 
2201 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sun Dec 3, 2000 10:35pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Digest Number 213

 
  Dear betty,
thanks for the message and good to have your participation. Glad
to hear you met with Nina and sarah and Jon and others. Look
forward to any bits you can pass on from the discussions now
happening in bangkok and cambodia.
One little technical point. This last post included all the
other posts for the day, a total of 60somethingb or whatever.
Could you chop off any non relevant stuff before posting.
Thanks
robert


 
2202 From: Michael Olds   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 2:33am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Citta and Abhidhamma (was Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Robert,

You first in that my dialog with you began first:

RK: . . . I have a feeling we see, or will see, a sizeable
portion in much the same light. Not necessary that we have to agree about
everything; what we should do though is clearly explain our interpretations
so that we and anyone listening can fully understand our positions.
Hopefully we all learn something that improves our understanding of Dhamma.

MO: I have been discussing the dhamma with people since the early sixties. I
have always found that putting myself out there and taking the battering
that usually resulted was one of the most effective learning tools for me. I
look to the suttas and how most of them came to be as my model. Debate in
the old days was a lively art.

The problem, as I see it is that there are one or two key concepts which if
taken in the wrong way can alter one’s entire understanding of the Dhamma. I
cit-a um . . . Letting Go for one. If one does not grasp the idea that the
key to the entire structure is letting go, [sammaa Sankappa #1: nekkhamma]
then the purpose of every other teaching is lost. So my response to this is:
Agree on anything or not, I wish you nothing but the best, but the key for
me is seeing a few things correctly whether or not anyone agrees with me.

MO: . . .but just let me tell you where my doubting mind has immediately
focused: On this business of needing to "think about" in order to see
not-self, and this breaking this thinking up into right
Thinking [and wrong thinking]

RK: Were you thinking about Dhamma when you composed this reply? Do
you think about Dhamma when you study the suttas? There are so
many levels of understanding but if there has never been
consideration of the Dhamma - and that is thinking - then
higher levels cannot arise. Imagine telling someone to sit and
meditate but never teaching them any Dhamma- what could they
understand?

MO: It is possible for an individual who has never heard the Dhamma to
attain the goal by careful observation. This is the condition of the Buddha,
this is the condition of “Silent” Buddhas. Putting those to one side as
being the case for beings of extraordinary determination; for the rest
hearing [what we can conclude is essential key concepts of] the Dhamma is
needed. We do have the case of individuals who have heard extremely little
of the Dhamma who have grasped it’s meaning. That this must be the case is
dictated by simple logistics: most people in the Buddha’s day will have
heard no more than one sutta (pick one). There was no writing in the general
population. Not everyone could follow the Buddha around. If you examine the
suttas you will notice that even broken into parts they almost always hold
up as complete “Dhammas” in the sense of having the essential ingredients in
them to lead an energetic, determined individual to the goal. I recall one
case where a Bhikkhu was taught only that “whatever it is, if it has
anything to do with Tanha, know that to be Not-Dhamma.”

My point in terms of studying the dhamma is that this study must be aimed
correctly. If we are going to be “thinking about” then we should approach
this thinking about as a matter of comprehending that which will most
readily facilitate letting go. Thinking should be done expeditiously. Study
dhamma to grasp the basic idea of dhamma – for this you will not find any
better vehicle than the Four Truths. “He who grasps the Four Truths Grasps
Dependent Origination.” Study Dhamma with the idea that by studying Dhamma
you are not making trouble for yourself elsewhere. Study Dhamma to develop
focus of mind so that when you have achieved Vision you will be able to see
what you see, not because studying dhamma will bring about vision. If you
study dhamma because you think that by understanding the detailed meaning of
each of its constituent parts in detail you will have in any way advanced
your progress toward freedom over and above what you could have got from the
Four Truths and you are doomed.

RK: Certainly if we believe that thinking about dhammas is the same
as directly experiencing them then that is a delusion which must
obstruct direct insight.

MO: Agreed – I believe this is the point I was making above in different
words.

RK:  The moments of direct insight are not a matter of thinking in
words -for instance if understanding vedana as vedana (feeling as
feeling)there is simply sati-sampajanna (mindfulness and clear
comprehension)for those brief moments.

MO: Here I see the first building block of a misunderstanding of the
Satipatthana: that Insight is it’s goal. We all study the words between the
refrains of the Satipatthana; few of us notice the refrain that ends each
section:

. . . thus he lives without self, downbound to nothing at all in the world.

Insight too is a passing phenomena. Insight if grasped incorrectly, as the
gain of some “right” view, is just leaping from one bound up condition to
another. It becomes an intellectual phenomena. Without “letting go” as the
guiding principle behind one’s effort, insight is useless.

RK: However, I would suggest that if we believe thinking must obstruct
insight into dhammas then that shows that one does not see that thinking" is
simply different namas (mental phenomena)including citta(consciousness) and
cetana(volition) arising because they are conditioned to arise.

MO: First I see thinking as obstructing insight into Dhammas; and second I
do not see how thinking this way shows that one does not see that thinking
is simply different namas. While one is thinking one is certainly not seeing
the rise and fall of mental phenomena. “Thinking” almost by definition, is
identification of “Self” with these cittas and cetanas.


RK: If we wish to stop thinking isn't that moving away from that very moment
when thinking arises?

MO: We do not “wish” to stop thinking. We train ourselves not to think
about. Thoughts arise, but not to “us.” They are not “our” thoughts.

RK: Why not be aware of any moment just as it is. You see there can be
direct awareness even while thinking.

MO: If you were to say this like this: “There can be direct awareness while
thoughts are rising and falling.” I would agree.

RK: Panna (wisdom) slips in and insights any of the many paramattha
dhammas(realities) that are always arising.

MO: This may be an Abhidhamma thing: the word “realities” has implications
of realness. To hold that any phenomena has realness is to hold the ditthi:
“it is”. My reading: PARAMATTHA = PARA pas around up overa sun – um; ATTHA
attaining; DHAMMA thing. To avoid the problems associated with “ultimate
realities” I would go with something like “fundamental phenomena.”

MO: I am not sure about this “insighting” that Panna does. I don’t see
pa~n~na out there busy doing anything that isn’t conditioned by the prior
preparation of the individual in his letting go of low views.

RK: This happens very quickly. This is one of the differences between
samattha and satipatthana vipassana.

MO: That these phenomena are occurring at an incredible speed is not in
question to my mind. The question is: to what degree is it necessary to
think about it to know how the details of it work in order to be able to see
that identification with it is the recipe for a bad end, and that therefore
it should be let go.

