, without different > colours, there'd be no idea of what this object is, whether it's a > table or a cup or anything. #131095 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 10:30 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: I think it's the other way round. There are only realities and what we refer to as "ordinary activities and intentions" reflect those realities. They are stories about those realities. > > ... > >R: That suggests that we do experience those realities and that our conventional ideas of what we are experiencing is based on them. Thus there is a relationship between what we experience conceptually and what is actually taking place. For instance, we may deduce a table from the experience of "hardness" and other qualities which sanna marks and accumulates and coordinates to form an idea of a less momentary object. The table may be a concept but it is based on the dhammas experienced. ... S: Yes. If there were no realities, such as hardness experienced, no attending to signs and details of those realities, there'd be no thinking about about 'tables' and 'computers'. .... > > > >Thus meditation and other forms are dismissed. > > .... > > S: The question always comes back to "what is meditation?" What is the reality now? > > The question what is meditation is always a good one, and the reality now is always the subject of meditation. The conventional activity meditation also reflects the conceptual understanding of the intnetino to be aware of dhammas. That intention is expressed in a conventional way through that activity. It is the intention to be aware of the present dhamma that motivates meditation and there can be understanding that the occurrence of direct understanding cannot be controlled. But it also can arise. .... S: The question is whether or not awareness and understanding ever arise by "intending to be aware of dhammas". At such moments of intending to be aware, is there any "right" anything? Metta Sarah ===== #131096 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 10:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Dieter and Ann, 2. sarahprocter... Dear Gregory, Welcome to DSG! If you feel inclined, perhaps you'd let us know where you live and anything else about your interest in Dhamma. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory E. LeBlanc, L.Ac." wrote: > Is it correct in this understanding of Dhamma to say that before thinking everything experienced in present moment is Buddhism? That confusing thinking for reality is the conventional vs. ultimate reality? Therefore attachment to concepts is the defilement and cause of Dukkha. ... S: I think that to really understand what dukkha is in the deepest sense, we have to read about and discuss a lot about realities. All conditioned realities are dukkha because they arise and pass away. So, at this moment, seeing consciousness is dukkha. The visible object which is seen is dukkha. Thinking is dukkha, attachment or aversion are dukkha. However, the object of thinking, the concepts thought about, are not dukkha. They are not real and therefore they don't arise and fall away. Look forward to more discussion with you. Metta Sarah ====== #131097 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 10:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Phil. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 7-jun-2013, om 12:41 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I always remember your saying during the battle royal about a year > and a half ago that you couldn't understand why some people cared > some people cared so much what other people thought. And of course > the answer is different accumulations of kilesas, and those kilesas > performing their functions. There are also cultural/geographical > factors, perhaps there are some ways of writing/speaking that have > certain associations, again due to accumulations and they can > condition a lot of dosa. But beneath those stories it is all about > dhammas and their functioning beyond control. ----- N: I had to consider this a lot during my stay at the revalidation. Why are people so often making remarks which are gross or dirty, or allusions to sisters about sex (In America you get a fine immediately and rightly so). But then I realized my conceit. And people have different backgrounds, we can have more understanding. Or during breakfast they would talk about the most appalling medical or physical things. I thought: where have I landed, it is like another plane. But in the end my feelings were different, and I felt even sad to leave after seven weeks. All those people with different ailments, different accumulations, I had become attached to them. The main thing: these are all dhammas. Nina. #131098 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 7-jun-2013, om 12:51 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I would just like to say that rather than "there is no Nina" (to > choose the name that was famously used in a talk ) it is much more > helpful in my opinion to ask "Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing?" ----- N: Lodewijk used to be very emotional about these things but in the end less so. Nina. #131099 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 11:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin sarahprocter... Dear Tam B, I got your messages too late to bring up at KK and we only have one last session tomorrow, but will try. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > Tks for offering us this opportunity. There's a sutta I read some time ago and would like to understand more about the meaning (Suda sutta in Samyutta Nikaya - TB's translation -http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html): > > "In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself " ardent, alert, & mindful " putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.[3] ... S: The Pali: ‘‘Evameva kho, bhikkhave, idhekacco baalo abyatto akusalo bhikkhu kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati aataapii sampajaano satimaa, vineyya loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m. Tassa kaaye kaayaanupassino viharato citta.m na samaadhiyati, upakkilesaa na pahiiyanti. So ta.m nimitta.m na uggaṇhaati." > I am a bit unclear about "He doesn't take note of that fact", or "he takes note of that fact". What does that means? ... S: "So ta.m nimitta.m na uggaṇhaati". He doesn't learn/take up the sign. ... >In the Vietnamese translation, there's a different rendering, something to do with nimita or features... ... S: Yes, same. Not sufficient conditions for satipatthana to develop to that degree. Will try to ask more. Metta Sarah ===== #131100 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 11:07 pm Subject: pariyaaya, nippariyaaya. nilovg Dear friends, I cannot find the post back, but someone had a question to Acharn about this. Pariyaaya means figurative and nippariyaaya means literal. I am sure Acharn will elaborate about this. In the same post: difference between dhamma in abhidhamma and in sutta. It is the same dhamma; reality now. In the suttas is also conventional language used to explain what dhamma is. We read: the monk focusses or concentrates. But actualy, not a monk but citta, cetasika concentrate, etc. Nina. #131101 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 11:11 pm Subject: Re: No Self or Not Self sarahprocter... Hi Tony, Glad to see you're still around! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > I prefer 'Not' Self....as 'No' self makes no sense. ... S: No self makes perfect sense to me. Anatta means no self. Sabbe dhammaa anatta - all dhammas are not self because there is no atta, no self anywhere to be found inside or outside them. .... >There is a self that appears to our mind. Its illusory, ... S: Yes. ... >but there again so is everything else :) ... S: Realities, dhammas are not illusory. If they were, there would be no seeing, hearing, thinking, tasting, touching or thinking for a start:) Metta Sarah ===== #131102 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 11:23 pm Subject: Re: Qus for Ajahn Sujin sarahprocter... Hi Alberto, Just seen Nina has also replied to this. As I had already written the following, I'll add it anyway. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > I was reading Dieter's extract of Karunadasa explaining his Abhidhamma theory, and I would like, it it's possible, to ask Ajahn to explain a little about the difference between the Dhamma as found in Suttapitaka and the Dhamma as found in the Abhidhammapitaka, ... S: The answer will be no difference at all. All just dhammas. ... >and also about the meaning of pariyaaya and nippariyaaya in this context. ... S: "...the Vinaya and the Suttanta are both figurative (pariyaaya) teaching; but the Abhidhamma is literal (nippariyaaya) teaching..." Just a matter of the means of expression about dhammas. Dukkha from Dispeller of Delusion para 446 446. Herein this is the list {maatikaa) for the purpose of expounding the Noble truth of suffering; for this suffering is manifold and of various kinds, that is to say ; the suffering as suffering, the suffering in change, the suffering in formations, concealed suffering, exposed suffering, figurative suffering (pariyaaya), literal suffering. 447. Herein bodily and mental painful feeling are called "suffering as suffering" because of their individual essence, because of their name and because of painfulness. [Bodily and mental] pleasant feeling are called "suffering in change" because of being the cause of the arising of pain through their change. Indifferent feeling and the remaining formations of the three planes are called â€"suffering in formations because of being oppressed by rise and fall. But there is likewise oppression even in the paths and fruition, therefore these states should be understood to be called suffering of the formations, by their being included in the Truth of Suffering. 448. Such bodily and mental afflictions as earache, toothache, fever born of lust, fever born of hate, etc are called concealed suffering because they can only be known by questioning, and because the attack is not openly evident: they are also called unevident suffering. Afflictions produced by the 32 tortures and so on is called exposed suffering. Except for suffering as suffering, the rest come down in the Dukkhasaccavibha.nga (Vbh 99). Also all beginning birth are called figurative suffering because they are the basis of one or another kind of suffering, but it is suffering as suffering that is called literal suffering. <>  SN 36.6 Sallatha Sutta **** Herein training precept is of two kinds, training precept in the figurative sense (pariyaaya) and training precept in the literal sense (nippariyaaya). Herein, abstention (virati) is the training precept in the literal sense......for it is the hostile volition at the time of transgression that is called misconduct (dussiilya), therefore that volition is stated by way of good conduct (susiilya) even at the time of abstention. Impression [phassa], etc are included because of being associated with it............... <...> ... S: If I have a chance, I'll raise the points with Ajahn. As I just said to Tam, we only have one more session at the foundation, so will have to see. Mostly we're using English with few Pali terms and no textual references to keep it easy for Annie to follow. Glad to see your transcriptions and comments, Alberto. Metta Sarah ===== #131103 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin tambach Dear Nina, Thank you for taking your time to answer my question. I actually have no issue with conventional terms pointing to realities. But what realities are being referred to in that sentence? I am confused because of different renderings. May be we can check the Pali version? Metta, Tam B ------ N: The English translation is confusing: concentrated, focussed. But we can read all this with understanding that there are only citta, cetasika and ruupa which perform their functions. It is pa~n~naa which understands that realities are such or such. He takes note of that fact: there is understanding that understands. We can translate it in paramattha terms. In suttas often conventional terms like taking note of are used to point to realities. ------ Nina. #131104 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin tambach Dear Nina, I appreciate your answer! Metta, Tam B ----- N: The meaning is merely: the same type of citta can perform different functions. It is just called santiranacitta. ------ Nina. #131105 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 11:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E sarahprocter... Dear Partner Han, Many thanks for all your hard work in sharing the sutta and Pali. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Once again, I thank you for your very useful post #130995. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130995 > > In the message, I find a quote from SN22.85 Yamaka Sutta. > So I read the sutta, and find the following passages. [translation > is by Bhikkhu Bodhi and the numbering is done by me.] > > -------------------- > > (1) "Ta.m ki.m > ma~n~nasi, aavuso yamaka, ruupa.m tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No > heta.m, aavuso" -- "vedana.m tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No > heta.m, aavuso" -- "sa~n~na.m [pe] sa"nkhaare [pe] > vi~n~naa.na.m tathaagatoti samanupassasii"ti? "No heta.m, aavuso". > > (1) "What do you > think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathaagat?" "No, friend." > "Do you regard feeling > -- perception -- volitional formations -- consciousness as the Tathaagata?" "No, friend." <..> > (4) "Ettha ca te, > aavuso yamaka, di.t.theva dhamme saccato thetato tathaagate anupalabbhiyamaane, > kalla.m nu te ta.m veyyaakara.na.m -- 'tathaaha.m > bhagavataa dhamma.m desita.m aajaanaami, yathaa khii.naasavo bhikkhu kaayassa > bhedaa ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti para.m mara.naa'"ti? > > (4) "But, friend, when > the Tathaagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very > life, is it fitting for you to declare: 'As I understand > the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is > annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after > death'?" > > -------------------- > > Han: The above extract shows the ultimate realities. There > is no doubt about that. But I feel disappointed to read Tathaagata being used > in such an example. ... S: I know how you feel, but there is another way to look at it. If the Buddha was not the omniscient, all-knowing, self-enlighted sammasambuddha, it would be impossible to hear, consider and develop an understanding of the Truths which go completely against the stream, against the ways of thinking of the world. The essence of the Teaching that is so extraordinary is that there are only dhammas and that these dhammas are anatta. He said that the Teachings are very subtle and so of course it takes a great amount of courage to face up to the fact that there are just dhammas, no Tathaagata, no being at all in reality. However, the Teachings can be proved at this very moment. .. > > I am now reflecting (with the prayer beads) the Nine > Attributes of Lord Buddha every day. I have absolute faith in Lord Buddha and His > immeasurable Sabba~n~n uta ~Naa.na. In my heart Lord Buddha is still living as the > Blessed One, the Arahant (the Exalted One), the Fully Enlightened One, and the > Omniscient One. ... S: I think we show our great respect and faith by carefully considering each word of the Teachings. This is the way that we learn more about the qualities and wisdom of Lord Buddha. ... > > So I do not think this sutta will be one of my favourites. > You can say anything to me. You can say that I have mistaken the attachment to > the Lord Buddha as the faith in the Lord Buddha. I will not mind. > > with metta and respect, > Your Born-rebel Partner Han ... S: Ha, ha! I like Born-rebel Partners:-) I had another one at Kaeng Krachan, Little Lan from Vietnam. Makes for good discussions and as I said to her, much better that friends voice their (different) understandings than just give the pretence of agreeing! I remember really appreciating the discussions with A.Sujin when you came along and we raised your points together! Metta & respect Sarah ==== #131106 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 1:55 am Subject: Re: TA on metta sprlrt Hi Phil, > Ph: Ajahn doesn't address the usual point, that what we take for metta is usually attachment or some other subtle form of akusala. I think she says that here too, in the first two lines of the transcript. What follows I think refers to understanding metta (adosa cetasika) as a conditioned wholesome reality, not self. Alberto > TA: We're now trying to find out metta, whether metta is here or not, see; we cannot tell at all, because we are thinking about that; but actually at moment when metta arises, it's so clear, to see the difference between metta and anger or unpleasant feeling; by then you know, you don't have to call it anything, but it's the opposite of dosa; can you metta anyone who talks badly to you? when there are conditions only; and what conditions all kind of kusala? understanding. Ph: Ajahn doesn't address the usual point, that what we take for metta is usually attachment or some other subtle form of akusala. Maybe we can understand that whether it it is akusala or not ( lobha or metta) it is not dosa. But I think it is not quite right to say that it is easy to see the difference between metta and dosa because we can't easily see the difference between metta and lobha. Maybe we can say it is easy to see the difference between dosa and mental states accompanied by pleasant mental feeling? #131107 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 2:25 am Subject: Re: Qus for Ajahn Sujin sprlrt Dear Nina and Sarah, Thanks for your replies, I know the 'standard' translation of (nip)pariyaaya but I don't think it renders its meaning in full. Alberto PS Sarah, my question was the last in, and I wouldn't like jumping the queue :-) also thanks for the Dispeller quote, I didn't know it. #131108 From: "Gregory E. LeBlanc" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Dieter and Ann, 2. gleblanc108 Hi Sarah, et al, I have been interested in Buddhism for many years, most of that time spent studying and practicing Zen. I came across "Vipassana Bhavana" and "An Introduction to Buddhist Meditation for Results," I found both of these books an exciting introduction into pre-sectarian Buddhism (if there is such a thing). You said "All conditioned realities are dukkha because they arise and pass away." This refers to Tanha and its generation of Dukkha? I am unclear as to why seeing consciousness is Dukkha, it this also due to Tanha? Thanks Greg Gregory E. LeBlanc, MSOM, L.Ac., Dipl.Ac., Dipl.C.H. Turning Point Acupuncture and Feldenkrais LeBlanc Wing Chun Kung Fu Ph (510) 859-8084 www.turningpointonline.info www.leblancwingchun.com <....> #131109 From: han tun Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E hantun1 Dear Partner Sarah, I fully understand (with intellectual understanding) and appreciate whatever you have written about the Anatta doctrine. But to understand it with penetrative knowledge is difficult. You may say that the Understanding is a difficult process but we must start somewhere and take step by step. But the problem with me is that the clock is already ticking. I am extremely weak now. Before the recent surgery I knew what to expect after the surgery. Among others, there could be fatigue that may not be alleviated by rest or sleep, loss of muscle mass and weakness of the whole body, anemia, and osteoporosis. I have already chronic anemia. Osteoporosis will take some time to manifest itself. But fatigue and weakness come upon me so swiftly and so drastically. I was walking two kilometers every morning before the surgery, that was less than two months ago. But now, I cannot walk even half a kilometer. If this trend continues, my days are already numbered. But please do not worry. I will not die yet. I will not die before I have paid in full all my akusala kamma debts that are due to be paid in this very life. My remaining months, weeks and days are my pay-back time, paying back with my blood and sweat, with pain and discomfort and mental anguish. In this situation, Lord Buddha is my only Refuge. I will not mind if people say "no Han Tun" or "no Sarah." But it hurts me deeply if someone says "no Tathaagata." I am only a puthujjana and very emotional. Even Venerable Aananda, who was already a Sotaapanna at that time, was emotional in DN 16. But what can I do? I can do nothing. I cannot stop people saying what they believe in. And I always respect others' opinion. So I just keep my discussions as short as possible on such issues. I am no more a cobra raising its hood ready to strike. I am now a snake whose fangs and poison sacs are removed. But in this gloomy picture that I am now painting there was a bright moment. I have fond memories of the time you and I prepare together the Notes to be raised with A. Sujin at the Foundation. I wish the Foundation and the Participants who are making it useful and productive, every success. with metta and deepest respect, Your Born-rebel-but-Subdued-now Partner Han From: sarah Dear Partner Han, Many thanks for all your hard work in sharing the sutta and Pali. --- In mailto:dhammastudygroup%40yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > Once again, I thank you for your very useful post #130995. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/130995 #131110 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 11:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E epsteinrob Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > Thank you very much for your kind comments. Your comments are very good and I really appreciate them. > > I am also thinking about it and my latest understanding of the topic is as follows. > I will take my own case. > > (1) There are five aggregates [that constitute a person called "Han Tun"] which are made up of citta, cetasika and ruupa. > These five aggregates or citta, cetasika and ruupa are the ultimate realities that really exist, although they are constantly arising and passing away at a tremendous speed. > These five aggregates are "Sakkaaya" which means "the existing group" [Buddhist Dictionary]. > > (2) But if I misapprehend these five aggregates as "Han Tun" this is a wrong view [Sakkaaya-di.t.thi]. These five aggregates are "not Han Tun." "Han Tun" is just a worldly designation, worldly term, worldly expression, and a worldly description. > > (3) But at the same time it will be wrong to say that there is "no Han Tun" because the five aggregates that are designated (worldly) as "Han Tun" are really existing. I think you have put in an excellent way. It is very clear and I don't think anyone can confuse what you are saying. Thanks for clarifying the situation. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #131111 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 11:21 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > S: The question always comes back to "what is meditation?" What is the reality now? > > > > The question what is meditation is always a good one, and the reality now is always the subject of meditation. The conventional activity meditation also reflects the conceptual understanding of the intnetino to be aware of dhammas. That intention is expressed in a conventional way through that activity. It is the intention to be aware of the present dhamma that motivates meditation and there can be understanding that the occurrence of direct understanding cannot be controlled. But it also can arise. > .... > S: The question is whether or not awareness and understanding ever arise by "intending to be aware of dhammas". At such moments of intending to be aware, is there any "right" anything? I think you're right that this is the question, but I think there is an assumption that the answer has to be "no." I realize there is a philosophical logic to believing that no good can come of such "intending," but I don't think that logic is proven to be correct. In fact I think that one can have an intention that allows for conditions to develop without controlling whether they develop or not. The problem is that there is a strong belief that there is no such thing as external conditions, or busy-ness versus calmness in the world, because it is thought that "there is no world" and that calm and focus are only related to prior isolated factors that have nothing to do with the world. I don't see evidence that Buddha shared this extreme disbelief in the physical universe, in a physical organism, or that conventional conditions have nothing to do with creating conditions of any kind. The idea that panna may arise just as easily on a crowded subway as on a meditation mat may be theoretically true, because it could happen, but I think that external calm and focus have an effect as well and the evidence that I see suggests that the Buddha believed in the efficacy of such physical and conventional conditions, as part of the path. Being aware under everyday conditions is also part of it, but the formal attempt to develop awareness under optimal conditions and through practice is also part of the path that the Buddha taught - a very important part. I just can't agree that having an intention for development blocks out the possibility of development rather than the other way around. Of course whether one is meditating or eating a croissant self-view will get in the way anyway when it arises as will the wish to control. But that doesn't mean that meditation is useless or fruitless. Both practice and the understanding of dhammas can coexist, unless one has an extreme dismissal of all worldly conditions and activities, which I do not think is the way the Buddha taught. One orders food from the menu and magically the food appears. There is cetana causing those rupas to go into play and leads to an activity which also involves rupas and more cetana. It's not that the whole activity is imaginary, or that the intention to get food will keep you from getting food, it is the opposite. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #131112 From: han tun Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E hantun1 Dear Robert, I am very happy that you agree with my thoughts. with metta and respect, Han From: Robert E epsteinrob@... Hi Han. I think you have put in an excellent way. It is very clear and I don't think anyone can confuse what you are saying. Thanks for clarifying the situation. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #131113 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 12:51 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > 3. If you are the teacher of those who seek wisdom, and you tell them > > they should have compassion for imaginary beings, you are teaching > > them a deluded view. > > > > Compassion is kusala and therefore can't be rooted in any of the > unwholesome roots or accompanied by wrong view. That's great, but if it is combined with attachment to various views about a real being as the object of attachment, that is not kusala. > > You are teaching them that such beings are real. > It is a teaching about compassion, nothing to do with whether the object > is a reality or not. That is make-believe, Sukin. When you teach compassion for an imaginary being, you are teaching belief in that being's existence, otherwise the compassion would be pure nonsense. It is not a valid argument. If the Buddha had taught that we should have compassion for a rock, no one would have developed a drop of compassion. It is only because of belief in the reality of that being that there is any cause for compassion at all. > The nature of the object, right or wrong, is the > function of view and this does not arise with compassion. This is nonsense. > When taught by > other teachers, chances are that the teaching about the value of > compassion comes together with belief in self / soul, and therefore the > compassion is subsequently taken for "self". But even in their case, the > compassion itself is devoid of ignorance, not to speak of self-view. > > The Buddha's teachings on the other hand, being about dhammas and > therefore anatta, not only is the compassion not corrupted as a result > of self-view arisen before or after, but in fact purified when > understood as only an element. But this is in fact NOT what the Buddha taught. He taught metta towards beings and he did not say the beings were only dhammas or that metta was only a dhamma. He may have said that to another group under other circumstances, but he would have left the listeners to the Metta Sutta completely believing that they were developing kindness towards real beings. There's no doubt about that. > > Therefore, you would be taking them off the path of knowledge and > > leading them away from enlightenment. > > > > Compassion has as object a living being. If this living being is taken > for real, this would be a totally different citta with wrong view, after > (or before) the compassion. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that there are more than .05% of Buddhists now, in the past or ever who developed compassion with the understanding that living beings were just an illusion. Why should there be compassion for an illusory being? > > 4. The Buddha would never do that. > > > > He would encourage compassion as well as the development of the Path. By > pointing out that compassion is non-self, Which he did *not* at the time that he was teaching the immeasurables as meritorious states. > he was encouraging the Path, > but not discouraging compassion. > > > > 5. If the Buddha taught metta, then metta must lead towards > > enlightenment, not away from it. Same for sila and dana. So, if we > > agree that metta, sila and dana, in and of themselves, do not directly > > give understanding of realities, then what are they for? Why did the > > Buddha teach them? > > > > If you now agree that concepts are not themselves misleading, but that > this is due to wrong view, would you still go along with the above line > of reasoning? I did not agree with that, because I think there is something important left out. In addition to that, I would still believe that those elements must be valuable for the path in any case, or there is no reason to teach them. What is missing from the argument is that one is bound to think concepts are real until they are at one of the stages of enlightenment. One is not able to actually see through concepts except intellectually and that is not the same thing. Therefore, almost everyone takes concept as reality. > > 6. It is my contention that these kusala factors are supporting > > conditions for development of enlightenment, and that is why the > > Buddha taught them. > > > > Same as above. Same here. > > 7. I think the Buddha taught that the existence of human beings was > > conditional, not imaginary; temporary, not nonexistent, and that is > > why it is okay to teach compassion and metta towards such beings. > > > > I think he encouraged kusala and discouraged akusala. And he knew that > some of these had concept of living beings as object of experience. Well you keep saying this as if it is meaningless - if the object of kusala *happens* to be a human being, who cares? it's just another object - but I don't think the Buddha agreed with this at all. He put great emphasis on how special these states were because they were directed towards other people, instead of being angry or jealous. Because they are positive states *towards other people* they lead to selflessness. For instance, taking joy in someone else's accomplishments, instead of being envious or jealous is a very high state of kusala. It is not just some little state that is ho-hum somewhat kusala, it is a great accomplishment for citta not to be attached to self but to feel goodness towards others. So I just think that your sense that it is just a false object, but this doesn't matter, is just wrong. While panna is great at giving understanding and this leads to detachment, selflessness can also be achieved by metta and sympathetic joy, and it's another very important part of the path. He > also know that self-view is another reality which functions to pervert > the object, and this can be a reality or a concept. So apparently what > you express above about the nature of human being, is in fact wrong > view..... I don't think you have shown that at all in what you said above - in fact I have no idea what it has to do with what we are discussing. Perhaps you can explain it to me. You are stating, btw, what "the Buddha knew." I don't think you know what he knew or didn't know or think. I think you can get more certainty by going what he *said.* > > While there is no "self" within the individual, there is a suffering > > mind and body, and those experiences are real. One can have compassion > > for the provisional being who has those experiences of suffering. > > > > Frankly, this sounds like an attempt by self-view to find legitimate > ground for existence. Frankly, I don't think you are getting the point, just assessing everything by your preexisting concepts. I am not very interested in what you think something "sounds like" to you, but I am interested in your astute analysis if you give me the reasons why it is wrong. This "provisional being", is it a reference to the > five khandhas? If so, then it must be fleeting, otherwise it is not a > reality, but a concept. Likewise the "suffering mind and body" must be a > reference to fleeting nama and rupa, but is this what is being referred > to here? Experiential dhammas are fleeting, and every experience arises in a moment. But the arising and re-arising of dukkha is continuous, and the kandhas that are experienced lead to a continuous experience of one degree or another of suffering. Even the Buddha complained in his old age about his creaking body as it aged and the aches and pains that came with it. We don't have to make believe that we don't understand such things, just to be 100% technically correct according to some formula. > > Anyway, that's an idea of what I think. I think the view that > > conventional reality is totally false is an extreme view. > > > > Either it is real or it is not. That's easy for you to say, but I think the evidence, including the Buddha's own words, tells a very different story. He kept a balance of views between the conventional and the ultimate, and did not ever allow himself to get caught up in extreme views, like you are doing here. To say "it is real or it is not" does not describe anything, it is just an empty statement. Rather, we should talk about how it is real or unreal, in what way, and what this means, not just make easy general statements. > If what you have in mind is something > lasting in time, that would be wrong view behind the thinking. I disagree with this too. I am so tired of folks when they want to talk about accumulations and kalapas and rupas that arise when we're not paying attention, and kamma and vipaka, it's perfectly fine to talk about aeons and what happens over many moments, and that panna takes trillions upon trillions of moments to accumulate over aeons. But if someone tries to say something you don't like, all of a sudden it is "incorrect because you are talking about something that lasts over time." Let's have one standard for everyone, please. these processes do take place over many many many dhammas. Most of the experiences we are talking about take many dhammas to take place. Understanding single realities is important, but not if the vision of the moon, so to speak, blocks out the sun. We shouldn't use understanding to be silly about what actually takes place. > If you > think it is the five khandhas, why not then just refer to the reality of > the moment, instead of thinking in terms of what a human being or any > conventional object is made up of? Because I think it's foolish to discard all of our everyday experience as meaningless when it is all we really know and it is much of what the Buddha talked about as good material for the path. And so we don't need to sit around as if we are in touch with perfect panna and make believe we are not experiencing the ordinary reality that every worldling knows. It just becomes an intellectual exercise really, if we won't admit our own true experience and deal with it. > There is a difference between the understanding that human beings are > made up of the five khandhas and that the fleeting five khandhas give > rise to the idea of human being. They are both important. It is also important to understand what is really taking place when we are involved with recognizable people who show up every day. Oh they are just kandhas, that's fine. No, I don't think that will really work to get the path going. I really do think there is a real misunderstanding when we say that the ordinary suffering we experience has nothing to do with dukkha, and that the ordinary sense of self and fear of death that comes with it has nothing to do with anatta, etc. etc. We think we can imagine a world of dhammas that are totally removed from our experience, but I think this is a mistake. The scriptures don't say that anywhere. It's made up by extreme view. > > I think the view that conventional reality is exactly as it seems and > > is a true reality is also an extreme view. > > > > Conventional reality is concept, period. Either you understand this or > you don't. It's a mixture of reality and concept. To think there is a clean separation is ridiculous. No one experiences that way, or ever will. Through insight we can learn to distinguish between a concept, a nama which experiences and a rupa which just arises like a physical object and doesn't have any consciousness, but to think this is in some separate dimension where there are no human experiences is just nonsense. The Buddha experienced people and places until the moment of his death. That he understood that they were partially conceptual and partially experienced as such does not take away from the existence of the experience. It's just that we don't truthfully understand what is real and what is not, but the world is not 100% concept. > What is in between is another idea, this one however is > concocted by self-view. Whatever. You seem to be very sure about what other people are thinking and doing. Good for you! > > The view I think is in the middle is that conditional reality is > > temporary, unstable, shifting processes [kandhas] and thus is anicca, > > anatta and dukkha. > > > > The Middle-Way is that of Right Understanding, and this right > understanding knows ultimate reality as distinct from concepts. Well then it does not mistakenly think that there is just one without the other. They collaborate to create the world. Hardness of a certain kind is experienced and based on this we conceptualize the whole table, but it is not out of whole cloth, it is based on rupas, etc. > > I think that those conventional realities really reflect the arising > > of dhammas or shifting of kandhas and thus partake of the three marks > > in that way. > > > > Conventional reality gives off the impression of permanence and of self, > unless there is the understanding of what actually takes place through > the five senses and the mind. You know, for anyone who observes closely, it is very obvious that conventional reality is shifting and changing all the time, and that it displays the three marks. I don't agree with the idea that there is no coming togeher of the Buddha Dhamma and conventional forms. Who said that anyway? It's not in the scriptures *at all.* > For someone who has not heard and > understood the Dhamma, So you understand it? That is good. > conventional realities are therefore misleading. > For someone who has understood the Dhamma, these conventional realities > can act as reminders about the ultimate realities. Because they reflect and include them. They are not just reminders, like in a book. They are outgrowths of what is experienced. > That beings are born, > grow old and die, these are reflections of what happens at the > paramattha level, but it is only at this paramattha level that > development of wisdom take place, not when thinking in terms of > conventional objects. "Thinking in terms of" and understanding conventional experience as reflective of dhammas are too different things. > > 8. My view of the Dhamma is that the conventional teachings and the > > ultimate teachings live side by side and reflect each other - > > different levels of the same thing. > > > > My view is that the Dhamma is about ultimate realities *only*. Then you can get no value out of your everyday experience. That is a shame. > > > > I realize this view puts me at odds with many folks here. > > > > I hope this covers the questions you asked to some extent. > > > > Thank you again for trying to make your point more clearly. Thanks for continuing the conversation. It is necessarily somewhat heated because of points of strong emphasis. Sorry for places where there is more heat than light. > > > I'll add here that concepts are based on reality, in other words, > > > without reality, there are no concepts. So there are the realities > > > experienced through the five senses and the mind that give rise to the > > > concept of another being. > > > > I think the above statement gives a glimmer of what I am also talking > > about when I say that conventional truths and situations are based on, > > or reflect, the reality of underlying dhammas. > > > > Yes, but you go on to to think that conventional truths can be the > object of the development of wisdom, which I think is wrong. It has been said here recently several times that panna can have concept as object. > As I said, > they can be reminders about the existence and hence the need to better > understand ultimate realities. How can they be reminders if they don't partly participate in the same dhammas they are reminding you of? > > > Sorry to have expressed frustration in my last message. > > > > That is very kind of you, Sukin. I can also obviously get overheated > > at times, so I appreciate your coming back to talk! > > > > :-) Take care! Best Wishes, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #131114 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 2:13 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way thomaslaw03 Sarah, ---- > S: ... I don't know what you mean when you said before that "a person (anyone) can be one of the factors in phenomena." T: I refer to the six sense spheres, consciousness and other factors indicated in pa.tica-samuppannaa dhammaa, in SN 12.20, which the sutta indicates that the Buddha focuses on the sentient being (satta, sattva) when looking at the world. ---- Thomas #131115 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 2:50 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 30. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 4, `Understanding of the Present Moment' (cont'd): When we returned from Korat to Bangkok, we stopped on the way back at Toscana Village for a Dhamma discussion and a lunch. The hilly landscape is somewhat similar to Toscane in the North of Italy. The area was laid out by way of terraces and there was an abundance of flowering trees. After the Dhamma discussion we enjoyed an Italian style lunch. When looking at the gardens, listening to the Dhamma discussions or tasting the food, different sense objects impinged on the doorways of the senses and the mind-door. We are constantly interpreting what we see, hear or experience through the other sense-doors. This can be compared with reading. When we are reading a book, visible object is seen, we see black and white and then we perceive letters and interpret their meaning. Evenso, there is just seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and body-consciousness and afterwards we are thinking on account of what is experienced. This is our life: seeing and interpreting what is seen, hearing and interpreting what is heard. (To be continued) #131116 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 2:50 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma thomaslaw03 Sarah, ----- ... > T: I consider that the term dhammas should not be translated as realities within the content of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27). ... > It is better to translate or understand the term being used in the sutta as "phenomena", i.e., phenomena (dhammas) arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". ... > S: The point of using "realities" is to clear distinguish such dhammas from concepts. For example, seeing is a dhamma (reality), visible object is a dhamma, ignorance is a dhamma, but person or computer are concepts. > T: Seeing, visible object, ignorance, person, computer, and concepts are all phenomena (dhammas). They are arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". > S: We can just use dhammas, as long as it's clear what is being referred to. T: No, it is better not just use the term dhammas. The term dhammas used in the suttas may include many other phenomena, according to the teachings of paticcasamuppada, the four noble truths, and janati passati. > S: What are the realities/phenomena referred to in "paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" would you say? T: It is better to use phenomena, but not realities, for dhammas. They are phenomena shown in "paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". Regarding the content, see the sutta SN 12.20: PTS ii, pp. 25-27. ------ Thomas #131117 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 3:02 pm Subject: Re: A being: To Rob E kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----------- <. . .> >> KH: Each moment of citta, cetasika and rupa *is* totally isolated. It is the entire universe. > RE: That's fine, but for once just tell me what importance you attach to accumulations, latent tendencies, kamma and vipaka, and all the other important things that take place over trillions of moments? How do you see those, and do you try to understand dhammas with no reference to these elements, since they all involve more than one moment to account for them? -------------- KH: First tell me where the conflict is. I have said each moment is an entire universe, and you have said, "But what about XY&Z that take place over trillions of moments?" Are you saying there is a universe that persists for trillions of moments? Why can't you agree that dhammas are developing now (just a tiny bit, and for better or for worse) in the present moment? ------------------ <. . .> >>> S: He taught that "that which we take for self," the various processes of experiencing and action, is actually composed of the kandhas, and is impersonal and free of self. He didn't have 'no stand' on the everyday self at all. He said all the ordinary processes we are familiar with which we take for self are not-self. >> KH: I see Sukin has explained, once and for all, the difference between saying "the self is the khandhas" and saying "the self is a conventional name used by the Buddha to designate the khandhas." > RE: Ha - well, Ken, fortunately or unfortunately it was me who said the above, not Sukin. That "S" should be replaced by an "R." That's a mistake. If you think that quote defines the difference, then we are on the same page on that subject. ---------------- KH: I didn't mean to put an S there I meant RE. I knew I was quoting you, and I think the quote indicates the differences between us: we are *not* on the same page. :-) I have been trying for ages to tell you that the Buddha did not take a stance on worldly matters. Sukin told you the same thing in another thread, and that's why I mentioned his explanation. ---------- > RE: To me it doesn't make too much difference if you parse syntax and say that which is taken for self is called the kandhas, or that which is called the self is the kandhas. ---------- KH: Well then, do you agree with me that there are only the presently arisen conditioned dhammas, over which there is no control? Or do our respective choices of syntax indicate a deep difference in understandings? ---- <. . .> > RE: I've been saying "there is no self of any kind" since the beginning of time. :-) How much more clear can one possibly be? > The Buddha taught that there is no self, only impersonal processes called the kandhas, which we mistakenly take for self. Is that clear enough? ---- KH: Impersonal "processes?" Where did the Buddha call the khandhas processes? Why can't you call them "impersonal namas and rupas"? I can see how "processes" might apply to waves on the Mahayana Ocean of Being (processes within Nibbana that can be mistakenly perceived as selves). That's why I prefer to talk about paramattha dhammas (absolutely real mental and physical phenonomena) which inherently bear the anicca, dukkha and anatta characteristics. ------------- <. . .> >> KH: Even if we just believe in "the trigger." :-) > RE: What's "the trigger?" Sounds like a sex manual. Or a gun manual. ------------- KH: Sorry, I thought you could tell me. :-) Haven't you been reading Dieter's messages explaining what the self really is? ---------------------- <. . .> >> KH: how did you come to be studying Buddhism? Were you a religious believer at the time, or were you an atheist? > RE: My spiritual beliefs have been pretty eclectic. In brief I can say that I went from atheism/humanism <. . .> ---------------------- KH: Thanks. I had a theory that people coming to the Dhamma from a religious background would be less likely to accept "anatta means no control" than people who (like me) came from an atheist background. But your answer was no help - the jury is still out on that theory.:-) Ken H #131118 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 4:42 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... kenhowardau Hi Tony. I had got as far as: -------- > T: Nothing at all anywhere ever, escapes the logic of irreducability... ------- KH: I don't even know what the logic of irreducibility is. Google was no help. ------------------- > T: Althought not mentioning Nargajuna directly this is a good explanation of Shunyata that fits with Nargajunas intention perfectly. http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html ------------------- KH: I heard today that Ajhan Sujin likes to read Buddhist theories, even if they are wrong. I am not like that. In my experience long dissertations on why anatta means "no conditioned dhammas" are painful to read. So I just skimmed over this one. ------------------------------ > T: Try this, originally from a BuddhaDharma ariticle lost in the dim and distant past I am afriad. so no direct references...: ------------------ KH: Thanks for this, although it wasn't quite what I asked for. Couldn't you have put it in your own words? When you just post someone else's writing we have to agree on its meaning before we can even begin to discuss it. I gather from the first paragraph that understanding no self does not go far enough. We also need to understand there is no anything. That completely contradicts my understanding. I believe that the four noble truths can only be understood by thoroughly understanding what *does* exist in ultimate reality. If nothing exists then there is no way of understanding, and no 8fold path. Ken H #131119 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 5:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E nilovg Dear Han, I sympathize with you and know how you feel. I also become very tired after dressing myself or preparing all by myself three meals a day, leaning and holding myself with roller and the sides of the kitchen cupboards. I am all alone here and have to manage by myself. I have helpers coming in but not all the time. I walk less than half a kilometer. But, I remember Acharn: these are all stories. The realities are just seeing, hearing, thinking. That makes all these ailments less important. We do not know the future, it all depends on conditions. There are only conditioned phenomena, and all these stories we think about are not of any value. Not easy to apply this but I understand it a little bit more. Understanding can grow just a very little bit a day and is that not enough? Nina. Op 7-jun-2013, om 23:45 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I am extremely weak now. Before the recent surgery I knew what to > expect after the surgery. Among others, there could be fatigue that > may not be alleviated by rest or sleep, loss of muscle mass and > weakness of the whole body, anemia, and osteoporosis. I have > already chronic anemia. #131120 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 5:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to Phil. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 7-jun-2013, om 0:53 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > The camera showed a scene of an elderly couple holding hands as > they walked in the street on a bad weather day. ------- N: Shall we say, this is another story? You talk about your impatience when people discuss topics, but it does not matter. I see the value of what Acharn stresses and try to convey this. Some people may find it useful, others do not. But when I say: some people, this is a conventional way of expressing citta and cetasika, and what is accumulated in the citta. They arise just for a moment and do not stay. Conditions, conditions. ------ Nina. #131121 From: han tun Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being: To Rob E hantun1 Dear Nina, I also sympathize with you, Nina. I am fortunate in the sense that I am not alone. I have my family to look after me. I always take your wise advice seriously. The only thing is I cannot consider all my sufferings as just "stories." Maybe, my understanding has not yet even start to grow. Please take care. with metta and respect, Han From: Nina van Gorkom vangorko@... Dear Han, I sympathize with you and know how you feel. I also become very tired after dressing myself or preparing all by myself three meals a day, leaning and holding myself with roller and the sides of the kitchen cupboards. I am all alone here and have to manage by myself. I have helpers coming in but not all the time. I walk less than half a kilometer. But, I remember Acharn: these are all stories. The realities are just seeing, hearing, thinking. That makes all these ailments less important. We do not know the future, it all depends on conditions. There are only conditioned phenomena, and all these stories we think about are not of any value. Not easy to apply this but I understand it a little bit more. Understanding can grow just a very little bit a day and is that not enough? Nina. Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (14) Recent Activity: * New Members 2 Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . #131122 From: "philip" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 8:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: to Phil. philofillet Hi Nina (and Sarah and Alberto) > t. But when I say: some people, this > is a conventional way of expressing citta and cetasika, and what is > accumulated in the citta. They arise just for a moment and do not > stay. Thank you, it is good to read this, when it comes to Dhamma, the friend is a citta rooted in right understanding. Other meanings of "friends" is not of much interest to me when I come to DSG. No, not true, there is clinging to wanting community, but my antagonism has put me outside that. Phil P.s Tgank you for your other post, and to Alberto and Sarah for yours. #131123 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 9:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin sarahprocter... Dear Tam Bach, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > > Tks for offering us this opportunity. There's a sutta I read some time ago and would like to understand more about the meaning (Suda sutta in Samyutta Nikaya - TB's translation -http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html): > > > > "In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself ardent, alert, & mindful putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.[3] > ... > S: The Pali: > Evameva kho, bhikkhave, idhekacco baalo abyatto akusalo bhikkhu kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati aataapii sampajaano satimaa, vineyya loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m. Tassa kaaye kaayaanupassino viharato citta.m na samaadhiyati, upakkilesaa na pahiiyanti. So ta.m nimitta.m na uggahaati." > > >T: I am a bit unclear about "He doesn't take note of that fact", or "he takes note of that fact". What does that means? > ... > S: "So ta.m nimitta.m na uggahaati". He doesn't learn/take up the sign. > ... > >In the Vietnamese translation, there's a different rendering, something to do with nimita or features... > ... > S: Yes, same. Not sufficient conditions for satipatthana to develop to that degree. .... S: In brief, Ajahn Sujin confirmed this - satipatthana, but not to degree of vipassana nana. All have different accumulations, dhammas are anatta, so just depends on conditions whether satipatthana develops and to what degree. She gave the example of when Maha Mogallana became an arahat in 7 days, but for Sariputta it took longer. Metta Sarah ====== #131124 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 9:55 pm Subject: Re: Qus for Ajahn Sujin sarahprocter... Dear Alberto, We did have a discussion on your qu with A.Sujin, Thanks for raising it. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > I was reading Dieter's extract of Karunadasa explaining his Abhidhamma theory, and I would like, it it's possible, to ask Ajahn to explain a little about the difference between the Dhamma as found in Suttapitaka and the Dhamma as found in the Abhidhammapitaka, and also about the meaning of pariyaaya and nippariyaaya in this context. ... S: Rather than 'figurative' and 'literal', the translations should be 'indirect(ly)' and 'direct(ly)'. The Abhidhamma explains in detail about a dhamma, such as the proximate cause, function, manifestation and so on. In the suttas, the details on processes, such as 'pancadvaravaccana citta', are not found. Those in the Buddha's time were so clever that there was no need for such detail in order to understand the anattaness. The Buddha talked about visible object and they would have no doubt that there was no one in it, no person, no being at all. However, we have to be told many times before there is a very firm foundation that there is no one in it. So the details are taught in the Abhidhamma to explain the subtlety of realities as unlike those people in the Buddha's time, we cannot understand instantly about clinging to that visible object which appears and how there is always looking for more. Today, people think they can understand what was taught to people in those days, just by reading one or two suttas, but it's impossible. They cannot understand that there is no Nina or Alberto seeing, but just seeing and so on. We also discussed a little about the examples I gave and the meaning of pariyaaya and nippariyaaya in those contexts. For example, it makes much more sense to say: "Also all beginning birth are called 'indirect' suffering because they are the basis of one or another kind of suffering...etc' Thanks, it turned out to be a helpful discussion. Metta Sarah p.s. Just realised - during this whole week of discussion, not one reference to 'delirious thinking':-)) ===== #131125 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 10:42 pm Subject: Re: TA on metta sarahprocter... Dear Phil & Alberto, We discussed the following comments: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > TA: We're now trying to find out metta, whether metta is here or not, see; we cannot tell at all, because we are thinking about that; but actually at moment when metta arises, it's so clear, to see the difference between metta and anger or unpleasant feeling; by then you know, you don't have to call it anything, but it's the opposite of dosa; can you metta anyone who talks badly to you? when there are conditions only; and what conditions all kind of kusala? understanding. > > Ph: Ajahn doesn't address the usual point, that what we take for metta is usually attachment or some other subtle form of akusala. Maybe we can understand that whether it it is akusala or not ( lobha or metta) it is not dosa. > > But I think it is not quite right to say that it is easy to see the difference between metta and dosa because we can't easily see the difference between metta and lobha. Maybe we can say it is easy to see the difference between dosa and mental states accompanied by pleasant mental feeling? .... S: I scribbled down a few notes: Everyone agreed that attachment is often taken for metta and the distinction is often unknown. Ajahn said it's impossible to pinpoint the precise moments when there is metta and when there is attachment, but there can be understanding of the difference between metta and attachment. There has to be the understanding of the characteristic of metta intellectually before there can be the direct understanding of the difference. It's not that which can be named, but they each have different chartacteristics. For example, we can see when someone's example is prompted by metta. I suggested that there can be more and more understanding of the different characteristics which comes closer and closer to knowing these realities and Ajahn agreed. If there is no understanding, metta doesn't develop. It's not a matter of trying to have it, but of understanding the benefit of metta and the danger of akusala such as aversion. Actually, Ajahn stressed, there is no person - it's just our own thinking. We just live in our own worlds. She also said, in the context of developing metta, not to mind about others, whether they are talking rightly or wrongly, behave this or that way - it's all just our own thoughts. With such understanding, we will be more friendly, more caring to any being. ... S: There was a lot of discussion on this whole topic - when the recordings are eventually uploaded, will be well worth listening to. Metta Sarah ==== #131126 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 10:54 pm Subject: Re: Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing? sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, I also brought up these comments of yours as they related to other discussions we'd been having over the last few days with Lan who'd found it difficult to accept there is no body, even though she agrees that only hardness is touched, only visible object is seen etc. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I would just like to say that rather than "there is no Nina" (to choose the name that was famously used in a talk ) it is much more helpful in my opinion to ask "Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing?" which I also heard once. The former sparks useless debate and causes confusion that distracts from our task of developing understanding of dhammas. The latter cannot be contested and is very helpful for developing understanding of Dhamma, and dhammas, in my opinion. But maybe I am missing something about the importance of establishing whether beings exist or not, as compared to the much greater importance of developing understanding of dhammas and their anataness, whether beings have existence or not. .... S: Ajahn's comment was that it sounds as though you believe "there is Nina". So what is anatta? She said (for you) "he is". So where's Nina? We speak about "no Nina" or "no me" as a reminder that there are only namas and rupas. There is the idea that "beings have existence" because namas and rupas are real. Without them, there'd not be such an idea. There is no Nina, no Me either. The truth is the truth - better to know from the very beginning, otherwise we will never know the truth at all. What's the use of studying dhammas if there is still the idea of "I". Again, it'll be better when you have a chance to listen. These are just a few cryptic comments. *** At the end of the discussion, last reminders: Just live until understanding appears. Live to understand better rather than live to be attached to that which is not permanent. **** Metta Sarah ===== #131127 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 11:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A being: stories. nilovg Dear Han. stories: objects of thought. We dwell on them with our thoughts. They are different from naama and ruupa that can be directly experienced, and which are our real life. Thoughts are just thoughts. Take seeing now, is this not different from all these sstories we can think of. Seeing can appear right now, but the stories concern the past. Past is past, better to know the present. It really helps. Nina. Op 8-jun-2013, om 9:52 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > The only thing is I cannot consider all my sufferings as just > "stories." #131128 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 11:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing? nilovg Dear Sarah and Phil, Acharn also reminded me again: there is no Lodewijk, not even when he was alive. A helpful reminder. Nina. Op 8-jun-2013, om 14:54 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > S: Ajahn's comment was that it sounds as though you believe "there > is Nina". So what is anatta? She said (for you) "he is". So where's > Nina? > > We speak about "no Nina" or "no me" as a reminder that there are > only namas and rupas. There is the idea that "beings have > existence" because namas and rupas are real. Without them, there'd > not be such an idea. > > There is no Nina, no Me either. The truth is the truth - better to > know from the very beginning, otherwise we will never know the > truth at all. What's the use of studying dhammas if there is still > the idea of "I". #131129 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 11:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: transcription about conditions for direct understanding. nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 6-jun-2013, om 19:28 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > There have been numerous scientific studies , which show that > people with meditation experience slow down from the regular so > called beta rhythmen (13 -30 cycles per second) typical for the > everyday activity to the alpha rhythm (8-12 ) , which represents > the relaxed wakeful attention , corresponding to the state of > contemplation/meditation. > The former may be necessary to cope with the hectic environment but > when we go sight-seeing we don't use the high speed train > respectively when we like to study the sight worth seeing (i.e. > related to the 6senses media ) , we need to travel by pick- up > train (I mean the one you are not allowed to pick-up flowers during > journey) ------- N: All these things do not help to understand anattaness of realities that appear because of their own conditions, not because someone can do anything about them. Whatever appears is only a conditioned dhamma, no person who can do anything. > ------ > D: "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without > > experience is mere intellectual play." (Immanuell Kant) > > > ------ > N: Good old Kant. > > D: yup...pariyatti and patipatti ..he hit the nail right on the head ------ N: The following extract from Huahin makes it very clear that intellectual understanding of the present reality is a condition for right understanding. But no self who can do anything, just conditions. < Huahin, Jan 10, am.d: There are realities right now, and these are not yet objects of direct understanding. But it can be. We do not know which object in the future can be directly understood, because it has not appeared yet. But there can be right understanding of whetever appears, no matter it is intellectual; what appears can be understood better and better until it can be a condition for understanding that object in the future, but we do not know what it will be. Whatever arises can be object of right understanding. If there is understanding right now, it can develop on and on, little by little. For example, when there is seeing, there is no thinking about it, but no direct understanding of it. But by knowing that it sees now, that it sees, that no one sees, it can be understood little by little. It takes quite a long time, like holding the knife handle. It cannot be worn away instantly, but one day it will. Is there enough patience?> ------- Nina. #131130 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 11:20 pm Subject: Re: TA on metta sarahprocter... Dear Friends, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > Actually, Ajahn stressed, there is no person - it's just our own thinking. We just live in our own worlds. She also said, in the context of developing metta, not to mind about others, whether they are talking rightly or wrongly, behave this or that way - it's all just our own thoughts. With such understanding, we will be more friendly, more caring to any being. ... S: One other point was that even though visible object only is seen and sound only is heard, we don't have metta to a table, but to a 'living being' because we know (from inference) that there are cittas. Metta Sarah ===== #131131 From: "philip" Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 11:24 pm Subject: Re: TA on metta philofillet Hi Sarah (Alberto) > > Actually, Ajahn stressed, there is no person - it's just our own thinking. We just live in our own worlds. She also said, in the context of developing metta, not to mind about others, whether they are talking rightly or wrongly, behave this or that way - it's all just our own thoughts. With such understanding, we will be more friendly, more caring to any being. So tired after another hard day of teaching, my schedule gets heavier and heavier. I find that there are definitely moments where there is metta, but a lot of friendliness rooted in lobha, for example when the kids visited the class today, and I wanted them to like me. As for no person, and the other about no Nina etc, I will listen when the talks are uploaded someday, for now hard to read long posts because my computer died and there is only this iPhone which tires the eyes terribly. I will just say that one thing is for sure for sure for sure. People cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched. Only the dhammas that are objects of seeing, hearing touching etc can, and then there is thinking about a person. No doubt there and really that is what is important in my opinion, that people can only be thought about, not seen, heard, touched etc. as for existence of beings it is beyond my understanding to say there are no beings. But is just thinking about beings, as concepts. That's all it can be. Very lazy sleepy thoughts. I prefer to listen about Dhamma and let it soak in gradually, I am less inclined to believe that understanding can be developed by writing down our thoughts because we might just be writing crapola. With listening, there is less room for operation of self wanting to score points, whether the wanting is blatant or night. Good night... Phil > S: There was a lot of discussion on this whole topic - when the recordings are eventually uploaded, will be well worth listening to. #131132 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 12:12 am Subject: Re: TA on metta sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > As for no person, and the other about no Nina etc, I will listen when the talks are uploaded someday, for now hard to read long posts because my computer died and there is only this iPhone which tires the eyes terribly. ... S: You've just been spared one long post as I wrote one to Nina on primary rupas, yakkas and so on, but seems to have been lost. Like you, very tired now, so will have to all wait til we're back in Hong Kong.... I've really found my macbook air is excellent and so convenient for travel. Anyway, thanks for all the good contributions to our discussions in Bangkok today - appreciated by all! You always raise good points, as Nina says. Metta Sarah ===== #131133 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > > > > You are teaching them that such beings are real. > > > It is a teaching about compassion, nothing to do with whether the > object > > is a reality or not. > > That is make-believe, Sukin. When you teach compassion for an > imaginary being, you are teaching belief in that being's existence, > otherwise the