When I hear people comparing “samattha” and “satipatthana” vipassana, what I
am hearing is the discussion of the points of view of certain schools of
Buddhist thought. In my reading I see the satipatthana sutta as encompassing
both samattha and vipassana, and my tendency is to go with the sutta and
forget about the schools. I believe up past the learning of the theory of
how the system works, the proper practice as described in the suttas is to
develop samattha and vipassana equally.

Just let me conclude by restating my original thought: whether we agree
completely or only on a point or two or not at all, I have nothing but the
greatest respect, admiration, and affection for you and the others in the
community in that you are all doing something that I see is extraordinary
and rare in this effort to get to the bottom of things.

Best Wishes!
Michael Olds    California
www.BuddhaDust.org
ICQ#94992160

 
2203 From: Michael Olds   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 4:41am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Citta and Abhidhamma (was Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Kom:

Next!

Thank you for your welcome, and thank you again for taking the time and
effort to produce a well-thought-out and articulate document.

KT: Buddha taught about realities as they truly are.  Even without him, the
realities exist as they are.  So ultimately, when someone teaches about the
truth (the four noble truths), they are teaching what Buddha
taught.  This is regardless of where the teaching comes from, the
vinayana, the sutta, the abhidhamma, the atthagatha, and from other
sources.

MO: I completely agree with this and I stated as much in my original post.

KT: The question then becomes: without knowing about the truth,
how do we know who is speaking the truth.  What is the authenticity of
each source?

The Theravada tradition is obviously holding the tipitika as the most
authentic source of the truth, holding that the teachings come directly
from the Buddha himself.  Now, as you and other people have mentioned,
there are controversies about some sections of the tipitika, as well as
the commentaries added on to it.  Logically, don't we have some doubts
here about the ENTIRE tipitika itself?

MO: This much doubt is in fact healthy and is an aspect of learning
recommended by the Buddha in his instructions to test the truth.

KT: Do you believe that one man can remember, accurately, 82,000 different
teachings as heard from the Buddha and the Buddha's disciples?

MO: Absolutely. As Jim mentioned in a previous post, and as I know for
myself, there are Bhikkhus out there even today that hold the complete Sutta
Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka in memory. Think about it: eliminate your need to
hunt for food, shelter, clothing, and medicine; eliminate computers, TV,
Radio, and Books and Other writings; eliminate pursuit of sexual pleasure
and how much of your mind to you see is freed up for retaining suttas in
memory? Add to that the extraordinary uniformity in the Pali of both word
and idea throughout the entirety of the Sutta and Vinaya pitakas and you
have a document that has a quality which works greatly towards its accurate
retention over time: self correction through redundancy. [Look at the idea
of “compression” used for saving space when transmitting images over the
computer as an example of how redundancy can be used to advantage.]

KT: Do you believe that after a few hundred years of oral transmission of
teachings, that the teachings were written down accurately as the Buddha
himself had taught?

MO: This argument is made moot by your earlier argument that if what is
taught is the truth, it is what the Buddha taught.

The first thing one needs to do in this case is to ask one’s self what it is
that one is, one’s self, attempting to gain from studying this Dhamma. Then
one needs to examine the claims made by the various teachers out there. Then
one needs to examine the method suggested for accomplishing the goal. Then
one needs to follow that method. If that method accomplishes the stated
goal, then one can ask no more. Asking more one could ask if the Entire
teaching of this teacher who has taught something that does accomplish that
goal also is consistent with that part of that teaching that does accomplish
that goal. If it does, it doesn’t matter if the words are exactly those of
the original teacher or not. But in the case of This System, comprehending
the difficulty of the goal and the uniqueness in the world of it’s method,
we would necessarily have to come to the conclusion (having had all the
above experiences) that what we have in front of us in the Suttas is in fact
the word of the Buddha . . . or, if it isn’t, then the words we have in
front of us in the Suttas and Vinaya ARE the Buddha.

“He who sees the Four Truths, Beggars, sees Dependant Origination; he who
sees Dependant Origination sees Dhamma; he who sees Dhamma sees me.”

Finally: A few hundred years of oral transmission is only five or so
generations, many of those will have overlapped, allowing the older
generation to correct the younger. Given the freedom of mind I described
concerning the things of the world, it seems entirely plausible to me that
an oral tradition could have preserved largely intact, a document such as we
have in the Suttas.

But further, we have evidence in the Vinaya, in the case of the Brahmans who
wished to translate the suttas into Vedic that writing was in fact in
existence at the time. I argue that those of weak minds then would have
found the idea of writing down the dhamma irresistible. That we have no
evidence that this was the case doesn’t matter. This is an issue that will
never be resolved in a way provable to those without the Eye of Dhamma.

KT: Are there any rigorous verifications of the different sources (as you
might see in bible studies) and are those verifications enough to ensure the
truth?

MO: I thought that was what this Abhidhamma and Commentaries thing was all
about.

KT: I think the answer lies in the fact that the truth is provable, in
every single moment of our life.  I think we are all in agreement here
that the core teachings in the tipitika are provable truth, at least to
oneself.

MO: Complete agreement.

KT: The problem then becomes, how do we know when the truth appears to us,
that it is the truth, and it is not just our delusion about the truth.  I
notice that I certainly have the liking of the moment when I think I
discover the truth.  Because of that, I sometimes hold on to the idea as
being the truth just because it makes sense, and I like the idea.

So, the advice that I have for myself is that, the best I can possibly
do, is to learn about the provable truth as much as I can, look for the
consistency and inconsistency, and see it for myself if they make any
sense, if the truth as taught appears as the truth as experienced.

MO: Excellent technique. So the question is: If the Abhidhamma is the
superior dhamma (although, a hum, not in any way meaning to denigrate the
suttas), and all of the schools of Buddhism out there acknowledge at least
the suttas and Vinaya as authentic whereas there is differing opinion about
the Abhidhamma, would it not prove to be a wiser technique to begin with the
more fundamental dhamma and progress on through it to the point where it is
mastered?

Have you mastered the lesser Dhamma of the Suttas? I am not asking you to
respond. I am asking you if you have asked yourself this question.

But this is the heart of your question: The Truth, so called, is not
something you “get.” The Truth is what is left when you get rid of Low
Views. The evaluation is not “Do I have the Truth?” it is: “Do I have any
Low Views left?” Is there anything there that I regard as Me or Mine? Is
there anything there that, if it changed by death or injury or some other
calamity would cause me grief and lamentation? Is there anything there that
I still hold to be “real” or to have an ultimate existence or no existence
at all?, is there anything there that I hold to be “The One True way of
seeing things and all other ways are false.”