compassion would be pure nonsense. It is not a valid > argument. > > If the Buddha had taught that we should have compassion for a rock, no > one would have developed a drop of compassion. It is only because of > belief in the reality of that being that there is any cause for > compassion at all. > > > The nature of the object, right or wrong, is the > > function of view and this does not arise with compassion. > > This is nonsense. > From the above it is apparent that you do not agree with certain basic Abhidhamma principles such as that belief in the existence of self and things is the function of ditthi / view. You insist that if the object of experience is a "being" that this must mean that there is belief in its existence. We can discuss this in another thread if you wish. But to continue with this particular discussion about metta, karuna and so on being part of the Path, this is going to be too complicated for me. I therefore would like to bow out of this. Thanks for your patience. Metta, Sukin #131134 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 3:43 am Subject: Re: Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing? moellerdieter Dear Nina , (all) you wrote: ( D: > The former may be necessary to cope with the hectic environment but > when we go sight-seeing we don't use the high speed train > respectively when we like to study the sight worth seeing (i.e. > related to the 6senses media ) , we need to travel by pick- up > train (I mean the one you are not allowed to pick-up flowers during > journey) ------- N: All these things do not help to understand anattaness of realities that appear because of their own conditions, not because someone can do anything about them. Whatever appears is only a conditioned dhamma, no person who can do anything. D: What we are now conscious of, appears due to condition ( of avijja -sankhara) .We can not change previous kamma , but we influence future kamma. I suppose you misunderstand what I like to emphasize : to be mindful of a phenomenon or a dhamma (senses media ) needs best possible attention . Our day-by-day state of mind lacks it , is preoccupied with this or that / incessant chatter , gets only a glimpse of the details what is happening now . To be (in ) the here-and-now , only seeing, hearing , etc ., means without (I -) interference of thinking ( as you mentioned previously ). To recognize its nature ( anicca, dukkha and anatta) fails due the hindrances (nivarana , in particular the common hectic - uddhacca). You will rememember that the Buddha stated that ignorance as well has a condition : the 5 hindrances. Hence our aim to develop panna for abolishment of avijja , cannot work , when we neglect the condition. It is not my purpose to convince you of sitting meditation , but point out using suitable opportunities , to still /calm the busy mind . For that activity is necessary in order to obtain a 'passive -activity ' : even if it is only a couple of minutes to watch in- outbreathing, not to talk about direct approaches in respect to the hindrances as recommended. Recalling the resistance of members whenever the topic of meditation / contemplation is coming up and the constant proposition: there is nothing to , I wonder whether we will ever come to a closer understanding about the issue of satipatthana. > D: "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without > > experience is mere intellectual play." (Immanuell Kant) > > > ------ > N: Good old Kant. > > D: yup...pariyatti and patipatti ..he hit the nail right on the head ------ N: The following extract from Huahin makes it very clear that intellectual understanding of the present reality is a condition for right understanding. But no self who can do anything, just conditions. D: no self , conditions as you say , the 'doing ' a function of Sankhara Khandha , of which one aspect is attention < Huahin, Jan 10, am.d: There are realities right now, and these are not yet objects of direct understanding. But it can be. We do not know which object in the future can be directly understood, because it has not appeared yet. But there can be right understanding of whetever appears, no matter it is intellectual; what appears can be understood better and better until it can be a condition for understanding that object in the future, but we do not know what it will be. Whatever arises can be object of right understanding. If there is understanding right now, it can develop on and on, little by little. For example, when there is seeing, there is no thinking about it, but no direct understanding of it. But by knowing that it sees now, that it sees, that no one sees, it can be understood little by little. It takes quite a long time, like holding the knife handle. It cannot be worn away instantly, but one day it will. Is there enough patience?> ------- D: yes, right understanding of whatever appears .. little by little , knowing by experience what we learnt by theory. with Metta Dieter #131135 From: "philip" Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 3:44 am Subject: Re: TA on metta philofillet Hi Sarah > ... > S: You've just been spared one long post as I wrote one to Nina on primary rupas, yakkas and so on, but seems to have been lost. Like you, very tired now, so will have to all wait til we're back in Hong Kong.... I forgot to thank you for posting them, , though I didn't read them thoroughly. Perhaps I should read it out loud onto my voice recorder app, then listen. Have many transcriptions of Ajahn read onto voice recorder to listen. Ajahn is unparalleled in understanding. > I've really found my macbook air is excellent and so convenient for travel. What a coincidence. Naomi loves her and I am thinking about buying one. Can afford it, only stinginess/thrift stops me. Phil > > Anyway, thanks for all the good contributions to our discussions in Bangkok today - appreciated by all! You always raise good points, as Nina says. #131136 From: han tun Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 7:56 am Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (13) hantun1 Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 113. The Five Dreams of the Bodhisatta [AN 5.196 Mahaasupina Sutta] Monks, before the Tathaagata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One attained enlightenment, while he was still a bodhisatta, five great dreams appeared to him. What five? (1) He dreamt that this mighty earth was his great bedstead; the Himaalaya, king of mountains, was his pillow; his left hand rested on the eastern sea, his right hand on the western sea; his two feet on the southern sea. This, monks, was the first dream that appeared to the Tathaagata while he was still a bodhisatta. (2) Again, he dreamt that from his navel arose a kind of grass called tiriyaa and continued growing until it touched the clouds. This, monks, was the second great dream that appeared to the Tathaagata while he was still a bodhisatta. (3) Again, he dreamt that white worms with black heads crawled on his legs up to his knees, covering them. This, monks, was the third great dream that appeared to the Tathaagata while he was still a bodhisatta. (4) Again, he dreamt that four birds of different colours came from the four directions, fell at his feet and turned all white. This, monks, was the fourth great dream that appeared to the Tathaagata while he was still a bodhisatta. (5) Again, he dreamt that he climbed up a huge mountain of dung without being soiled by the dung. This, monks, was the fifth great dream that appeared to the Tathaagata while he was still a bodhisatta. -------------------- (1) Now when the Tathaagata, while still a bodhisatta, dreamt that the mighty earth was his bedstead, the Himaalaya, king of mountains, his pillow, his left hand rested on the eastern sea, his right hand on the western sea; his two feet on the southern sea, this first dream was a sign that he would awaken to unsurpassed, perfect enlightenment. (2) When he dreamt of the tiriyaa grass growing from his navel up to the clouds, this second great dream was a sign that he would fully understand the Noble Eightfold Path and would proclaim it well among devas and humans. (3) When he dreamt of the white worms with black heads crawling on his legs up to his knees and covering them, this third great dream was a sign that many white-clad householders would go for refuge to the Tathaagata until the end of their lives. (4) When he dreamt of four birds of different colours coming from all four directions and, falling at his feet, turning white, this fourth great dream was a sign that members of the four castes -- nobles, brahmins, commoners and menials -- would go forth into homelessness in the Doctrine and Discipline taught by the Tathaagata and would realize the unsurpassed liberation. (5) When he dreamt of climbing up a huge mountain of dung without being soiled by it, this fifth great dream was a sign that the Tathaagata would receive many gifts of robes, alms-food, dwellings and medicines, and he would make use of them without being tied to them, without being infatuated with them, without being committed to them, seeing the danger and knowing the escape. These are the five great dreams that appeared to the Tathaagata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightenment One, before he attained enlightenment, while he was still a bodhisatta. with metta, Han #131137 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 9:43 am Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Tep epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > The stock passage (e.g. D. 3; D 14; M. 56) runs as follows: > > "Then the Blessed One gave him a gradual instruction - that is to say, he spoke on liberality ('giving', dana), on moral conduct (sila) and on the heaven (sagga); he explained the peril, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures, and the advantage of renunciation. > > "When the Blessed One perceived that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid; then he explained to him that exalted teaching particular to the Buddhas (buddhanam samukkamsika desana), that is: suffering, its cause, its ceasing, and the path." > *************************************************** > > Note that the purpose of the teaching was to prepare the listener's mind to receive the teaching on the Four Noble Truths. > > I believe that all the instances of the gradual instruction found in the suttas are instances where (a) the person was hearing the teaching for the first time (in that lifetime) and (b) the person in fact became enlightened on hearing the teaching on the FNT. > > So it seems it was a teaching reserved by the Buddha for use in cases where he knew that a person who had not so far heard the teachings was capable of attaining enlightenment on hearing about the FNT for the first time. ... > > As far as I can tell, it was not given as a practice of any kind, whether for the listener or for any other person, nor a description of progress along the path to enlightenment. Well, there is also no explanation given of why this particular sequence of instruction would prepare the listener's mind for the 4NT. Is there some significance to this order of teaching to doing so? Can one know why these subjects were selected? It cannot be a coincidence that the subjects are classic areas of kusala behavior or states, including giving, purification and fortuitous rebirth, but not including metta, sympathetic joy nor compassion. An interesting selection. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #131138 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 1:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Hi Rob E, I had read only the beginning part of your post when I replied yesterday. I would like to address this misunderstanding below that you have expressed more than once. > > > > I'll add here that concepts are based on reality, in other words, > > > > without reality, there are no concepts. So there are the realities > > > > experienced through the five senses and the mind that give rise > to the > > > > concept of another being. > > > > > > I think the above statement gives a glimmer of what I am also talking > > > about when I say that conventional truths and situations are based > on, > > > or reflect, the reality of underlying dhammas. > > > > > > > Yes, but you go on to to think that conventional truths can be the > > object of the development of wisdom, which I think is wrong. > > It has been said here recently several times that panna can have > concept as object. > All conventional truths are concepts, but not all concepts are conventional. There are concepts of ultimate realities, such as that of seeing experiences visible object, feeling, perception, thinking, attention, concentration and so on. These are not conventional truths. They can be objects of thinking with panna, as in the case of pariyatti, suttamaya panna or cintamaya panna. The perception of people, things and situations such as that of birth, aging and death are not the objects of the development of right understanding. Although death of a being for example, can be the object of the development of calm or samatha bhavana, it is not however the object of vipassana bhavana. Hope this clarifies. Metta, Sukin #131139 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 2:54 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 31. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 4, `Understanding of the Present Moment' (cont'd): We have to carefully consider and understand each word of the teachings, even one word, for example, the word "dhamma". Dhamma is reality which has its own characteristic and which cannot be changed into something else. When we cling to concepts which are denoted by conventional terms such as "tree" or "chair", we do not experience any characteristic of reality. What is real when we look at a tree? What can be directly experienced? Visible object is a paramattha dhamma, a reality; it is a kind of rupa which can be directly experienced through the eyes. Through touch hardness can be experienced; this is a kind of rupa which can be directly experienced through the bodysense, it is real. Visible object and hardness are paramattha dhammas, they have their own characteristics which can be directly experienced. We may give them another name, but their characteristics cannot be altered. They appear only for one moment and then they fall away. They are uncontrollable. "Tree" is a concept or idea we can think of, but it is not a paramattha dhamma, not a reality which has its own unalterable characteristic, which arises and then falls away. Ultimate realities should be clearly distinguished from concepts or ideas which are objects of thinking. (To be continued) #131140 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 3:31 pm Subject: Re: A being: To Rob E epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ----------- > <. . .> > >> KH: Each moment of citta, cetasika and rupa *is* totally isolated. It is the entire universe. > > > RE: That's fine, but for once just tell me what importance you attach to accumulations, latent tendencies, kamma and vipaka, and all the other important things that take place over trillions of moments? How do you see those, and do you try to understand dhammas with no reference to these elements, since they all involve more than one moment to account for them? > -------------- > > KH: First tell me where the conflict is. I have said each moment is an entire universe, and you have said, "But what about XY&Z that take place over trillions of moments?" > > Are you saying there is a universe that persists for trillions of moments? I am saying that the universe moves along one moment at a time, but there is a continuous succession of moments which never ceases. > Why can't you agree that dhammas are developing now (just a tiny bit, and for better or for worse) in the present moment? Dhammas arise and fall away in the present moment. Their accumulations and tendencies are passed on to the next dhamma. I'm not personally clear about how development takes place from one dhamma to the next, but I would like to know that. > ------------------ > <. . .> > >>> S: He taught that "that which we take for self," the various processes of experiencing and action, is actually composed of the kandhas, and is impersonal and free of self. He didn't have 'no stand' on the everyday self at all. He said all the ordinary processes we are familiar with which we take for self are not-self. > > >> KH: I see Sukin has explained, once and for all, the difference between saying "the self is the khandhas" and saying "the self is a conventional name used by the Buddha to designate the khandhas." > > > RE: Ha - well, Ken, fortunately or unfortunately it was me who said the above, not Sukin. That "S" should be replaced by an "R." That's a mistake. If you think that quote defines the difference, then we are on the same page on that subject. > ---------------- > > KH: I didn't mean to put an S there I meant RE. I knew I was quoting you, and I think the quote indicates the differences between us: we are *not* on the same page. :-) > > I have been trying for ages to tell you that the Buddha did not take a stance on worldly matters. Sukin told you the same thing in another thread, and that's why I mentioned his explanation. You're right I don't agree. He took a position on worldly matters only as they pertain to the path, not to politics or agriculture. > ---------- > > RE: To me it doesn't make too much difference if you parse syntax and say that which is taken for self is called the kandhas, or that which is called the self is the kandhas. > ---------- > > KH: Well then, do you agree with me that there are only the presently arisen conditioned dhammas, over which there is no control? Or do our respective choices of syntax indicate a deep difference in understandings? I agree with that, but I don't draw the same conclusions as you do from that fact, nor about how that relates to conventional reality. At any given moment there is only what is arising at that moment, but there is a succession and it does form a logical progression, otherwise kamma would not lead to corresponding vipaka, etc. > ---- > <. . .> > > RE: I've been saying "there is no self of any kind" since the beginning of time. :-) How much more clear can one possibly be? > > > The Buddha taught that there is no self, only impersonal processes called the kandhas, which we mistakenly take for self. Is that clear enough? > ---- > > KH: Impersonal "processes?" Where did the Buddha call the khandhas processes? Why can't you call them "impersonal namas and rupas"? The Buddha did not actually identify the khandas as namas and rupas, as far as I know. In any case, "perception" is a process. "Eye-sense contacting visual object" is a process. That's what I mean by "processes." When thinking arises after contact in response to that experience, that is a process. It's nothing off the beaten path. > I can see how "processes" might apply to waves on the Mahayana Ocean of Being (processes within Nibbana that can be mistakenly perceived as selves). That's why I prefer to talk about paramattha dhammas (absolutely real mental and physical phenonomena) which inherently bear the anicca, dukkha and anatta characteristics. Yeah, well your restrictive single-moment talk precludes talking about most of what the the scriptures talk about, including the commentaries. They are not obsessed with the single moment as you are. They acknowledge it and also talk about the "processes" of accumulation, tendencies, kamma and vipaka, kamma patha, etc. > ------------- > <. . .> > >> KH: Even if we just believe in "the trigger." :-) > > > RE: What's "the trigger?" Sounds like a sex manual. Or a gun manual. > ------------- > > KH: Sorry, I thought you could tell me. :-) Haven't you been reading Dieter's messages explaining what the self really is? Lately I've only had time to keep up with threads that I'm already involved in. > ---------------------- > <. . .> > >> KH: how did you come to be studying Buddhism? > Were you a religious believer at the time, or were you an atheist? > > > RE: My spiritual beliefs have been pretty eclectic. In brief I can say that I went from atheism/humanism <. . .> > ---------------------- > > KH: Thanks. I had a theory that people coming to the Dhamma from a religious background would be less likely to accept "anatta means no control" than people who (like me) came from an atheist background. > But your answer was no help - the jury is still out on that theory.:-) The background that I come to Buddhism from is really a meditation background, if that clarifies anything. I always saw meditation as the core of Buddhism. Go ahead, take a tranquilizer. You'll feel better soon. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #131141 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 3:33 pm Subject: Re: Qus for Ajahn Sujin epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Lukas, Rob E, Nina, Alex,& all, > > lf any of you have any qus for A.Sujin, most welcome to send them as we'll have 3 days with her in Kaeng Krachan. > > Metta > > Sarah Just wanted to thank you for the invitation to ask questions. I was trying to formulate something, but wasn't really able to get clear this time about what to ask. Is your visit still going on? I wasn't sure about the dates either... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #131142 From: sprlrt@... Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 6:36 pm Subject: Re: Qus for Ajahn Sujin sprlrt Dear Sarah, This is very helpful, thanks very much. I'm also thinking about the example of classifying time as past present and future (also in Dispeller and in Visuddhimagga), like khana, the very brief moment referring to the lifespan of all conditioned realities, in which they are referred directly, (nippariyaaya), usually in the Abhidhamma; while in all other time divisions (extent, continuity, period, usually employed in suttas) the reference to realities is indirect (pariyaaya). Alberto > S: We did have a discussion on your qu with A.Sujin, Thanks for raising it. Rather than 'figurative' and 'literal', the translations should be 'indirect(ly)' and 'direct(ly)'. The Abhidhamma explains in detail about a dhamma, such as the proximate cause, function, manifestation and so on. In the suttas, the details on processes, such as 'pancadvaravaccana citta', are not found. Those in the Buddha's time were so clever that there was no need for such detail in order to understand the anattaness. The Buddha talked about visible object and they would have no doubt that there was no one in it, no person, no being at all. However, we have to be told many times before there is a very firm foundation that there is no one in it. So the details are taught in the Abhidhamma to explain the subtlety of realities as unlike those people in the Buddha's time, we cannot understand instantly about clinging to that visible object which appears and how there is always looking for more. Today, people think they can understand what was taught to people in those days, just by reading one or two suttas, but it's impossible. They cannot understand that there is no Nina or Alberto seeing, but just seeing and so on. We also discussed a little about the examples I gave and the meaning of pariyaaya and nippariyaaya in those contexts. For example, it makes much more sense to say: "Also all beginning birth are called 'indirect' suffering because they are the basis of one or another kind of suffering...etc' #131143 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (13) nilovg Dear Han. Thank you for posting this sutta. I did not remember having read it. Now I read it for the first time. Nina. Op 8-jun-2013, om 23:56 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > 113. The Five Dreams of the Bodhisatta [AN 5.196 Mahaasupina Sutta] #131144 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 10:45 pm Subject: the four right efforts, transcript. nilovg Dear friends, From Huahin, 2013, 01-10, pm, a. the four right efforts. Acharn explained that the four right efforts, 1,2,3,4, seem to be theory but that this is not so. Lukas said I cannot develop kusala. Acharn: Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 11:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin tambach Dear Sarah, Thank you for the clarification! I might come back again to this later. Metta, Tam B Dear Tam Bach, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > > Tks for offering us this opportunity. There's a sutta I read some time ago and would like to understand more about the meaning (Suda sutta in Samyutta Nikaya - TB's translation -http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html): > > > > "In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself ardent, alert, & mindful putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.