KT: There is a sutta about the four great references (4 mahapradesh?) that
regardless of where the teaching comes from, we need to always
cross-reference with somewhere else.  It is not a waste of time: in
fact, it is the only way to come closer to the truth without knowing
the truth our self.

MO: I believe this technique is described in the Vinaya, and is worded:
Check Sutta with Sutta and Vinaya with Vinaya. This is to eliminate those
places where there is inconsistency. Work with those places where there is
internal consistency. Again, I don’t think the idea here is that one should,
just because there is consistency, accept the truth of the thing without
testing.

KT: Why do we need to understand (and think about it as it truly is) the
truth as it is before we can know what it truly is?  This is because when
the truth appears, it will be known as such and not otherwise.  Not knowing
the truth, we will undoubtedly mistake the truth as non-truth, and the
non-truth as truth.  Hence, learning about the truth is the pre-requisite to
developing the knowledge about truth.  Without it, we will be only lost in
the non-truth even if sometimes we may experience the truth.

MO: Well here I can only partly agree. As I mentioned in my reply to Robert,
there is the case of determining the truth without prior contact with the
dhamma. And see my answer just above for determining “The Truth.”

My issue is: When the Truth can be found in the Four Truths, and No Truth is
Higher than these Truths, And these truths encompass all the other Truths of
this system, at what point does studying the Dhamma contradict those truths:
That to end DUKKHA one must end Thirst – and that includes Thirst for Dhamma
knowledge.

MO: Can someone place the citanas for me in terms of the pancakkhandhas?

KT: As Robert has mentioned, citta is vinnanakhanndas

Thank you.

MO: What is a citana?

KT: Citta is the element that is the chief in cognizing an object.
Although the conascent cetasikas also cognizes the same object, their
functions differ from the citta in that citta's only and chief function
is to cognize the object.

MO: So we are talking about divisions in the “consciousness element” here?
One of the Six Great Elements.

MO: What is the origin of a citana?

KT: As any sankharadhamma, when there are conditions causing the element to
arise, it will arise.  I believe Buddha explicitly refused to answer the
question about the original arising of citta in the rebirth cycles, as it
does not aid in learning about the truth.

MO: I do not need to know about the original arising of citta; but in fact
when pressed he does say that it is TANHA.

What I am asking is what are the conditions that cause it to arise?

MO: What sustains a citana? What is the end of a citana? What is the way
that leads to the end of a citana?

KT: AS any sankharadhamma, when there is no condition for the element to
arise, it does not arise.  In the case of citta, there is no citta
following cuti citta of the arahat as there is no more condition for
the next citta to arise.

MO: None of this addresses my questions.

MO: Is the citana of the Past or of the Present or of the Future?

KT: As citta rises and falls, a particular citta can be classified into
past, present, and future.

MO: But you have said that cittas are conditioned. If cittas are
conditioned, how can they be anything but of the Past? And has not the
Buddha said: The Eye, Beggars, is of the Past. That which is of the Past,
put it away. Putting it away will be for your good and benefit for many a
long day.

MO: Is a citana the self? Does citana belong to the self? Is citana derived
of the self? Is the self an aspect of citana?

KT: There is no self in all realities (abhidhammas).

MO: Accepting with qualification concerning the word “realities”; Well said!

MO: experience is with modern psychiatry where clearly focusing on one's
problems is something that the mind delights in; delighting in it, it goes
out to recreate those problems;

KT: My conditions that could have used psychological help in the past have
been mostly attachments to the non-truth.  Our cittas are experts at
cognizing the non-truth: learning about the non-truth doesn't help
anybody.  Our suffering can be only eliminated by learning about the
truth.

MO: My point is that simply learning about the Truth is not enough:
One must remember the Truth; one must test the truth; one must evaluate what
one has tested; one must, relying on one’s conclusions continue on in ones
effort until one has achieved the final goal.

MO: The second view is sit down meditation and the particular saying of
The Buddha which is called "Resolve" which I have used as a guide . . .

KT: My observation in this area is that Buddha knows the accumulations of
his pupils and can teach a pupil exactly as the pupil needs to
progress: he has the ability to teach the most efficient way that the
pupil can progress.  However, he did not teach everybody the same way.
Not every ariya disciple becomes enlightened in that way.  Are you sure
you have the accumultations to progress in learning the truth in that
manner?

MO: I am sure you mean here to say: “One must make sure one has the
accumulations to progress in learning the truth in that manner.” I am
suggesting that at the least one must give this method a try! And as a
second place, to bite off what one can chew: if the Abhidhamma is for
superior minds, then surely one should begin with the suttas and stay with
them until they have been mastered before progressing on to that superior
(certainly more difficult to penetrate) doctrine.

MO: I have a hard time (a very hard time) catching the distinction between
the two in spite of the dictionary.

KT: The citta is briefly described above.  Cetana is a cetasikas, a
sankhara khanndas, arising with all cittas.  The most-readily-understandable
interpretation is "intention".  When we intend to do something (kill, lie,
give, keep sila, etc.), there is intention at work.

MO: Ok. Please bear with me: We have eye and visual object; with the contact
of the two [as I understood it] consciousness arises [sanna, vedana, vinnana
as one continuous process described by Sariputta as not being capable of
being perceived in distinctive units, i.e., this is a sanna, this is a
vedana, this is a vinnana]. An Element of that is a Unit called a citta.
That this element is confounded (sankhara) is clear. But it is arising as a
consequence of past action. It may carry with it the consequences of the
Intent with which that past action was made, but if it carries with it the
Intent for future action there is no escape from kamma by modification of
intent. Please help me understand the mechanism of action here.


Best Wishes!
Michael Olds    California
www.BuddhaDust.org
ICQ#94992160

 
2204 From: Michael Olds   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 5:29am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Amara,

Thank you for your response:

>MO: One thing I note about just this: Whereas the Suttas are presented
in what I would call "2nd hand" form; this quote comes down 4th hand. When
we hear Evam me sutam, we are hearing Ananda say that he either heard this
as it was spoken or heard it repeated to him by the Buddha at a later time.
What I hear in these lines is "What I hear is that Ananda heard this was the
Buddha's word from Sariputta."

AC: Evam me sutam means this is what I heard, it does not specify whether it
is second, third or fourth hand.  In fact several suttas are
recounted as accounts heard from another party to whom that event was
told by one of the original participants.

MO: Well Amara, I wasn’t trying to be scientifically accurate here. I was
trying to describe the distinction in the way the two documents present
themselves. I have found that the truth (not ultimate truth here but the
honest truth) or untruth of a thing often comes out as an inadvertent
statement by the speaker. Here I am suggesting that the two presenters are
presenting their documents in very different ways.

As I understand the tradition, the “Evam me Sutam”, while surely meaning
what you say, is intended in the special case of the Suttas to indicate that
it is, in fact, Ananda who is speaking. After that we are repeating and
should technically be saying: Evam me Sutam, (what I have read is that so
and so wrote down what was passed down through so and so many generations of
memorizers from a time when Ananda is said to have said Evam Me Sutam: . . .
“ But then, the same would have to be said about these words about the
Abhidhamma, which, essentially leaves us where we started.

AC: And the Buddhist teachings were first passed on by rote, several hundred
arahanta recited exactly the same words without deviation, since there were
no self or mana of any degree in the persons concerned, their memories were
not like anything anyone thick with the self and kilesa could understand or
imagine.

MO: Surely you mean to say: “As I have heard, the Buddhist teachings were .
. .” Just pulling your leg. This is also what I have heard and believe.

AC: It is not like the Bible where the apostles, however few they were in
the New Testament, for example, each told different details about the birth
of Christ, etc.  Here every syllable was the same.  Whether the teachings
are true has to be proven by the individual and their accumulations,

MO: As I have now stated a couple of times, I agree with this and so stated
in my original post [see below].

AC: what remains universal is that each being has eyes, ears, noses,
tongues, body-sense and mind, and that is what the Buddha taught about that
no other religion does.  Whether he talked about them or not these realities
exist and whether we live in ignorance taking them for the self some God
created or know them as they really are, realities that are impermanent that
should not be taken for the self depends very much on the individual's
accumulations.

MO: OK, no problem. I say again I have difficulty with that word “realities”
which has a meaning contradictory to the way it is being used here. Also, I
see this word “accumulations” coming up quite frequently. While I can
imagine the meaning of this word, it’s use here looks a lot like
“predestination.” I hope I have misunderstood and that what is intended is
not something that is hopelessly stuck in the Past?

>MO: In the end it doesn't matter in that if there is no incongruity with
the suttas it is Dhamma. On the other hand if this work were to show itself
to have been put into the public view under false pretences, it would not
reflect well on the knowledge of the Dhamma of those who perpetrated the
hoax, and one would need to exercise extra special scrutiny of every
proposition, comparing each line to the suttas, and, as such, would
constitute a monumental waste of time.

AC: I am sure that if you could prove that this were true you would not be
asking any questions here.

MO: It is not my purpose here to be proving or disproving the authenticity
of the Abhidhamma. By asking the questions I have asked I will be able, by
the answers to determine if there is anything going on here that is worth
deeper examination by and for myself. If, in the process, I can see that
there is in the orthodox Abhidhamma that which is Not Dhamma according to
what I can see is orthodox dhamma in the suttas, then I will have my own
opinion and will keep it to myself. I have no wish to upset anyone’s belief
system. If, in the process of this investigation, some thing comes out that
proves the Abhidhamma to be an unorthodox document and there are others who
are taken from not-dhamma to dhamma, where is the harm?

>MO: So let me ask a question concerning dhamma of you or of anyone else who
cares to reply. There was talk here about citanas. Can someone place the
citanas for me in terms of the pancakkhandhas? What is a citana? What is the
origin of a citana? What sustains a citana? What is the end of a citana?
What is the way that leads to the end of a citana? Is the citana of the Past
or of the Present or of the Future? Is a citana the self? Does citana belong
to the self? Is citana derived of the self? Is the self an aspect of citana?

AC: As Robert said, citanas do not exist.  The citta is vinnana khandha. The
cetana cetasika is sankhara khandha.  You take both for the self, plus a lot
of other realities, because of ignorance.

MO: I do not thing Robert said anywhere that citanas do not exist (provided
we have the correct spelling). And, I think, given the understanding that I
have been given thus far, that to say that the cittanas/cetanas do not exist
would be incorrect.

I hope you are saying “One takes both for the self . . .”?

>MO: Would you say it was true or not that Penetrating Knowledge of
Citanas constituted knowing that citanas were changeable, not-self, and
in-so-far-as they were not self carried potential danger of causing Pain to
the degree one was attached to them?

Would you say that it was true or not that as seekers we should be
training ourselves not to think about "citanas"; not to think "I am
citanas"; not to think "citanas are mine"; not to think "I am made of
citanas" or "citanas are made of me"? If the answer to this is that it is
not true that as seekers this should be our practice, then what is the
release from citanas?

I am just asking. I would like to know. This is the essence of my
inquiry into the Abhidhamma. Not simply the inquiry concerning citanas, for
sure, but this is the pattern of my concern. I see in those who study the
Abhidhamma an obsession with Dhamma that is to my mind contrary to Dhamma. I
have joined this group to learn if this conception of mine is just a bias.

My questions are structured but not argumentative. I am sincere.

AC: I would suggest that you read the book Summary of Paramatthadhamma in
the advanced section of <http://dhammastudy.com/> for more precise
terminology on which to base our discussions and perhaps a more solid
understanding of the abhidhamma, then if you have any more questions
we could discuss them more clearly.

MO: Thank you for this reference which I will add to Roberts list of
suggested reading and will get to in time. Meanwhile I hope you are not
saying that I must understand what you are talking about before you are able
to teach me about what you are talking about? As I understand it, what we
are learning here was an oral trdition.



Best Wishes!
Michael Olds    California
www.BuddhaDust.org
ICQ#94992160

 
2205 From: amara chay   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 8:03am
Subject: Re: Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  > MO: Well Amara, I wasn't trying to be scientifically accurate here. 
I was
> trying to describe the distinction in the way the two documents 
present
> themselves. I have found that the truth (not ultimate truth here but 
the
> honest truth) or untruth of a thing often comes out as an 
inadvertent
> statement by the speaker. Here I am suggesting that the two 
presenters are
> presenting their documents in very different ways.
> 
> As I understand the tradition, the "Evam me Sutam", while surely 
meaning
> what you say, is intended in the special case of the Suttas to 
indicate that
> it is, in fact, Ananda who is speaking. After that we are repeating 
and
> should technically be saying: Evam me Sutam, (what I have read is 
that so
> and so wrote down what was passed down through so and so many 
generations of
> memorizers from a time when Ananda is said to have said Evam Me 
Sutam: . . .
> " But then, the same would have to be said about these words about 
the
> Abhidhamma, which, essentially leaves us where we started.