[3] > ... > S: The Pali: > Evameva kho, bhikkhave, idhekacco baalo abyatto akusalo bhikkhu kaaye kaayaanupassii viharati aataapii sampajaano satimaa, vineyya loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m. Tassa kaaye kaayaanupassino viharato citta.m na samaadhiyati, upakkilesaa na pahiiyanti. So ta.m nimitta.m na uggaá¹haati." > > >T: I am a bit unclear about "He doesn't take note of that fact", or "he takes note of that fact". What does that means? > ... > S: "So ta.m nimitta.m na uggaá¹haati". He doesn't learn/take up the sign. > ... > >In the Vietnamese translation, there's a different rendering, something to do with nimita or features... > ... > S: Yes, same. Not sufficient conditions for satipatthana to develop to that degree. .... S: In brief, Ajahn Sujin confirmed this - satipatthana, but not to degree of vipassana nana. All have different accumulations, dhammas are anatta, so just depends on conditions whether satipatthana develops and to what degree. She gave the example of when Maha Mogallana became an arahat in 7 days, but for Sariputta it took longer. Metta Sarah ====== #131146 From: "philip" Date: Sun Jun 9, 2013 11:56 pm Subject: Re: the four right efforts, transcript. philofillet Hi Nina Thanks for this. > Acharn explained that the four right efforts, 1,2,3,4, seem to be > theory but that this is not so. anymore akusala is a beginning of the first right effort. Otherwise > one never thinks of the accumulation of akusala. One can see how much > it is accumulated in a day. Such thinking is not self. All > sammaapadhanas concern pa~n~naa.> Ph: Hmmm. I am not so sure about this. It reminds me the idea of using conceit to get rid of conceit, or using clinging to get rid of clinging. You know the sutta that people live so because it seems to sanction akusala conditioning kusala and therefore is great for permitting all kinds of lobha/ditthi -rooted practices. Is Ajahn saying that it is helpful to say "I am not going to have any more akusala?" If so, I disagree. Saying or thinking "I am not going to have any more akusala" is a recipe for suffering. Virya arises in a moment when there happens to be by conditions a moment of knowing that one is not going to have akusala. As with all kusala, there is alobha and many other conascent kusala factors. But just saying or thinking with earnest desire "I am not going to have akusala" is not sammapaddhana in my opinion. Of course Ajahn mentions panna here, so she is not praising intentional (as in planned by self, not in the momentary cetana meaning if intentional) practices... or is she? > Lukas said I cannot develop kusala. Acharn: self, it hinders the development of more understanding. Ph: Well said. Or `I can > do, this is not right. Understanding should be developed on and on. > The best thing in one's life is knowing a reality as a reality. > Otherwise there is the self that can have this or that, such as my > siila, my samaadhi, my pa~n~naa. Ph: This is more like it. But it seems to me to contradict what she said before giving value to a very conventional practical application of an idea if sammapaddhanas. > > Even viriya is there, know it as a reality.Don't try to have it as > object of understanding. No selection at all. Don't try to experience > its characteristic as different from other ealities. No need to do > this, it *is* different from other ealities. Only know that it is a > reality, that is enough in the beginning. Otherwise the idea of a > concept comes in very quickly. Ph: people have trouble understanding that virya arises with almost all mind moments, they think virya is a special tool they pull out if their meditation bag when they want to use it. And this wrong use of "virya" is probably accompanied by the kind of "I'm not going to have akusala" vow that Ajahn seems to be praising above. Phil P.s my spellcheck changes virya to virus, if I missed any please understand..although virus might be suitable to describe how wrong practices spread through the Internet, popular monks dishing out their retreats etc #131147 From: Tam Bach Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the four right efforts, transcript. tambach Dear Philip, Nina Thanks for this, too. > Acharn explained that the four right efforts, 1,2,3,4, seem to be > theory but that this is not so. anymore akusala is a beginning of the first right effort. Otherwise > one never thinks of the accumulation of akusala. One can see how much > it is accumulated in a day. Such thinking is not self. All > sammaapadhanas concern pa~n~naa.> Ph: Hmmm. I am not so sure about this. It reminds me the idea of using conceit to get rid of conceit, or using clinging to get rid of clinging. You know the sutta that people live so because it seems to sanction akusala conditioning kusala and therefore is great for permitting all kinds of lobha/ditthi -rooted practices. Is Ajahn saying that it is helpful to say "I am not going to have any more akusala?" If so, I disagree. Saying or thinking "I am not going to have any more akusala" is a recipe for suffering. Virya arises in a moment when there happens to be by conditions a moment of knowing that one is not going to have akusala. As with all kusala, there is alobha and many other conascent kusala factors. But just saying or thinking with earnest desire "I am not going to have akusala" is not sammapaddhana in my opinion. Of course Ajahn mentions panna here, so she is not praising intentional (as in planned by self, not in the momentary cetana meaning if intentional) practices... or is she? -------------------- Tam B: I understand this to be a description rather than an instruction, similar to many occurrences in the suttas. I take it to mean that at moment of understanding of the danger of akusala, there can arise this thought which is an expression of the first right effort, at that moment, which then can condition more moments of right effort in the future, that's why AS calls it "the beginning"... Metta, Tam B #131148 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:49 am Subject: Re: the four right efforts, transcript. truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, >Ph: Hmmm. I am not so sure about this. It reminds me the idea of using >conceit to get rid of conceit, or using clinging to get rid of >clinging. You know the sutta that people live so because it seems to >sanction akusala conditioning kusala and therefore is great for >permitting all kinds of lobha/ditthi -rooted practices. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to start somewhere. Only an Arahant has gotten rid of conceit and lobha for practice. You can't expect one to be an Arahant before one practices for stream-entry... With best wishes, Alex #131149 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Dieter and Ann, 2. moellerdieter Hi Greg, you wwrote: Hi Sarah, et al, I have been interested in Buddhism for many years, most of that time spent studying and practicing Zen. I came across "Vipassana Bhavana" and "An Introduction to Buddhist Meditation for Results," I found both of these books an exciting introduction into pre-sectarian Buddhism (if there is such a thing). You said "All conditioned realities are dukkha because they arise and pass away." This refers to Tanha and its generation of Dukkha? I am unclear as to why seeing consciousness is Dukkha, it this also due to Tanha? D: Sarah will probably say the same: no , it refers to the characteristic of all conditioned phenomena /realities , i.e. anicca . I think Nyanatiloka Maha Thera expresses it very well, see below and for further information pls. check ti-lakkhana and the recommended essay . with Metta Dieter http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/dukkha.htm 1) 'pain', painful feeling, which may be bodily and mental (s. vedana). (2) 'Suffering', 'ill'. As the first of the Four Noble Truths (s. sacca) and the second of the three characteristics of existence (s. ti-lakkhana), the term dukkha is not limited to painful experience as under (1), but refers to the unsatisfactory nature and the general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena which, on account of their impermanence, are all liable to suffering, and this includes also pleasurable experience. Hence 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'liability to suffering' would be more adequate renderings, if not for stylistic reasons. Hence the first truth does not deny the existence of pleasurable experience, as is sometimes wrongly assumed. This is illustrated by the following texts: "Seeking satisfaction in the world, monks, I had pursued my way. That satisfaction in the world I found. In so far as satisfaction existed in the world, I have well perceived it by wisdom. Seeking for misery in the world, monks, I had pursued my way. That misery in the world I found. In so far as misery existed in the world, I have well perceived it by wisdom. Seeking for the escape from the world, monks, I had pursued my way. That escape from the world I found. In so far as an escape from the world existed, I have well perceived it by wisdom" (A. 111, 101). "If there were no satisfaction to be found in the world, beings would not be attached to the world .... If there were no misery to be found in the world, beings would not be repelled by the world .... If there were no escape from the world, beings could not escape therefrom" (A. 111, 102). See dukkhata. For texts on the Truth of Suffering, see W. of B. and 'Path'. See The Three Basic Facts of Existence, II. Suffering (WHEEL 191/193). #131150 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the four right efforts, transcript. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 9-jun-2013, om 15:56 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > But just saying or thinking with earnest desire "I am not going to > have akusala" is not sammapaddhana in my opinion. Of course Ajahn > mentions panna here, so she is not praising intentional (as in > planned by self, not in the momentary cetana meaning if > intentional) practices... or is she? ------ N It is accompanying pa~n~naa, thus, no self thinks like that. She also stresses that it depends on conditions whether there is right thinking in that way. ------- #131151 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the four right efforts, transcript. nilovg Dear Tambach and Philip, Op 9-jun-2013, om 16:27 heeft Tam Bach het volgende geschreven: > there can arise this thought which is an expression of the first > right effort, at that moment, which then can condition more moments > of right effort in the future, that's why AS calls it "the > beginning"... ----- N: Absolutely, it is a beginning. And it can condition later on viriya with direct understanding. No need to think anymore, even though it is right thinking. Nina. #131152 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:03 am Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: The term "supporting condition" is very broad and includes conditions that are much less direct that the term "stepping stone" would imply. I don't think metta could be described as a stepping stone to awareness/insight (sorry!:-)). > > > > RE: Well the supportive conditions that are created by metta and other forms of kusala do seem to at least create the potential for greater understanding. I think there are other ways in which these form supports for the path, but I can't claim that I have the specifics to any extent. My view of those things is different than the idea that only understanding leads to more understanding. > > =============== > > J: Regarding, "the idea that only understanding leads to more understanding", the arising of understanding requires a number of conditions, not just (already accumulated) understanding. I am sure they are listed somewhere. Is such a list handy? I'd like to see the conditions that support/create the possibility of mindfulness/understanding/panna to arise. > But, yes, previously developed understanding will be a significant factor in how readily understanding will arise in the present lifetime. Well that sounds a lot more reasonable if previous arisings are *part* of the conditinality for future re-arising and development. > As I see it, understanding is no different from the other wholesome (or, for that matter, the unwholesome) tendencies. All such tendencies are accumulated with each arising and, having been accumulated, lie latent except when conditioned to manifest. Makes sense. > They remain accumulated until, in the case of the unwholesome ones, they are eradicated progressively at the 4 stages of enlightenment or until, in the case of the wholesome ones, parinibbaana is attained. > > I don't know whether this notion of accumulated tendencies is one that you accept, but I see it as being fundamental to the teachings as a whole. I don't see a problem with that on the face of it. The question at hand though is how such accumulations mutually support the development of further degrees of each of the factors, and in what way one is a condition or pre-condition for the others. This understanding would give a much more clear idea of whether sila, dana, metta, the other immeasurables, are in fact *supports* for the development of wisdom leading to enlightenment, or just sort of side-factors. I think they must be somewhat central, not only for their leading to greater degrees of openness, joy, selflessness, etc. which lead to greater peace and understanding, but also through their eradication of the corresponding defilements, which *is* a precondition for higher development of wisdom and everything else. You can't concentrate, attend mindfully, reach equanimity, etc., while at the same time being drawn to addictive sense objects, etc., as well as jumping from object to object like a monkey, or worrying that your neighbor has a nicer car than you do, or a bigger dog. > > =============== > > RE: I understand the teachings to say that development of positive states, suppression of defilements, practice at concentration and mindfulness will join together to form a strong support for direct understanding. > > > > I know, very conventional. But it is exactly what is said in the body of the suttas. > > =============== > > J: If you'll pardon the observation, Rob, you are strong on generalisations about what the suttas say, but noticeably short on actual sutta quotes to support those generalisations :-)). This makes meaningful discussion rather difficult. I would partially object to that characterization. At times it is true, but I have also amply quoted from Vism and other scriptures to make many of my points. So I will admit you are right in this case that I haven't supplied supportive quotes at this particular moment, but not that I am generally short on quotes. I think we can both be accused of failing to provide quotes at times. [[I have been waiting for years for one from you or anyone that says that meditation is bad for the path. Still haven't seen a single quote! Not one! Yet everyone keeps claiming this over and over again based on their own shared logic that has been adopted without any direct scriptural support. So much for understanding the " In fact the scriptures, including the Abhidhamma, talk positively about meditation practice over and over again, so do the suttas and so does the Visudhimagga, going into great detail about selecting meditation objects and how to meditate step by step, yet it is all dismissed as mere chatter and accidental referencing of something that is very very bad, even though no one says this. So quotes can be absent at times when they are very significant on both sides. But I digress.]] > You've listed some things that you say are mentioned in the suttas as things that "join together to form a strong support for direct understanding". These include: > - development of positive states, > - suppression of defilements, > - practice at concentration > - practice at mindfulness > > It seems to me that at a moment of awareness/mindfulness, all 4 of these factors would be present. Would you agree with this? Sure, the question is how did that moment arise though? Did it have the support of such factors as supporting or mutually determinative conditions? Or did they merely arise because of the purifying power of the awareness itself? I think the former and the latter are both partially true, and that is the wonder of mutually co-dependent arising and conditionality. > The problem is knowing exactly what is meant in the suttas by awareness/mindfulness. This I think would be a fruitful area for discussion. Well that sounds both fruitful and fun. Why not take a look at the definitions/discussions of sati, sati sampajanna, satipatthana, panna, vipassana, etc., and see what the mechanism and specific elements are that support and condition and define different aspects of awareness/understanding/insight/wisdom. The commentaries and sub-commentaries probably say a lot on these subjects, if you have them available. Hey - maybe someone can send me a complete copy of all the Abhidhamma commentaries and sub-commentaries in English so I can follow along...? :-) [My wife will throw me out, but I guess I could hide them in the basement, now that we have a house.] > This is one of those things of which there needs to be a good intellectual understanding if there is to be any development, not least because of the danger of taking for awareness/mindfulness something that is not. Well before worrying about whether it is mistaken for something else, I would agree it would be a good idea to have a mutual understanding of what such awareness factors consist of, and how they are defined and conditioned, and which factors condition which in what ways. > My suggestion would be, less talk about how to `practice' and more discussion about dhammas and their characteristics. I'm happy to spend some time on such discussion with or without respect to so-called practice, since I know you don't believe there is anything to practice. But at some point we can talk about bhavana and how exactly it takes place with respect to the various factors. > > =============== > > RE: The "exceptional teaching" of the Buddha was not something off in a completely different dimension, but a clear roadmap of how to get from this dimension to that one, using the tools at hand. > > =============== > > J: If you'll excuse another observation, characterisations such as the one above tend to detract from the importance of understanding in depth what is being said in the suttas, in favour of taking up a practice. I don't agree, but I don't argue that such a statement is more than general. But sometimes it is necessary to make a general statement to give a view of the lay of the land, before getting into more specifics. I think I have a decent record of then being willing to get into as many thorny specifics as anyone wants to discuss. I love the details and would not spend all my time exchanging generalizations. So maybe you can provide some pointed quotes from commentaries that will give us a basis for discussion...? :-) > In my view, there can be no benefit from a `practice' if there's no clear intellectual understanding of the nature of conditioned dhammas and, in particular, of the awareness or understanding that is being spoken of by the Buddha. Ready to go! Hope I don't regret such a commitment as worldly activities are constantly assaulting me... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #131153 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > > > You are teaching them that such beings are real. > > > > > It is a teaching about compassion, nothing to do with whether the > > object > > > is a reality or not. > > > > That is make-believe, Sukin. When you teach compassion for an > > imaginary being, you are teaching belief in that being's existence, > > otherwise the compassion would be pure nonsense. It is not a valid > > argument. > > > > If the Buddha had taught that we should have compassion for a rock, no > > one would have developed a drop of compassion. It is only because of > > belief in the reality of that being that there is any cause for > > compassion at all. > > > > > The nature of the object, right or wrong, is the > > > function of view and this does not arise with compassion. > > > > This is nonsense. > From the above it is apparent that you do not agree with certain basic > Abhidhamma principles such as that belief in the existence of self and > things is the function of ditthi / view. You insist that if the object > of experience is a "being" that this must mean that there is belief in > its existence. > > We can discuss this in another thread if you wish. But to continue with > this particular discussion about metta, karuna and so on being part of > the Path, this is going to be too complicated for me. I therefore would > like to bow out of this. > > Thanks for your patience. I agree it is a complicated discussion that may be beyond me as well. However, I want to clarify that I do not believe in the existence of a "self." I was arguing that *if* the Buddha taught the immeasurables there must be a good reason, and that they were part of the path. I think that the Buddha recognized that beings appeared and that they experienced suffering through citta. Those beings can be identified as psychophysical organisms, but they do not partake of any form of self. There is a difference between thinking an animal on the road is a mere illusion and seeing that it is a living sentient being and that it suffers, although it has no self. A cat on the road does not have a "self," but it does exist. I am arguing against the extreme view that not only is there no self, but no physical forms with perceptions and thoughts. I don't believe the Buddha thought the body was an illusion, but he did teach that the self *is* an illusion. That is the difference I would draw with the dsg view that the physical universe is nonexistent. Believing in physical existence is *not* a belief in a self. I hope you can see my view a little more clearly now, though it is complicated enough to keep me on my toes as well. Physical body, feelings, thoughts, concepts, do indeed arise and thus really do exist, as such. Self does *not* exist. So the argument is much more complicated, and I think perhaps you are right to let it go. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #131154 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin epsteinrob Hi Sarah - I am not sure if I have missed the total window of the visit with K. Sujin, but I finally have a question, for now or next time if I have missed it. "What is the supporting or conditioning relationship of metta, sila, dana, jhana and other kusala factors in the development of panna/vipassana, if any? What is their relation to the path?" Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #131155 From: "philip" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:42 am Subject: Re: the four right efforts, transcript. philofillet Hi Alex Keep looking, with honesty, at how kusala virya arises. And it is not as a result of vowing "I'm not going to have akusala." I doubt it is for anyone, if it is for you, great. What has to begin to develop from the beginning is understanding of this sort of thing, of the unpredictability of kusala dhammas. Otherwise we just keep accumulating more and more akusala patterns. Society already pushes us to try to be this or that. The Dhamma frees us from that, we begin gradually to understand how every moment is (in Rob K's words which I like) "perfectly instructive." (Or maybe he didn't say that, something like that.) That gradual development of understanding is the only way out, and it goes against the way of the world, as the Buddha predicted it would. And I think it is why Ajahn speaks of courage, courage and patience with very gradual progress, although society and our own accumulated kilesas push us to want dramatic progress. I know you believe ( or say you do) in dramatic progress and great vows in the face of akusala, I used to too. So let's agree to disagree. Last word to you. Phil P.s Thanks Tam and Nina for your posts. back later. #131156 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (13) hantun1 Dear Nina, I am glad that I have posted something which you did not remember reading it before. I have selected only 18 suttas. So, just five more to go. After that I will be through. with metta and respect, Han From: Nina van Gorkom vangorko@... Dear Han. Thank you for posting this sutta. I did not remember having read it. Now I read it for the first time. Nina. Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2) Recent Activity: * New Members 1 Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . #131157 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:33 am Subject: Re: the four right efforts, transcript. truth_aerator Dear Phil, all, >P:Keep looking, with honesty, at how kusala virya arises. We can't help it, and it is unrealistic to expect a person to be perfect prior to developing a path. >And it is not as a result of vowing "I'm not going to have akusala." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strawman. Nobody I currently remember claims this. The reason for practice is because we can't just wish akusala away. One has to train the mind, like the muscle, to have more kusala and less akusala. The training is hard, and there will be setbacks, of course. >Ph: What has to begin to develop from the beginning is understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And just like meditation, this is intentional effort that occurs. You have to choose to visit to this site or open ADL (or whatever) rather than indulge in your common (akusala) activities. With best wishes, Alex #131158 From: "philip" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the four right efforts, transcript. philofillet Hi Tam B > > Tam B: I understand this to be a description rather than an instruction, similar to many occurrences in the suttas. I take it to mean that at moment of understanding of the danger of akusala, there can arise this thought which is an expression of the first right effort, at that moment, which then can condition more moments of right effort in the future, that's why AS calls it "the beginning"... > Ph: Well said. It "can" arise, it is the "should arise" prescription of modern teachers that gets people going the wrong way. And I guess rather than the verbalized though arising, what is really valuable is the kusala virya, free of explicit vowing, arising with the guardians of the world (hiri otappa) and other kusala factors, with panna. There can be many such moments and they are in the long run more valuable than all the trying, although the latter can create very comfortable impressions of having become a better person, etc, for a short or longer time. One teacher uses a metaphor I like, tring to keep a beach ball under water, we can do it for awhile but it will pop back out sooner or later. Better to very very gradually get the air out of the beach ball... Phil #131159 From: "philip" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the four right efforts, transcript. philofillet Dear Nina > ------ > N It is accompanying pa~n~naa, thus, no self thinks like that. She > also stresses that it depends on conditions whether there is right > thinking in that way. > ------- Thank you. Gosh it's good to have you back! Phil #131160 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the four right efforts, transcript. truth_aerator Dear Phil, all, >Ph: Well said. It "can" arise, it is the "should arise" prescription >of modern teachers that gets people going the wrong way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly which teachers? And where did they say it? I'd like to know some context. Of course nobody that I know of teaches that one can control wisdom or wholesome states. It seems to be a terrible strawman that I see being used all the time. With best wishes, Alex #131161 From: "philip" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the four right efforts, transcript. philofillet Hi Alex > > Exactly which teachers? And where did they say it? I'd like to know some context. > > Of course nobody that I know of teaches that one can control wisdom or wholesome states. It seems to be a terrible strawman that I see being used all the time. > Yes I can certainly see why it appears as a straw man to you. It did for me too. Keep looking, keep your mind open, relax, it might click. Until it clicks it's a2d for you and me. (Agree to disagree.) I disagree with the notion that understanding can be transmitted by debate. One listens, it arises. Or doesn't. a2d, Phil #131162 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:29 am Subject: Re: A being: To Rob E thomaslaw03 .... >> KN: ... paramattha dhammas (absolutely real mental and physical phenonomena) which inherently bear the anicca, dukkha and anatta characteristics. T: I think, the term, paramattha dhammas, is better being translated as 'phenomena in ultimate meaning'. Cf. the `Discourse on Emptiness in its Ultimate Meaning' (Skt. Paramartha-sunyata-sutra) (in Choong Mun-keat 2000, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 95). ------ Thomas #131163 From: "connie" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the four right efforts, transcript. nichiconn that one can control wisdom or wholesome states. It seems to be a terrible strawman that I see being used all the time. > > 'tis I. A2D2 aka connie > > a2d, > > Phil > #131164 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts sukinderpal Hi Robe E, I would like to respond to this post. > > From the above it is apparent that you do not agree with certain basic > > Abhidhamma principles such as that belief in the existence of self and > > things is the function of ditthi / view. You insist that if the object > > of experience is a "being" that this must mean that there is belief in > > its existence. > > > > We can discuss this in another thread if you wish. But to continue with > > this particular discussion about metta, karuna and so on being part of > > the Path, this is going to be too complicated for me. I therefore would > > like to bow out of this. > > > > Thanks for your patience. > > I agree it is a complicated discussion that may be beyond me as well. > However, I want to clarify that I do not believe in the existence of a > "self." I was arguing that *if* the Buddha taught the immeasurables > there must be a good reason, and that they were part of the path. I > think that the Buddha recognized that beings appeared and that they > experienced suffering through citta. > Can you appreciate that there is suffering, but none who suffers? And is this not the same as saying that there are conditioned nama and rupa, but no living being? > Those beings can be identified as psychophysical organisms, but they > do not partake of any form of self. > Well, if these psychophysical organisms are not fleeting conditioned phenomena, then they must refer to something that does not actually exist, but is only concept. > > There is a difference between thinking an animal on the road is a mere > illusion and seeing that it is a living sentient being and that it > suffers, although it has no self. > An animal on the road experienced while awake is different from that in a dream, in that with the latter, there are no experience through the senses such as, seeing experiencing visible object. That there is the impression that the animal is a living being and not a lifeless object, this is the result of many instances of seeing and thinking based on memory of past experiences, including that of ones own intentions / volitional activities. And this happens not only while awake, but also in the dream. Is there something else according to you, which forms the basis for the impression that there is a living being in front of you distinguishing it from what is perceived in a dream? > A cat on the road does not have a "self," but it does exist. > What exist are conditioned namas and rupas. They arise and fall away by conditions, some at the sense door and some at the mind door. All conditioned dhammas are anatta, but this is because they are also anicca and dukkha. How is cat experienced? And how would you describe its conditioned nature and the fact that it has the three general characteristics? > I am arguing against the extreme view that not only is there no self, > but no physical forms with perceptions and thoughts. > Is it not enough to say that what we take for me and other beings is the result of experiences through the five senses and the mind of both nama and rupa? > I don't believe the Buddha thought the body was an illusion, but he > did teach that the self *is* an illusion. That is the difference I > would draw with the dsg view that the physical universe is > nonexistent. Believing in physical existence is *not* a belief in a self. > What do you think was the significance of the Buddhas message to Bahiya? Is not the practice aimed at coming to understand clearly what in fact exists and what does not, leading to firm anatta sanna and eradication of atta sanna and ditthi? When you say that some of us do not believe in the existence of the physical universe, do you mean that we deny the existence of rupas? Well, rupas are conditioned by heat, by kamma, by nutrition and by citta, but all of them cant last for more than seventeen moments of citta. There are rupas experienced and there are infinite number of rupas not experienced rising and falling away all the time. What according to you is wrong with this understanding? > I hope you can see my view a little more clearly now, though it is > complicated enough to keep me on my toes as well. Physical body, > feelings, thoughts, concepts, do indeed arise and thus really do > exist, as such. Self does *not* exist. > Thanks for trying to explain it better. But I would like you to also explain what in the above you mean by physical body and how this is different from the rupas experienced through the five senses. Also how does thought / concept of say a rose, rise and fall away, and is this the same as in the case of visible object, sound, taste, hardness etc? Metta, Sukin #131165 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Qus for Ajahn Sujin nilovg Dear Rob E, You always inspire me with your good questions. Op 9-jun-2013, om 22:17 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > "What is the supporting or conditioning relationship of metta, > sila, dana, jhana and other kusala factors in the development of > panna/vipassana, if any? What is their relation to the path?" ------ N: Here we have to consider the perfections, paramis, which all support pa~n~naa in its development. All kinds of kusala through body, speech and mind are perfections if the aim is right: lessening selfishness and all defilements. We are like sick people, not having sufficient strength to reach the other shore. We need medicine and these are the perfections. None of these should be neglected. Whatever opportunity for kusala arises, it can be developed as a perfection. But we should not forget that it is just a reality, a dhamma, not self. You mention jhaana, but it need not be the degree of ruupa-jhaana or aruupa-jhaana, there can be moments of calm when considering the virtues of the Buddha. Nina. #131166 From: "Tony H" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:46 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... tony.humphreys KH: Hi Tony, Thanks for doing this. I hope you realise you will never convince a Theravada student, just as my efforts will never convince a Mahayana student. :-) But it will be good if we can at least understand each other's points of view a little better. TH: I would never try to convince anyone of anything Ken. If the truth is understood it will automatically be believed. Nothing to do with me guv! :) KH: Can you give a simile? Can you give a conventional example of why a thing that exists dependently must be an illusion? TH: Simple. Because it appears to exist independently and is thus an illusion. KH: For a simile, I would suggest a baby. A baby depends on its mother for its birth, its sustenance and its protection. (When a baby arises, persists and ceases, it does so dependently.) However, a baby also must have inherent characteristics (solidity and temperature etc) which enable it to be seen, heard, picked it up, carried around. TH: From the onset your example is floored. If we are merely taking of the appearance of 'baby', the conventional existence of a culmination of causes and conditions that we label 'baby', then fine. But you seem to be saying that those aggregates that come together to give the appearance to mind (of a baby) are somehow not subject to the same logic....why? This makes absolutely no sense (common or otherwise). What is soft to you might not be to me....what is warm to you might not be to me...by implication these things are not fixed and not inherently existent. They're fleeting moments of experience based upon many factors - that doesn't describe something that's really real to me. Again, they do exist, but not in the way the appear. Their mode of existence is identical to that of the baby. KH: In the conventionally known world anything that exists - dependently or otherwise - *must* be real. (existence and reality are synonymous.) TH: WOW!!! This might be the crux of our quandary, Do you believe that for a thing to exist it must be real??? KH: I don't know what you mean by "everything that can be brought to the table" in this context. You seem to be saying, "This is true for concepts as well as for paramattha dhammas." TH: Exactly. KH: Can you see the problem? Your Dhamma seems to apply, not only to dependent realities (cittas, cetasikas and rupas) but also to mere concepts (for example, to a flying purple elephant). A cynic might say your Dhamma applies to the world of fantasy. TH: The only fantasy I can see is that you seem to believe that you have found something that nobody else has ever discovered, i.e.. an inherently existing phenomena - I am afraid that just because you say it doesn't make it so...I have asked for you to demonstrate this to me but have yet to get a definitive answer other than asking me to reiterate what I am stating - I cannot make it any more clear. KH: Anyway, those are two points that occur to me so far. I will comment on more of your post tomorrow. In the meantime, do you have anything to add on my points: 1) the apparent meaninglessness "a thing that exists dependently does not really exist at all" and 2) "your version of the Buddha's Dhamma applies to fantasy?" TH: Sounds a tad facetious Ken, lets keep it amicable eh? :) I need to clarify (again) that I have NEVER said that things do not exist. Only that their mode of existence is illusory. If you're content with seeing illusion as reality then fine, we have nothing else to discuss. I however am not. #131167 From: han tun Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:52 pm Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (14) hantun1 Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] [Han: I have presented some suttas about Lord Buddha. There are only five more suttas which I have selected, that are of miscellaneous topics.] 92. The Trainee's Powers [AN 5.2 Vitthata Sutta] Monks, there are five powers of one in higher training. What five? The trainee's powers of faith (saddhaabala), shame (hiriibala), moral dread (ottappabala), energy (viiriyabala), and wisdom (pa~n~naabala). (1) And what is the power of faith? Here, monks, a noble disciple has faith; he places faith in the enlightenment of the Tathaagata: "The Blessed One is an arahant, fully enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, sublime, knower of the world, unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One." (2) And what is the power of shame? Here, monks, a noble disciple has a sense of shame; he feels ashamed of bad behaviour by body, speech, and mind; he feels ashamed of anything evil and unwholesome. (3) And what is the power of moral dread? Here, monks, a noble disciple has moral dread; he dreads bad behaviour by body, speech, and mind; he dreads anything evil and unwholesome. (4) And what is the power of energy? Here, monks, a noble disciple lives with energy set upon the abandoning of everything unwholesome and the acquiring of everything wholesome; he is steadfast and strong in his effort, not shirking his task in regard to wholesome qualities. (5) And what is the power of wisdom? Here, monks, a noble disciple is wise; he possesses that wisdom which sees into the rise and fall of phenomena, which is noble and penetrating, and leads to the complete destruction of suffering. These, monks, are the five powers of one in higher training. Therefore, O monks, you should train yourselves thus: "We will acquire the powers of faith, shame, moral dread, energy, and wisdom possessed by one in higher training!" Thus should you train yourselves. with metta, Han #131168 From: "Tony H" Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:54 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... tony.humphreys KH: I had got as far as: > T: Nothing at all anywhere ever, escapes the logic of irreducability... KH: I don't even know what the logic of irreducibility is. Google was no help. TH: I think its self explanatory. Google is not omniscient! :) KH: I heard today that Ajhan Sujin likes to read Buddhist theories, even if they are wrong. I am not like that. In my experience long dissertations on why anatta means "no conditioned dhammas" are painful to read. So I just skimmed over this one. TH: Pity...it may have been helpful for you. > T: Try this, originally from a BuddhaDharma ariticle lost in the dim and distant past I am afriad. so no direct references...: KH: Thanks for this, although it wasn't quite what I asked for. Couldn't you have put it in your own words? When you just post someone else's writing we have to agree on its meaning before we can even begin to discuss it. TH: I have put it in my own words on this forum more than I have anywhere else...to no avail. I thought someone elses description might help clrify. I won't be doing that again as I am more than confident to use my own words without using Nargajunas or quoting from the Suttas. Will you do the same? KH: I gather from the first paragraph that understanding no self does not go far enough. We also need to understand there is no anything. TH: Why the constant insistance on skewing my/others statements. Nobody is saying NOTHING exists (no anything)...would help if you don't use that interpretation anymore haha! Its not what is being said... KH: That completely contradicts my understanding. TH: Excellent!!!! #131169 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (14) nilovg Dear Han, Op 10-jun-2013, om 13:52 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Monks, there are five powers of one in higher training. What five? > > The trainee's powers of faith (saddhaabala), shame (hiriibala), > moral dread (ottappabala), energy (viiriyabala), and wisdom > (pa~n~naabala). ------- N: We can apply this sutta to the present moment. This is not mere theory. They are among the enlightenment factors, leading to enlightenment, bodhipakkhiya dhammas and they should be developed now, together with right understanding of the present moment. First they are indriyas, leading faculties and then they can become balas, powers. When insight has become a power, it realizes the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa. But before that pa~n~naa begins to know the characterstics of realities appearing at the present moment. Energy is energy for understanding the present moment, otherwise it cannot lead to enlightenment. Hiri and ottappa: shame and more dread that shrinks from unawareness and ignorance. Faith or confidence: as understanding grows confidence in what the Buddha taught grows: there is no other way to reach the other shore but understanding of whatever appears right now, even if it is unpleasant feeling, lack of courage or other types of akusala. We can see more and more the difference between the world of the stories we think of, and the world of what is really true, of paramattha dhammas. ------ Nina. #131170 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing? nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 8-jun-2013, om 19:43 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > I suppose you misunderstand what I like to emphasize : to be > mindful of a phenomenon or a dhamma (senses media ) needs best > possible attention . Our day-by-day state of mind lacks it , is > preoccupied with this or that / incessant chatter , gets only a > glimpse of the details what is happening now . To be (in ) the here- > and-now , only seeing, hearing , etc ., means without (I -) > interference of thinking ( as you mentioned previously ). > To recognize its nature ( anicca, dukkha and anatta) fails due the > hindrances (nivarana , in particular the common hectic - uddhacca). > You will rememember that the Buddha stated that ignorance as well > has a condition : the 5 hindrances. ------ N: Thinking is conditioned, the hindrances are conditioned and when they appear they can be objects of understanding. No selection. -------- > > D:Hence our aim to develop panna for abolishment of avijja , cannot > work , when we neglect the condition. > It is not my purpose to convince you of sitting meditation , but > point out using suitable opportunities , to still /calm the busy > mind . > For that activity is necessary in order to obtain a 'passive - > activity ' : even if it is only a couple of minutes to watch in- > outbreathing, not to talk > about direct approaches in respect to the hindrances as recommended. ------- N: To me it seems like a self who can do anything. A busy mind is conditioned and when we wish to change anything it seems that a self is acitive again. ------ > > - > N: The following extract from Huahin makes it very clear that > intellectual understanding of the present reality is a condition for > right understanding. But no self who can do anything, just conditions. > > D: no self , conditions as you say , the 'doing ' a function of > Sankhara Khandha , of which one aspect is attention ------- N: Not mere attention, above all sati and pa`n~naa that work their way. ------ > > ------- > D: yes, right understanding of whatever appears .. little by > little , knowing by experience what we learnt by theory. ----- N: That is right. ----- Nina. #131171 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is Nina seeing? Is Nina hearing? moellerdieter Dear Nina, ( all) you wrote: ( I suppose you misunderstand what I like to emphasize : to be > mindful of a phenomenon or a dhamma (senses media ) needs best > possible attention . Our day-by-day state of mind lacks it , is > preoccupied with this or that / incessant chatter , gets only a > glimpse of the details what is happening now . To be (in ) the here- > and-now , only seeing, hearing , etc ., means without (I -) > interference of thinking ( as you mentioned previously ). > To recognize its nature ( anicca, dukkha and anatta) fails due the > hindrances (nivarana , in particular the common hectic - uddhacca). > You will rememember that the Buddha stated that ignorance as well > has a condition : the 5 hindrances.) ------ N: Thinking is conditioned, the hindrances are conditioned and when they appear they can be objects of understanding. No selection. -------- D: sankhara khandha /mental formations/ thinking is conditioned , nevertheless the function of mental formations or fabrications involves the active element of intention S.N. 12.2 "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form. S.N. 22.57 And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention - intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications. From the origination of contact comes the origination of fabrications. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of fabrications. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of fabrications... The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence on fabrications: that is the allure of fabrications. The fact that fabrications are inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the drawback of fabrications. The subduing of desire & passion for fabrications, the abandoning of desire & passion for fabrications: that is the escape from fabrications... Nama: vedana khandha , sanna khandha and sankhara khandha : intention, contact and attention . There is selection .. no escape from samsara without intention, there is choice of No ..not of what is already there , but as reaction towards it > D:Hence our aim to develop panna for abolishment of avijja , cannot > work , when we neglect the condition. > It is not my purpose to convince you of sitting meditation , but > point out using suitable opportunities , to still /calm the busy > mind . > For that activity is necessary in order to obtain a 'passive - > activity ' : even if it is only a couple of minutes to watch in- > outbreathing, not to talk > about direct approaches in respect to the hindrances as recommended. ------- N: To me it seems like a self who can do anything. A busy mind is conditioned and when we wish to change anything it seems that a self is acitive again. ------ D: the Noble Path requests activity, doesn't it? To cross the stream to the other shore , we need to build that raft . If we do not do anything , we submit ourselves to that conditioned process of wandering from death to birth to death..etc. , i.e. samsara. The state of delusion /ignorance is our only reality we can work with.. the Dhamma is the raft not the other shore ( the ultimate reality). > > - > N: The following extract from Huahin makes it very clear that > intellectual understanding of the present reality is a condition for > right understanding. But no self who can do anything, just conditions.> > D: no self , conditions as you say , the 'doing ' a function of > Sankhara Khandha , of which one aspect is attention ------- N: Not mere attention, above all sati and pa`n~naa that work their way. ------ D. can work their way for the noble mind .. we still have to train for that ..the 3 fold path training :sila .. samadhi ...panna, as without wholesome activity (sila), concentration (samadhi ,incl..sati) is without base, without concentration wisdom (panna) is without base. (canonical) When the Buddha requested diligence from the disciples , he didn't mean to submit to the conditions... > ------- > D: yes, right understanding of whatever appears .. little by > little , knowing by experience what we learnt by theory. ----- N: That is right. ----- D: and this right understanding of whatever appears or 'the knowledge and vision of things as they really are' depends on following conditions (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.bodh.html ) "Just as, monks, when rain descends heavily upon some mountaintop, the water flows down along with the slope, and fills the clefts, gullies, and creeks; these being filled fill up the pools; these being filled fill up the ponds; these being filled fill up the streams; these being filled fill up the rivers; and the rivers being filled fill up the great ocean - in the same way, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers)." please note tranquillity .. not really the dominant state of our daily life , is it? Little by little ... a peaceful state of mind a chance for development of knowledge and insight .. with Metta Dieter #131172 From: han tun Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (14) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much. I like your explanation very much also. I have noted it down for my further study. with metta and respect, Han From: Nina van Gorkom Dear Han, Op 10-jun-2013, om 13:52 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: N: We can apply this sutta to the present moment. This is not mere theory. They are among the enlightenment factors, leading to enlightenment, bodhipakkhiya dhammas and they should be developed now, together with right understanding of the present moment. First they are indriyas, leading faculties and then they can become balas, powers. When insight has become a power, it realizes the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa. But before that pa~n~naa begins to know the characterstics of realities appearing at the present moment. Energy is energy for understanding the present moment, otherwise it cannot lead to enlightenment. Hiri and ottappa: shame and more dread that shrinks from unawareness and ignorance. Faith or confidence: as understanding grows confidence in what the Buddha taught grows: there is no other way to reach the other shore but understanding of whatever appears right now, even if it is unpleasant feeling, lack of courage or other types of akusala. We can see more and more the difference between the world of the stories we think of, and the world of what is really true, of paramattha dhammas. ------ Nina. #131173 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:58 am Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... kenhowardau Hi Tony, Things have not worked out the way I had planned. :-) I wanted to question some Mahayana tenets without appearing to ridicule them. I know all too well what it is like to be on the receiving end of uninformed ridicule. (For example, when I try to explain how people, cars and trees do not exist in ultimate reality, it doesn't help to be told to drive a car into a tree.) So I wanted to take the level of discussion up a notch. I honestly don't know how a conditioned dhamma can exist but at the same time lack something called "own being." It sounds like nonsense, but at the same time I realise there must be a sensible way of understanding it. Millions of intelligent Mahayana Buddhists believe it, so they must understand it in a way that escapes me. Ken H #131174 From: "philip" Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:31 am Subject: Words from Ajahn Sujin 8 (the reality has fallen away) philofillet Dear Group (p.s to Njna) "There may not yet be awareness of the characteristic of the feeling of this moment but we should remember that the feeling of this moment is a reality that has arisen and falling away already." (From SPD) Phil P.s. Nina, is this about the nimitta, that our awareness will be of the nimitta? #131175 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:44 am Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Tony) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > Things have not worked out the way I had planned. :-) I wanted to question some Mahayana tenets without appearing to ridicule them. > > I know all too well what it is like to be on the receiving end of uninformed ridicule. (For example, when I try to explain how people, cars and trees do not exist in ultimate reality, it doesn't help to be told to drive a car into a tree.) > > So I wanted to take the level of discussion up a notch. I honestly don't know how a conditioned dhamma can exist but at the same time lack something called "own being." It sounds like nonsense, but at the same time I realise there must be a sensible way of understanding it. Millions of intelligent Mahayana Buddhists believe it, so they must understand it in a way that escapes me. ------------------------------- HCW: Two comments, Ken: 1)You're conversing in an exceptionally friendly and accepting fashion with Tony, inquiring without condemning, and I really applaud you for this! 2)The Mahayana schools' taking issue with "own being," I believe, lies not with the "being" but with the "own." Dhammas appear fleetingly, but they don't "self-exist" for any time at all, their existence being entirely contingent/dependent. They are not "things of their own" (or "entities"), and are properly taken as such only as a matter of convention. To presume literal own-being or separate existence or svabhava (Skt)is from the Mahayana perspective to assert a substantialist atta-view. This is my understanding, but I stand to be corrected by Tony or anyone else here knowledgeable of Mahayana. ------------------------------- > > Ken H > ============================ With metta, Howard /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) #131176 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (14) nilovg Dear Han, Op 10-jun-2013, om 22:06 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I like your explanation very much also. > I have noted it down for my further study. ------- N: I should have mentioned that here hiri and ottappa are classified among the powers. In other places there are mindfulness and concentration instead of hiri and ottappa, but this shows that classifications are never rigid. They are reminders for development now. Nina. #131177 From: han tun Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (14) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your further clarification. I read your two comments once again. (1) N: We can apply this sutta to the present moment. This is not mere theory. They are among the enlightenment factors, leading to enlightenment, bodhipakkhiya dhammas and they should be developed now, together with right understanding of the present moment. First they are indriyas, leading faculties and then they can become balas, powers. When insight has become a power, it realizes the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa. But before that pa~n~naa begins to know the characterstics of realities appearing at the present moment. Energy is energy for understanding the present moment, otherwise it cannot lead to enlightenment. Hiri and ottappa: shame and more dread that shrinks from unawareness and ignorance. Faith or confidence: as understanding grows confidence in what the Buddha taught grows: there is no other way to reach the other shore but understanding of whatever appears right now, even if it is unpleasant feeling, lack of courage or other types of akusala. We can see more and more the difference between the world of the stories we think of, and the world of what is really true, of paramattha dhammas. ------ (2) N: I should have mentioned that here hiri and ottappa are classified among the powers. In other places there are mindfulness and concentration instead of hiri and ottappa, but this shows that classifications are never rigid. They are reminders for development now. ----------------------- Han: My response to your first comment was that I like your explanation with regard to the relationship between faith (saddhaabala), shame (hiriibala), moral dread (ottappabala), energy (viiriyabala), and wisdom (pa~n~naabala). When you consider the five balas in the context of bodhipakkhiya dhammas it is true that it will be (saddhaabala), energy (viiriyabala), mindfulness (satibala), concentration (samaadhibala) and wisdom (pa~n~naabala). It is also true that, in general, the classifications are not rigid. However, if you consider the five balas in the context of bodhipakkhiya dhammas only, it will always be (saddhaabala), (viiriyabala), (satibala), (samaadhibala) and (pa~n~naabala). with metta and respect, Han From: Nina van Gorkom Dear Han, N: I should have mentioned that here hiri and ottappa are classified among the powers. In other places there are mindfulness and concentration instead of hiri and ottappa, but this shows that classifications are never rigid. They are reminders for development now. Nina. #131178 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (14) nilovg Dear Han, that is right. But hiri and ottappa are never lacking, they accompany each sobhana citta. However, there are degrees of them. They become more refined, having even shame of lack of mindfulness and ignorance, seeing thir disadvantage more and more. Nina. Op 11-jun-2013, om 10:23 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > However, if you consider the five balas in the context of > bodhipakkhiya dhammas only, it will always be (saddhaabala), > (viiriyabala), (satibala), (samaadhibala) and (pa~n~naabala). #131179 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Words from Ajahn Sujin 8 (the reality has fallen away) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 11-jun-2013, om 1:31 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > "There may not yet be awareness of the characteristic of the > feeling of this moment but we should remember that the feeling of > this moment is a reality that has arisen and falling away > already." (From SPD) > > Phil > > P.s. Nina, is this about the nimitta, that our awareness will be of > the nimitta? ------ N: It reminds us that feeling does not stay, although it seems that it is there for a while. As to nimitta: there is always nimitta of a rality, but we do not need to think of nimitta. When understanding knows more precisely that this is naama and that ruupa, without thinking of names, it can further develop. Later on the arising and falling away of realities such as feeling can be directly known. ------ Nina. #131180 From: han tun Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (14) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much, Nina. I almost forgot the importance of hiri and ottappa. The Guardians of the World by Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_23.html AN 2.9 Lokapala Sutta: Guardians of the World http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.009.than.html with metta and respect, Han From: Nina van Gorkom Dear Han, that is right. But hiri and ottappa are never lacking, they accompany each sobhana citta. However, there are degrees of them. They become more refined, having even shame of lack of mindfulness and ignorance, seeing thir disadvantage more and more. Nina. #131181 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:03 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No. 32. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 4, `Understanding of the Present Moment' (cont'd): Intellectual understanding of the teachings is necessary but it is not enough. It is an introduction to direct understanding. What the Buddha taught pertains to the present moment. Only the present reality can be really understood, not what is past or what is future. That is why Acharn emphasized seeing now, visible object now all the time. These have characteristics that appear and can be attended to without thinking of their names. There can be a beginning of considering whatever appears at this moment even though it cannot be precise. Visible object which is experienced by seeing-consciousness does not fall away when seeing-consciousness falls away, because it is ruupa; ruupa does not fall away as rapidly as naama. When an object is experienced through one of the six doors, there is not merely one citta experiencing that object, but there is a series or process of cittas succeeding one another, which share the same object. When seeing-consciousness has fallen away it is succeeded by other vipaakacittas and after these cittas have fallen away kusala cittas or akusala cittas arise. Kusala cittas or akusala cittas arise because of conditions: kusala and akusala that arose in the past and that have been accumulated from one citta to the next citta conditions the arising of kusala and akusala at present. We cannot do anything, cittas arise because of their own conditions, but pa~n~naa can come to understand the true nature of realities and their conditions. (To be continued) #131182 From: "Tony H" Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:08 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... tony.humphreys HWD: The Mahayana schools' taking issue with "own being," I believe, lies not with the "being" but with the "own." Dhammas appear fleetingly, but they don't "self-exist" for any time at all, their existence being entirely contingent/dependent. They are not "things of their own" (or "entities"), and are properly taken as such only as a matter of convention. To presume literal own-being or separate existence or svabhava (Skt)is from the Mahayana perspective to assert a substantialist atta-view. This is my understanding, but I stand to be corrected by Tony or anyone else here knowledgeable of Mahayana. Yep...all that :) Particularly: "To presume literal own-being or separate existence or svabhava (Skt)is from the Mahayana perspective to assert a substantialist atta-view". Which IMHO flies in the face of any form of logical thought. HWD: You're conversing in an exceptionally friendly and accepting fashion with Tony, inquiring without condemning, and I really applaud you for this! The two bits I felt stung a little in Kens reply were: 1) the apparent meaninglessness "a thing that exists dependently does not really exist at all" Ken: You put this in quotes??? I have never said things DO NOT EXIST. I don't know how many times I keep emphasising this...things DO EXIST including your Dhammas - but thier mode of existence is utterly illusory. 2) "your version of the Buddha's Dhamma applies to fantasy?" Ken: Well I guess it probably does if you think things that are completely unfindable either in or external from their aggregates exist...then yes...in my opinion that is pure fantasy! Lots of respect and Metta your way _/|\_ Tony... #131183 From: "philip" Date: Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Words from Ajahn Sujin 8 (the reality has fallen away) philofillet Dear Njna Thanks for your explanation. Phil #131184 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:47 am Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... upasaka_howard Hi, Tony (and Ken)- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > HWD: The Mahayana schools' taking issue with "own being," I believe, lies not with the "being" but with the "own." Dhammas appear fleetingly, but they don't "self-exist" for any time at all, their existence being entirely contingent/dependent. They are not "things of their own" (or "entities"), and are properly taken as such only as a matter of convention. To presume literal own-being or separate existence or svabhava (Skt)is from the Mahayana perspective to assert a substantialist atta-view. This is my understanding, but I stand to be corrected by Tony or anyone else here knowledgeable of Mahayana. > > Yep...all that :) > > Particularly: "To presume literal own-being or separate existence or svabhava (Skt)is from the Mahayana perspective to assert a substantialist atta-view". Which IMHO flies in the face of any form of logical thought. > > HWD: You're conversing in an exceptionally friendly and accepting fashion with Tony, inquiring without condemning, and I really applaud you for this! > > The two bits I felt stung a little in Kens reply were: > > 1) the apparent meaninglessness "a thing that exists dependently does not really exist at all" > > Ken: You put this in quotes??? I have never said things DO NOT EXIST. I don't know how many times I keep emphasising this...things DO EXIST including your Dhammas - but thier mode of existence is utterly illusory. > > 2) "your version of the Buddha's Dhamma applies to fantasy?" > > Ken: Well I guess it probably does if you think things that are completely unfindable either in or external from their aggregates exist...then yes...in my opinion that is pure fantasy! > > Lots of respect and Metta your way _/|\_ > > Tony... > ================================= Two brief comments, Tony (and Ken): 1)My initials are HCW (i.e., Howard C. Wasserman) - not a big deal, of course, and 2) The two bits that "stung" a little was a sample of Ken operating in his very soft mode! ;-)) Seriously, Ken's bark is much worse than his bite; he's actually a gentle guy. (My apologies for revealing that, Ken! LOL!) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #131185 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:09 am Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote : HWD: The Mahayana schools' taking issue with "own being," I believe, lies not with the "being" but with the "own." Dhammas appear fleetingly, but they don't "self-exist" for any time at all, their existence being entirely contingent/dependent. They are not "things of their own" (or "entities"), and are properly taken as such only as a matter of convention. To presume literal own-being or separate existence or svabhava (Skt)is from the Mahayana perspective to assert a substantialist atta-view. This is my understanding, but I stand to be corrected by Tony or anyone else here knowledgeable of Mahayana. D: the difference is not really clear to me .. and how does that go together with the Bodhisattva Vehicle , which I understand connects the Mahyana Tradition? I admit that I didn't study yet recommended links conc. Nagarjuna. with Metta Dieter #131186 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:59 am Subject: Re: rebirth and control philofillet Dear Group From the Useful Posts file a letter from Robert K: And don't miss my superb comments at the end! > Yesterday I had lunch with a Buddhist friend. I was > regaling her with stories of my trip to India. > Comparing the position of cows in New Zealand and > India I joked  if you are going to be reborn as a cow > avoid New Zealand. > She immediately said "no choice , it depends on > conditions. > Absolutely true. And to those who have studied so > obvious as be almost trite. > It is surprising though how few Buddhist realize this. > A friend in Tokyo does anapanasati, breathing > mindfulness, so that his last breath will be "fully > conscious." It is an ideal of "the way things should > be that doesn't understand the complexity of > conditions. I remember I had that same idea during my > first few years of learning about Buddhism  I was > really worried about dying suddenly and not being > aware. Thus anything that disturbed my calm had to be > avoided. Life can get pretty uptight with that kind of > misunderstanding. > Recently I read a book by a "vipassana teacher in > America who has contracted a fatal illness  he said > he is seriously considering suicide as he wants to be > sure that his mind doesn't deteriorate. > These ideas come about because of the belief in > control  the idea that dhammas can be willed into > existence or non existence, the idea that the mind is > an entity. We may not have deep understanding of > Dhamma but as my friend, who has studied for only a > few months, demonstrates, right understanding , be it > ever so little, is a huge help in cutting through > wrong view and can have an immediate benefit in our > daily life. > The more we understand the clearer it becomes. Upon > first learning about Dhamma I found it easy to accept > that the mind was changing and that it depended on > conditions. But this wasn't really understanding, not > even in theory. It was after learning about the > elements (dhatus), the khandhas, and the ayatanas that > the truth of anatta, no control, began to make sense. > Consider the eyesense. It arises because of a complex > set of conditions lasts an infinitesimally short time > and is then replaced by another eyesense. The > conditions that arose to bring the bodysense into its > brief existence are themselves conditioned by other > equally brief conditions. Seeing consciousness depends > on the eyesense as well as other ephemeral > conditions. I could, and perhaps should, list many > more conditions but I think this illustrates the > point. How could any of this be controlled? Who could > control it? > It seems almost paradoxical but the more we see into > the truth of no-control the more relaxed we tend to > become. Thus not much worry about when we die, whether > we have a "good death, where we will be reborn. > Conditions will take care of all that by themselves. > Our job is to understand; to literally get "ourselves > out of the picture. Ph: How difficult it is to "get out of the picture" as Robert very aptly puts it. It could be that that is a perfect way to express "the way of the world" that the Buddha knew his teaching would go against. I talk a lot about greed (lobha) involved in wrong practices