Dear MO,

It seems that the way that Sariputta did not repeat the words Evam me 
Sutam throughoout the abhidhamma teachings confused your reasoning.  
In fact Sariputta was very precise and when he spoke of the cetasika 
for example and having finished describing the 
sappa-citta-satarana-cetasika as universal and accompanying all citta 
he did not repeat this as he described all the 89 major kinds of 
citta.  This may leave you where he started but not the serious 
student.

 

> AC: what remains universal is that each being has eyes, ears, noses,
> tongues, body-sense and mind, and that is what the Buddha taught 
about that
> no other religion does.  Whether he talked about them or not these 
realities
> exist and whether we live in ignorance taking them for the self some 
God
> created or know them as they really are, realities that are 
impermanent that
> should not be taken for the self depends very much on the 
individual's
> accumulations.
> 
> MO: OK, no problem. I say again I have difficulty with that word 
"realities"
> which has a meaning contradictory to the way it is being used here. 
Also, I
> see this word "accumulations" coming up quite frequently. While I 
can
> imagine the meaning of this word, it's use here looks a lot like
> "predestination." I hope I have misunderstood and that what is 
intended is
> not something that is hopelessly stuck in the Past?


Realities are what exist and appear at this very instant to be proven, 
if one has the understanding of the dhamma as taught by the Buddha.  
Here in front of the computer screen does sight exist?  It is a vipaka 
citta arising from conditions accumulated in the past, as well as that 
which is accumulating now.  It is a dhatu of element that knows or 
experiences, whereas your eyes, ehen this dhatu is not there, would be 
like that of a dead persons or even the eyes being transplanted to 
another person, lying in ice somewhere.  Only when the transplant is 
finished and the receiver has the right accumulations, would the dhatu 
that sees arise in that eye again, as it does in yours the moment that 
you see.  What you see on the other hand is vanno, the visible object, 
whose characteristics are different from seeing, from sound, etc.  It 
is the only aramana of the eye dvara.  Yet each instant of vanno is 
different, the combinations are infinite and once that instant falls 
away you would never see that vanno again.  No two instants of vanno 
are identical, and they arise and fall away very rapidly, like the 
rotation of electrons and splitting of quarks.  Yet the citta or 
whatever you choose to call or spell them is 17 times faster than 
that.  They arise through the bodysense as you type or use the mouse, 
they do not exist only in rote form or in huge books and treatises but 
right under your nose, so to speak, but only if you studied them as 
the Buddha and Sariputta and the rest of the abhidhamma teachers teach 
you to understand how they work.  But the practical side is completely 
up to your accumulations whether to apply them or not, not even the 
Buddha can do that for you.



> MO: It is not my purpose here to be proving or disproving the 
authenticity
> of the Abhidhamma. By asking the questions I have asked I will be 
able, by
> the answers to determine if there is anything going on here that is 
worth
> deeper examination by and for myself. If, in the process, I can see 
that
> there is in the orthodox Abhidhamma that which is Not Dhamma 
according to
> what I can see is orthodox dhamma in the suttas, then I will have my 
own
> opinion and will keep it to myself. I have no wish to upset anyone's 
belief
> system. If, in the process of this investigation, some thing comes 
out that
> proves the Abhidhamma to be an unorthodox document and there are 
others who
> are taken from not-dhamma to dhamma, where is the harm?


I agree, none but to yourself.



> MO: Thank you for this reference which I will add to Roberts list of
> suggested reading and will get to in time. Meanwhile I hope you are 
not
> saying that I must understand what you are talking about before you 
are able
> to teach me about what you are talking about? As I understand it, 
what we
> are learning here was an oral trdition.


Thank you for the dialog, which conditioned some moments of study to 
arise in me as I wrote.  I do not think I have the qualifications to 
teach you anything but we could discuss the dhamma which is always 
useful and if it does not benefit you in any way, I will have tried my 
best and heve been forced to think of the truth and satipatthana and 
accumulated a little more right conditions for myself in the process! 
 So anumodana in your interest,

Amara

PS. Signing off for Cambodia, where I do not know if there would be 
any internet connections, we'll see what vipaka brings!  Am picking up 
Nina and Lodevijk up at 8.30 for the trip to the airport, Robert!  
They are in good hands!  (actually my chauffeur's, all of us)  
Yesterday I also explained in front of all concerned about the 
translations, and I think the VGs are all clear on my account, I am 
very happy about that!!!

 
2206 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 9:22am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Citta and Abhidhamma (was Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Michael,

--- Michael Olds  wrote:
> MO: I completely agree with this and I stated as much in my original
> post.
> MO: This argument is made moot by your earlier argument that if what
> is
> taught is the truth, it is what the Buddha taught.
Thanks for your patience in reading through what we have already agreed
on: it gives me the confidence that we are on the same page.

> The first thing one needs to do in this case is to ask one’s self
> what it is
> that one is, one’s self, attempting to gain from studying this
> Dhamma. Then
> one needs to examine the claims made by the various teachers out
> there. Then
> one needs to examine the method suggested for accomplishing the goal.
> Then
> one needs to follow that method. If that method accomplishes the
> stated
> goal, then one can ask no more. Asking more one could ask if the
> Entire
> teaching of this teacher who has taught something that does
> accomplish that
> goal also is consistent with that part of that teaching that does
> accomplish
> that goal. 
>If it does, it doesn’t matter if the words are exactly
> those of
> the original teacher or not. But in the case of This System,
> comprehending
> the difficulty of the goal and the uniqueness in the world of it’s
> method,
> we would necessarily have to come to the conclusion (having had all
> the
> above experiences) that what we have in front of us in the Suttas is
> in fact
> the word of the Buddha . . . or, if it isn’t, then the words we have
> in
> front of us in the Suttas and Vinaya ARE the Buddha.
Totally agreed.  I think that we can now discuss why learning the
teachings in Abhidhammas is important.  

> the Abhidhamma is the superior dhamma 
The Buddha taught only the truth that will aid becoming free of all the
sufferrings.  If the truth helps one becoming free, that is the
superior truth for the person.   Hence, in this sense, the abhidhammas
is not superior to the sutta: they all teach the truths that help a
person becoming free.

> the Abhidhamma, would it not prove to be a wiser technique to begin
> with the
> more fundamental dhamma and progress on through it to the point where
> it is
> mastered?
I think we are in agreement here that knowing the fundamentals about
dhammas is the only way to proceed.  I think the difference here is
whether the Sutta and the Abhidhammas are "better" ways to know the
fundamentals.  I would like to present the following comments based on
my understandings:
1) The suttas are concise teachings exactly fitting the
accumulations/outlooks of the recipient.  It is deep, profound,
intricate, and subtle, as all the Master's teachings are.  The receiver
that became an ariya disciple succeeded not because of that teaching
alone, but because of the dhamma/panna accumulations done in countless
previous lives.  The Buddha himself had accumulations for the
englightenment for 4 asangayas (sp?) 100,000 kappa.  Maha-mogalana and
Sali-puttra each accumulated for 1 asangayas, 100,000 kappa.  
2) Without the needed accumulations, just a few short and medium
teaching alone cannot get a person to become an ariya disciple.
3) The abhidhammas are the books where all the deep, profound,
intricate, and subtle details are expounded upon.  This is for the
venuyasatta (slow learner, one who needs lengthy study) and other
people with no hope to become enlightend in this life, who, without the
explicit details, cannot grasp even the most fundamentals of dhammas. 
The abhidhammas are thus for the persons who did not have enough
accumulations to understand the truth based on the short teachings,
without the explicit details, alone.  In this sense, people who need to
study abhidhammas to correctly understand dhammas have in fact
"inferior" accumulations than the people who can understand it based on
the suttas alone.
4) Because of the explicitness of the abhidhammas, there are less
leeway to interpret dhammas as one pleases.  Because of this reason, if
the abhidhammas in fact teach the truth, it may lead a person with
certain kind of accumultations less astrayed from the truth.  Because
the suttra is not as explicit, we have more tendency to interpret it
anyway we like.
5) The elements of abhidhammas are in fact within the sutta itself.  I
have only personally seen a section of the sutta which explicitly
mentions the dhammas in the abhidhammas manner.   However, I have heard
that the abhidhammas are in fact, extracts from the suttas.
6) The main teacher from whom we quote frequently, Tan A. Sujin,
repeated time and time again that what we must compare the teachings
from all the three tipitikas: the meanings of the teachings must match
in order for us to have any kind of confidence that what we understand
is the truth.  We, as somebody who studies abhidhammas, do not hold
abhidhammas to be the ultimate authority: we hold all three tipitikas
to be the authority.
7) Hence, I think the main argument for studying the Abhidhammas first,
is to make sure that we correctly grasp the fundamentals of buddhism
(anicca, dukkha, and perhaps most importantly, anatta) before we wander
on from there.
8) I agree with you that learning and understanding the intricate
details of the teachings alone doesn't allow one to progress toward
becoming enlightened.  In fact, I am sure other people in this group
agreed to this as well.  Only directly knowing the truth can one
progress.  A. Sujin said as much.  However, we still need to
differentiate what is the truth and what isn't.

> Have you mastered the lesser Dhamma of the Suttas? I am not asking
> you to
> respond. I am asking you if you have asked yourself this question.
I have neither mastered the vinaya, the sutta, nor the abhidhamma.  I
am actively engaging in the studies of both the sutta and the
abhidhammas.  In fact, I totally agree that if I can master the
teachings based on the sutta alone, there is no need for me to study
abhidhammas.

> But this is the heart of your question: The Truth, so called, is not
> something you “get.” The Truth is what is left when you get rid of
> Low
> Views. The evaluation is not “Do I have the Truth?” it is: “Do I have
> any
> Low Views left?” Is there anything there that I regard as Me or Mine?
> Is
> there anything there that, if it changed by death or injury or some
> other
> calamity would cause me grief and lamentation? Is there anything
> there that
> I still hold to be “real” or to have an ultimate existence or no
> existence
> at all?, is there anything there that I hold to be “The One True way
> of
If I interpret what you mean by the high view (samma-dithi) and the low
views (micha-ditthi) right, then I think my position would be that I
need to both acquire the right views AND eliminate the wrong view.  

There are elements that are ultimate realities: they do exist, even
though they are not-self.  However, their existence are so brief, and
all arise only because there are conditions for them to arise, that
they are not worth "holding on" to.  How do we let go of them?  By
directly knowing them as they truly are: brief, non-significant, rising
only because there are conditions, not-self, that we can let go. 
Simply repeating to ourself that this is not me, it is not mine, I am
not in it, it is not in me, it is not self doesn't improve our direct
knowledge of the elements.  And again, this is a gross
misunderstandings of the "practice": I am by no way suggesting that
anyone in this group suffers it.  However, there are more subtle such
misconceptions.  How do we know which one is?

>My issue is: When the Truth can be found in the Four Truths, and No 
>Truth is
>Higher than these Truths, And these truths encompass all the other 
>Truths of
>this system, at what point does studying the Dhamma contradict those 
>truths:
>That to end DUKKHA one must end Thirst – and that includes Thirst for 
>Dhamma
>knowledge
I think we are in agreement here.  On the other hand, we can also
consider the purpose of studdying the tipitikas at the first place.  Do
we study it to: know it better than other people?   To teach other
people?  To show off?  These are of course the gross incorrect purpose
of studying it.  We study dhamma to relief ignorance, and to create
conditions causing panna to arise knowing the truth as it truly is.  
If we directly know the truth as it truly is, letting go happens
automatically (as a nana --- a step toward the maggha) when the
conditions are riped.  

>MO: So we are talking about divisions in the “consciousness element” 
here?
Yes, there are 89 (or 121) cittas classifications and 54 cetasikas. 
The characteristics of the citta is all the same: its chief and only 
function is to cognize an object.  The cetasikas, although also
cognizing objects, have other functions and characteristics
conditioning the citta.  Lobha, Dosa, Moha, Alobha, Adosa, Amoha,
stinginess, jealousy are all cetasikas.

>What I am asking is what are the conditions that cause it to arise?
According to an interpretation of patthana, seeing consciousness
requires 72 (???) conditions for the seeing consciousness to arise. 
Other cittas have the different set of conditions for arising. 
However, if you are coming from the view point of paticchasamutpadha,
avicca (ignorance) is the common cause of the rising of cittas.  Only
total elimination of avicca can a citta stop (permanently) arising.  

>MO: But you have said that cittas are conditioned. If cittas are
>conditioned, how can they be anything but of the Past? And has not the
>Buddha said: The Eye, Beggars, is of the Past. That which is of the 
>Past,
>put it away. Putting it away will be for your good and benefit for
many 
>a
>long day.
The conditioning dhammas for a conditioned dhamma can be the past, the
present, and in a slightly different sense, in the future.  The
conditioning dhammas causes the conditioned dhamma to arise, as well as
sustaining the conditioned dhamma.  Eliminating the conditions will
stop the arising of the dhamma.

>MO: Ok. Please bear with me: We have eye and visual object; with the 
>contact
>of the two [as I understood it] consciousness arises [sanna, vedana, 
>vinnana
>as one continuous process described by Sariputta as not being capable 
of
>being perceived in distinctive units, i.e., this is a sanna, this is a
>vedana, this is a vinnana]. An Element of that is a Unit called a 
citta.
>That this element is confounded (sankhara) is clear. But it is arising

as a
>consequence of past action. It may carry with it the consequences of 
the
>Intent with which that past action was made, but if it carries with it

the
>Intent for future action there is no escape from kamma by modification

of
>intent. Please help me understand the mechanism of action here.
Not all cetana causes future consequences.  Cetana of seeing
consciousness doesn't cause future consequences.  Cetana of an arahat
doesn't cause future consequences.  In order to understand this, we
need to expound on the details of patthana.

Again, my intention is not really to answer all questions, as there is
not enough time to explain everything in an email.  However, I hope
that you will see the truth and decide for yourself if studying
abhidhammas is a worthwhile endeaver or not.

kom




 
2207 From: wewynal   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 9:46am
Subject: Blessed One

 
  Hi,
 
When Buddhist literature refers to Buddha as the Blessed One, I wonder who blessed him? 

 
 
2208 From: Michael Olds   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 9:59am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Amara,

AC: It seems that the way that Sariputta did not repeat the words Evam me
Sutam throughout the abhidhamma teachings confused your reasoning.
In fact Sariputta was very precise and when he spoke of the cetasika
for example and having finished describing the sappa-citta-satarana-cetasika
as universal and accompanying all citta he did not repeat this as he
described all the 89 major kinds of citta.  This may leave you where he
started but not the serious student.

MO: On two issues in this one paragraph, Amara, you have both misunderstood
what was written in previous posts and, taking your misunderstanding as
fact, have formulated offensive opinions as to me personally and have taken
the further step of actually posting those opinions.

My reasoning in this matter is not confused. I have no reasoning whatsoever.
I was responding to a statement made by Jim who was reporting what he had
observed. I have read, to this point, nothing of the Abhidhamma.

Second, my statement was:

As I understand the tradition, the “Evam me Sutam”, while surely meaning
what you say, is intended in the special case of the Suttas to indicate that
it is, in fact, Ananda who is speaking. After that we are repeating and
should technically be saying: Evam me Sutam, (what I have read is that so
and so wrote down what was passed down through so and so many generations of
memorizers from a time when Ananda is said to have said Evam Me Sutam: . . .
“ But then, the same would have to be said about these words about the
Abhidhamma, which, essentially leaves us where we started.

This did not say that it left anyone where Sariputta started. It said that
your argument, that the words did not precisely indicate the path of
transmission, was irrelevant to the comparison I made between the two stated
paths.

The remark that the serious student would not be left at such a place was a
gratuitous crack at my seriousness. I have a sense of humor and display it
probably too frequently. As to how serious a student I am, I believe that
that is an issue for me to reconcile with myself.

>AC: what remains universal is that each being has eyes, ears, noses,
tongues, body-sense and mind, and that is what the Buddha taught
about that no other religion does.  Whether he talked about them or not
these realities exist and whether we live in ignorance taking them for the
self some God created or know them as they really are, realities that are
impermanent that should not be taken for the self depends very much on the
individual's accumulations.
>MO: OK, no problem. I say again I have difficulty with that word
"realities" which has a meaning contradictory to the way it is being used
here. Also, I see this word "accumulations" coming up quite frequently.
While I can imagine the meaning of this word, it's use here looks a lot like
"predestination." I hope I have misunderstood and that what is intended is
not something that is hopelessly stuck in the Past?


AC: Realities are what exist and appear at this very instant to be proven,
if one has the understanding of the dhamma as taught by the Buddha.

MO: This is blind reliance on authority and is unacceptable as an answer.

AC: Here in front of the computer screen does sight exist?

MO: This is the “it is” view. This is not-Dhamma. If this is the meaning of
these “Realities” and these “realities” are being taught by the Abhidhamma
then the Abhidhamma is teaching not-dhamma.

I do not yet come to a conclusion here.

You have proven to be a person who will misunderstand and attack personally
without careful consideration or fact checking. I have no confidence
whatsoever in your understanding of the Abhidhamma.

There must be a thousand suttas in the sutta Pitaka where someone comes up
to the Buddha and says: “How is it Gotama? Does the self exist?” and the
answer is “Not this!” [And, just to be on the safe side here, this line of
argument is not restricted to ideas concerning the self, but applies to any
phenomena whatsoever.]

And that is as it should be for the case is that for one who sees the
constructed nature of things it is not possible to hold the view that any
confounded thing exists; and for one who sees the ordinary world it is not
possible to hold the view that a thing does not exist. Therefore one
abstains from views and explains things in terms of their dependant
origination.

AC: It is a vipaka citta arising from conditions accumulated in the past, as
well as that which is accumulating now.  It is a dhatu of element that knows
or experiences, whereas your eyes, when this dhatu is not there, would be
like that of a dead persons or even the eyes being transplanted to another
person, lying in ice somewhere.  Only when the transplant is finished and
the receiver has the right accumulations, would the dhatu that sees arise in
that eye again, as it does in yours the moment that you see.  What you see
on the other hand is vanno, the visible object, whose characteristics are
different from seeing, from sound, etc.  It is the only aramana of the eye
dvara.  Yet each instant of vanno is different, the combinations are
infinite and once that instant falls away you would never see that vanno
again.  No two instants of vanno are identical, and they arise and fall away
very rapidly, like the rotation of electrons and splitting of quarks.  Yet
the citta or whatever you choose to call or spell them is 17 times faster
than that.  They arise through the body-sense as you type or use the mouse,

. . . they do not exist only in rote form or in huge books and treatises but
right under your nose, so to speak, but only if you studied them as the
Buddha and Sariputta and the rest of the abhidhamma teachers teach you to
understand how they work.

MO: They exist only if I have studied them? In fact I think that modern
physics has come up with something like that in the Heisenberg theory. I
would not ridicule your English here except that it has revealed again your
reliance on authority [you are not telling me something you know for
yourself, you are reciting doctrine], something explicitly advised against
in the suttas.

AC: But the practical side is completely up to your accumulations whether to
apply them or not, not even the Buddha can do that for you.

MO: There is that “accumulations” word again, and used in exactly this way
that indicates predestination. The meaning is one’s previous kamma? This is
not something that is so much out of one’s control as I am being lead to
believe it is from the way I am seeing this word being used here.

MO: It is not my purpose here to be proving or disproving the
Authenticity  of the Abhidhamma. By asking the questions I have asked I will
be able, by the answers to determine if there is anything going on here that
is worth deeper examination by and for myself. If, in the process, I can see
that there is in the orthodox Abhidhamma that which is Not Dhamma according
to what I can see is orthodox dhamma in the suttas, then I will have my own
opinion and will keep it to myself. I have no wish to upset anyone's belief
system. If, in the process of this investigation, some thing comes out that
proves the Abhidhamma to be an unorthodox document and there are others who
are taken from not-dhamma to dhamma, where is the harm?

AC: I agree, none but to yourself.

MO: If in the course of this investigation something comes out that proves
the Abhidhamma to be an unorthodox document and there are others who are
taken from not-dhamma to dhamma there is no harm. Period. Not to them, not
to me. Good is done.

“Those Beggars, Beggars, who explain not-dhamma as not-dhamma; following
these Beggars, Beggars, a great many beings are well lead and put on the
right track. Put on the right track a great many beings experience
happiness. And gain, service, and pleasure is brought to gods and men.
Furthermore Beggars, such Beggars create great good kamma and lead to the
preservation of the True Word.”

On the other hand:

“Those Beggars, Beggars, who explain not-dhamma as dhamma; following these
Beggars, Beggars, a great many beings are lead astray and thrown off track.
Thrown off, a great many beings experience unhappiness. And Loss,
disservice, and pain is brought to gods and men. Furthermore, Beggars, such
Beggars create great bad kamma and lead to the disappearance of the True
Word.”

Both from the Book of the Ones.

>MO: Thank you for this reference which I will add to Roberts list of
suggested reading and will get to in time. Meanwhile I hope you are
not saying that I must understand what you are talking about before you
are able to teach me about what you are talking about? As I understand it,
what we are learning here was an oral tradition.

>AC: Thank you for the dialog, which conditioned some moments of study to
arise in me as I wrote.  I do not think I have the qualifications to
teach you anything but we could discuss the dhamma which is always
useful and if it does not benefit you in any way, I will have tried my
best and have been forced to think of the truth and satipatthana and
accumulated a little more right conditions for myself in the process!
So anumodana in your interest,

MO: Well, if insulting people is the kind of “accumulations” you are looking
for this little exchange has credited your account with something today.

Additionally, you did not respond to many of the issues which I addressed to
you.


TO THE REST: Well that was fast. I was sure such a time as this would
quickly arrive, but this is a record. I stay on one of these forums only
until such a time as I suffer a personal attack. At that time I respond to
the open issues and concluding that unsubscribe from the board. This is a
policy and is impersonal as regards the rest of the board. I do not stay
because to thoroughly deal with personal attacks on a board owned by someone
else would be impossible and even an attempt would be a lengthy and serious
disruption of another persons property [yours and the list owners]. "When
bad conditions increase and good condiditions decrease, depart, even if it
means having to get up and go without saying goodbye."

Best Wishes!
Michael Olds    California
www.BuddhaDust.org
ICQ#94992160

 
2209 From: shinlin   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 11:12am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Blessed One

 
  Dear Wewynal,
    The teaching of the Lord Buddha is all about Dhamma or elements which are real and exist. When we realized or understood the Dhamma, gradually we will know that there is no Self and that everything is Dhamma, including ourself. The moment of understanding, is Panna or wisdom in understanding the truth or dhamma. Therefore in the Tipitaka, everything which the Lord Buddha said, was all about dhamma and the characteristic of it. So from here, we can understand that the Blessed One means that the elements of which the Lord Buddha has accumulated through Parami 10, is pure and omniscience. In the teaching of the Lord Buddha, everything are only dhatu or dhamma or elements, it is not a being or person or anything by assumptions. 
    Therefore in your question, the Blessed One doesn't mean that someone bless the Lord Buddha. BUT he is the Blessed One with full omniscience of purified elements like Panna(wisdom). I hope this can help you. If there is anything you need to understand, pls let me know.
with metta,
Shin
 
From: wewynal 
To: dhammastudygroup@egroups.com 
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 8:46 AM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Blessed One


Hi,
 
When Buddhist literature refers to Buddha as the Blessed One, I wonder who blessed him? 



 
 
2210 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 11:26am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Dear Michael,
I was just about to reply to your last post to me when I saw
your letter to Amara. See my comments below.
--- Michael Olds  wrote: > Amara,
> 
> TO THE REST: Well that was fast. I was sure such a time as
> this would
> quickly arrive, but this is a record. I stay on one of these
> forums only
> until such a time as I suffer a personal attack. At that time
> I respond to
> the open issues and concluding that unsubscribe from the
> board. This is a
> policy and is impersonal as regards the rest of the board. I
> do not stay
> because to thoroughly deal with personal attacks on a board
> owned by someone
> else would be impossible and even an attempt would be a
> lengthy and serious
> disruption of another persons property [yours and the list
> owners]. "When
> bad conditions increase and good condiditions decrease,
> depart, even if it
> means having to get up and go without saying goodbye."
> 
> Best Wishes!
> Michael Olds    California

As Jonothon pointed out recently to another member a fair number
of the current members of this group have had an email lashing
from Amara. I had a mild one myself and it does sting.
This is an unmoderated group so we do rely on each other to keep
order. I hope you will reconsider and carry on as an active
member. Amara is usually very amiable once she has made her
position clear; and as much as she is overly blunt when
disagreeing with someone she is also full of praise when one
posts something that she feels is genuinely useful (perhaps you
remember her first post to you where she said it was delicious
or something). It is her nature - a very frank person. 
I personally have no problem with anything you said, although I
disagree with some of it. As I said earlier we don't have to
agree but we all benefit by hearing each others interpretations.
best wishes
Robert



 
2211 From: shin lin   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 3:05pm
Subject: set a time in the chat room for dhamma talk

 
  Dear Dhamma Friends,
There is a chat room in the egroup. Would it be good if we set a GMT time 
for everyone to meet on the net and chat dhamma together on the net. It 
would be nice. 
suggestion,
Shin

 
2212 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 3:38pm
Subject: letter from Nina

 
  Dear group,
I thought you might like to hear some extracts from a letter I
got from Nina Van Gorkom today.
“It is a great asset for the internet group that Pali scholars
like Jim have joined. And it