such as trying to gain better understanding of dhammas by seeking ways of " slowing down" the busy processes, but really it is having oneself in the picture (sakkaya ditthi) and thinking one can exercise control over citta processes that has to be worked on (by gradual development of understanding) rather than the lobha. But this is a very very gradual process. We have been right at the center of the picture for countless lifetimes. To seek for this to change in one lifetime is deluded. But on the other hand to decide that it won't is also self seeking control. One never knows, no control. Get out of the picture. Phil #131187 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:07 am Subject: Re: rebirth and control truth_aerator Dear Phil, all, >Ph: I talk a lot about greed (lobha) involved in wrong practices... And we can't help it until we are Arahants. So should one wait until one is an Arahant in order to practice for stream entry? If we were perfect, we would be Arahants. But we have to start somewhere. Maybe one of the benefits of samatha is that it pacifies lobha and other hindrances so that while samatha lasts, one could practice without lobha. If there was "control" we would not need practice. We could just will maggaphala into existence. Precisely because there isn't straw man version of "control", that practice makes sense. With best wishes, Alex #131188 From: han tun Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:22 am Subject: Selected Suttas from Anguttara Nikaya (15) hantun1 Dear Friends, [Selected Suttas from An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi] 116. How a Noble One Dwells [AN 6.10 Mahaanaama Sutta] On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Kapilavatthu in the Banyan-tree Monastery. Then Mahaanaama the Sakyan approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to one side. So seated, he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, in what way does a noble disciple often dwell when he has arrived at the fruit and understood the teaching?" "When, Mahaanaama, a noble disciple has arrived at the fruit and understood the teaching, he often dwells in such a way as this. Here, a noble disciple recollects the Tathaagata thus: 'The Blessed One is an arahant, fully enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, sublime, knower of the world, unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.' When a noble disciple recollects the Tathaagata thus, on that occasion his mind is not obsessed by lust, hatred or delusion; his mind is straight, with the Tathaagata as its object. A noble disciple whose mind is straight gains the inspiration of the meaning, the inspiration of the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened rapture arises; for one uplifted by rapture the body becomes calm; one calm in body feels happy; for one who is happy the mind becomes concentrated. This is called a noble disciple who dwells evenly amidst an uneven generation, who dwells unafflicted amidst an afflicted generation, who has entered upon the stream of the Dhamma and develops recollection of the Buddha. "Further, Mahaanaama, a noble disciple recollects the Dhamma thus: 'The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible, immediate, inviting to one to come and see, worthy of application, to be personally experienced by the wise.' When a noble disciple recollects the Dhamma thus, on that occasion his mind is not obsessed by lust, hatred or delusion; his mind is straight, with the Dhamma as its object. A noble disciple whose mind is straight gains the inspiration of the meaning, the inspiration of the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened rapture arises; for one uplifted by rapture the body becomes calm; one calm in body feels happy; for one who is happy the mind becomes concentrated. This is called a noble disciple who dwells evenly amidst an uneven generation, who dwells unafflicted amidst an afflicted generation, who has entered upon the stream of the Dhamma and develops recollection of the Dhamma. "Further, Mahaanaama, a noble disciple recollects the Sangha thus: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples is practicing the good way, practicing the straight way, practicing the true way, practicing the proper way; that is, the four pairs of persons, the eight types of individuals -- this Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the world.' When a noble disciple recollects the Sangha thus, on that occasion his mind is not obsessed by lust, hatred or delusion; his mind is straight, with the Sangha as its object. A noble disciple whose mind is straight gains the inspiration of the meaning, the inspiration of the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened rapture arises; for one uplifted by rapture the body becomes calm; one calm in body feels happy; for one who is happy the mind becomes concentrated. This is called a noble disciple who dwells evenly amidst an uneven generation, who dwells unafflicted amidst an afflicted generation, who has entered upon the stream of the Dhamma and develops recollection of the Sangha. "Further, Mahaanaama, a noble disciple recollects his own virtues thus: 'I possess the virtues dear to the noble ones, unbroken, untorn, unblemished, unmottled, freeing, praised by the wise, unadhered to, leading to concentration.' When a noble disciple recollects his own virtues thus, on that occasion his mind is not obsessed by lust, hatred or delusion; his mind is straight, with virtue as its object. A noble disciple whose mind is straight gains the inspiration of the meaning, the inspiration of the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened rapture arises; for one uplifted by rapture the body becomes calm; one calm in body feels happy; for one who is happy the mind becomes concentrated. This is called a noble disciple who dwells evenly amidst an uneven generation, who dwells unafflicted amidst an afflicted generation, who has entered upon the stream of the Dhamma and develops recollection of virtue. "Further, Mahaanaama, a noble disciple recollects his own generosity thus: 'It is a gain for me, it is well gained by me, that in a generation obsessed by the stain of stinginess, I dwell at home with a mind devoid of the stain of stinginess, freely generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishment, one devoted to charity, delighting in giving and sharing.' When a noble disciple recollects his own generosity thus, on that occasion his mind is not obsessed by lust, hatred or delusion; his mind is straight, with generosity as its object. A noble disciple whose mind is straight gains the inspiration of the meaning, the inspiration of the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened rapture arises; for one uplifted by rapture the body becomes calm; one calm in body feels happy; for one who is happy the mind becomes concentrated. This is called a noble disciple who dwells evenly amidst an uneven generation, who dwells unafflicted amidst an afflicted generation, who has entered upon the stream of the Dhamma and develops recollection of generosity. "Further, Mahaanaama, a noble disciple develops the recollection of the devas thus: 'There are devas in the heaven of the Four Great Kings, Taavati.msa devas, Yaama devas, Tusita devas, devas Who Delight in Creation, devas Who Control What Is Created by Others, devas of Brahmaa's Company, and devas still higher than these.' There is found in me such faith as those devas possessed because of which, when they passed away from this world, they were reborn there; there is found in me such virtue -- such learning -- such generosity -- such wisdom as those devas possessed because of which, when they passed away from this world, they were reborn there.' When a noble disciple recollects his own faith, virtue, learning, generosity and wisdom, as well as those of the devas, on that occasion his mind is not obsessed by lust, hatred or delusion; his mind is straight, with the devas as its object. A noble disciple whose mind is straight gains the inspiration of the meaning, the inspiration of the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened rapture arises; for one uplifted by rapture the body becomes calm; one calm in body feels happy; for one who is happy the mind becomes concentrated. This is called a noble disciple who dwells evenly amidst an uneven generation, who dwells unafflicted amidst an afflicted generation, who has entered upon the stream of the Dhamma and develops recollection of the devas. "A noble disciple, Mahaanaama, who has arrived at the fruit and understood the teaching often dwells in just this way." with metta, Han #131189 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:38 am Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > you wrote : > > HWD: The Mahayana schools' taking issue with "own being," I believe, lies not with the "being" but with the "own." Dhammas appear fleetingly, but they don't "self-exist" for any time at all, their existence being entirely contingent/dependent. They are not "things of their own" (or "entities"), and are properly taken as such only as a matter of convention. To presume literal own-being or separate existence or svabhava (Skt)is from the Mahayana perspective to assert a substantialist atta-view. This is my understanding, but I stand to be corrected by Tony or anyone else here knowledgeable of Mahayana. > > > D: the difference is not really clear to me .. and how does that go together with the Bodhisattva Vehicle , which I understand connects the Mahyana Tradition? --------------------------------- HCW: Both Mahayana and Theravada have a Bodhisattva (Pali 'Bodhisatta') Vehicle, but the notions differ, and, to me, the Mahayana view is extremely complex and rather odd, with a Bodhisattva at times seemingly considered superior to a Buddha. In Theravada, it "simply" means the "career" of one who is on the path to Buddhahood, following upon a vow to that effect, as opposed to (only) being on the path to becoming an arahant. I don't see *any* connection between the emptiness element of Mahayana and its Bodhisattva Ideal. ----------------------------- I admit that I didn't study yet recommended links conc. Nagarjuna. > > with Metta Dieter ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #131190 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:15 am Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 33. jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 4, `Understanding of the Present Moment' (cont'd): After the cittas of a sense-door process have fallen away a mind-door process of cittas follows which experience visible object through the mind-door. After that there are other mind-door processes of cittas may think of concepts. The Buddha taught about cittas arising in processes according to a certain order so that people could see that they are beyond control, that nobody can change this order. Acharn said: "When seeing arises who knows that it is vipaaka, and when thinking arises who knows whether it is kusala or akusala? Their characteristics are different, one can see the difference by not naming them. There can be understanding that seeing is different from kusala or akusala. Just like now: seeing sees and thinking thinks. There can be a beginning to understand that they are so different from each other. Understanding can grow by considering. One can know that kusala is different from ignorance, that attachment is different from non-attachment. There is no rule that `I' should do this or that in order to have more kusala." Before the characteristics of kusala and akusala can be known precisely, they should be understood as "just a dhamma". As Acharn pointed out, the different characteristics of realities can be known by not naming them. When we are naming them we are merely thinking about them instead of penetrating their true characteristics. (To be continued) #131191 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: rebirth and control sukinderpal Hi Alex, Phil, all, > > >Ph: I talk a lot about greed (lobha) involved in wrong practices... > > And we can't help it until we are Arahants. > While lobha does stay with us till before Arahat, the one that accompanies wrong practice is eradicated at sotapatti magga. > So should one wait until one is an Arahant in order to practice for > stream entry? > Although you are correct that lobha can't be avoided and that Stream Entry comes first, to conclude however, that one must therefore be driven by lobha to practice is wrong understanding. Lobha is the cause of Dukkha and only the Eightfold Path leads to Nibbana. Even with pariyatti understanding one can see that these two are therefore opposed. The imperative is to better understand lobha rather than use it as an excuse for wrong practice. > > If we were perfect, we would be Arahants. But we have to start somewhere. > If we are perfect, there wouldn't be any lobha to take us the wrong way. It is because we have so much accumulated lobha and tendency to wrong practice, that what is wrong will be taken for right and we must be careful about this. The starting point is pariyatti understanding and not what otherwise comes in the name of patipatti. > > Maybe one of the benefits of samatha is that it pacifies lobha and > other hindrances so that while samatha lasts, one could practice > without lobha. > If one had any right understanding as to what is samatha and what is vipassana, one would see that such ideas is due to wrong understanding about both. > > If there was "control" we would not need practice. We could just will > maggaphala into existence. Precisely because there isn't straw man > version of "control", that practice makes sense. > Why consider only magga and phala cittas, why not seeing, hearing, thinking, pariyatti, patipatti also? Can you will any of these cittas to arise? Metta, Sukin #131192 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:47 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... kenhowardau Hi Howard and Tony, --- <. . .> > Howard: 1)You're conversing in an exceptionally friendly and accepting fashion with Tony, inquiring without condemning, and I really applaud you for this! --- KH: Thanks Howard, nice to know I can get it right occasionally. :-) ----------- >> Howard: The Mahayana schools' taking issue with "own being," I believe, lies not with the "being" but with the "own." Dhammas appear fleetingly, but they don't "self-exist" for any time at all, their existence being entirely contingent/dependent. They are not "things of their own" (or "entities"), and are properly taken as such only as a matter of convention. To presume literal own-being or separate existence or svabhava (Skt)is from the Mahayana perspective to assert a substantialist atta-view. This is my understanding, but I stand to be corrected by Tony or anyone else here knowledgeable of Mahayana. > Tony: Yep...all that :) -------------- KH: I am not an evangelist. Just remember, if you ever want to learn about absolute realities that *exist* in the true sense of the word and have their own inherent characteristics, DSG will be here for you. :-) ------------------------ <. . .> > Tony: > You put this in quotes??? I have never said things DO NOT EXIST. I don't know how many times I keep emphasising this...things DO EXIST including your Dhammas - but their mode of existence is utterly illusory. ------------------------ KH: It was not an intentional misquote. At the time of writing I could not see any difference between "they do not exist" and "their mode of existence is utterly illusory." I still can't. But don't worry about me; I was only mildly interested in learning more about Mahayana Abhidhamma. It's obviously beyond me. Perhaps you might be a little more circumspect, however, before contradicting people in a Theravada discussion. Be assured, when we talk about dhammas that exist absolutely (in ultimate reality) we *are* following the Pali texts. Ken H #131193 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:29 pm Subject: Re: Nargajunas Stance... thomaslaw03 "Ken H" wrote: > > ... a Theravada discussion. ... when we talk about dhammas that exist absolutely (in ultimate reality) we *are* following the Pali texts. T: It would be good if you could indicate which Pali sutta (s) you refer to? ---- Thomas #131194 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:16 pm Subject: Re: TA on metta sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I will just say that one thing is for sure for sure for sure. People cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be touched. Only the dhammas that are objects of seeing, hearing touching etc can, and then there is thinking about a person. No doubt there and really that is what is important in my opinion, that people can only be thought about, not seen, heard, touched etc. ... S: Right. .... P: >as for existence of beings it is beyond my understanding to say there are no beings. But is just thinking about beings, as concepts. That's all it can be. ... S: Yes "just thinking about beings, as concepts. That's all it can be", so why do you say at the same time "as for existence of beings it is beyond my understanding to say there are no beings"? Of course, conventionally speaking, there are beings. In an ultimate sense, however, only cittas, cetasikas and rupas. As you say, only concepts that are thought about as 'beings'. Metta Sarah ==== #131195 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:30 pm Subject: Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana - The Middle Way sarahprocter... Hi Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > S: ... I don't know what you mean when you said before that "a person (anyone) can be one of the factors in phenomena." > > T: I refer to the six sense spheres, consciousness and other factors indicated in pa.tica-samuppannaa dhammaa, in SN 12.20, which the sutta indicates that the Buddha focuses on the sentient being (satta, sattva) when looking at the world. > ---- S: Pls elaborate. When I read SN 12:20, I read about dhammas and dependent origination. As it says at the end of the sutta, when a noble disciple has comprehended dependent origination and the conditioned nature of all dhammas (apart from nibbana), it's impossible that "he will run back into the past, thinking: 'Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?.....What will I become in future?' Or that he will now be inwardly confused about the present thus: 'Do I exist? Do I not exist? What am I? How am I? this being - where has it come from, and where will it go?' It's impossible to have such thoughts because they're all concerned with the idea of the existence of a being, a wrong view of self: "For what reason [is this impossible]? Because, bhikkhus, the noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena." I like the way it is stressed earlier in the sutta that "whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality." Metta Sarah ==== #131196 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:36 pm Subject: Re: TA intro to Dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > T: I consider that the term dhammas should not be translated as realities within the content of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27). ... > > It is better to translate or understand the term being used in the sutta as "phenomena", i.e., phenomena (dhammas) arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". ... > > > S: The point of using "realities" is to clear distinguish such dhammas from concepts. For example, seeing is a dhamma (reality), visible object is a dhamma, ignorance is a dhamma, but person or computer are concepts. > > > > T: Seeing, visible object, ignorance, person, computer, and concepts are all phenomena (dhammas). They are arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". ... S: We have a different understanding here. Computer ad concepts are not dhammas (realities or phenomena), arisen by causal condition, pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa. The dhammas that are conditioned are the khandhas, i.e. cittas, cetasikas and rupas only. They are the "all" that exist, apart from the unconditioned nibbana. Metta Sarah ===== #131197 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Dieter and Ann, 2. sarahprocter... Hi Greg, Thanks for your interesting introduction. I gather from one of your links that you are based in California. Jon and I live in Hong Kong (& Sydney), so we have some familiarity with martial arts. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory E. LeBlanc" wrote: > You said "All conditioned realities are dukkha because they arise and > pass away." This refers to Tanha and its generation of Dukkha? I am > unclear as to why seeing consciousness is Dukkha, it this also due to Tanha? ... S: Seeing consciousness, hearing, sound, attachment, wisdom - all conditioned dhammas arise and fall way are therefore inherently unsatisfactory, not worth clinging to. It is because of tanha, clinging to that which is unsatisfactory (dukkha), that the rounds of birth and death continue on and on, from moment to moment, life to life. Because of clinging and ignorance, there is kamma, which brings results by way of birth, seeing, hearing and so on. More clinging, more kamma, more results. Please let me know if this is still unclear. Metta Sarah ===== #131198 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: rebirth and control truth_aerator Dear Sukinder, Phil, all, >S:While lobha does stay with us till before Arahat, the one that >accompanies wrong practice is eradicated at sotapatti magga. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Wrong practices (rites&rituals) are those like ox-duty, dog-duty and other similar practices. I don't know ANY Dhamma teachers who teach that. >Although you are correct that lobha can't be avoided and that Stream >Entry comes first, to conclude however, that one must therefore be >driven by lobha to practice is wrong understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lobha for Dhamma practice, can lead one to Anagami stage. Sure. It can't lead to Arhatship. But let us first become Anagami and then worry about passion for Dhamma. >S: Lobha is the cause of Dukkha Which one experiences even as Anagami. >The imperative is to better understand lobha rather than use it >as an excuse for wrong practice... [snip] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So lets talk about "right" practice then. >If one had any right understanding as to what is samatha and what is >vipassana, one would see that such ideas is due to wrong >understanding about both. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong understanding by whom? >Why consider only magga and phala cittas, why not seeing, hearing, >thinking, pariyatti, patipatti also? Can you will any of these cittas >to arise? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One can't will them to arise, just like an untrained person can't will skill to arise. But through PRACTICE, eventually, little by little, they can. With best wishes, Alex #131199 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:05 pm Subject: A Message on Nagarjuna to Ken & Tony upasaka_howard Hi, Ken, Tony, and all - Ken, I tried to send the following from the web site, but it wasn't working. So I'm sending it directly: _____________________________________________ Hi, Ken (and Tony) - --- In _dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , "Ken H" wrote: Be assured, when we talk about dhammas that exist absolutely (in ultimate reality) we *are* following the Pali texts. ----------------------------- HCW: There are teachings in the Pali suttas that don't quite go in this direction, Ken. I'll give a handful at the end. ------------------------------- > > Ken H > ================================= With metta, Howard /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ (From the Kalaka Sutta) - - - - - - - - /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) - - - - - - - - /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) - - - - - - - /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace./ (From the Potaliya Sutta) - - - - - - - - /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta)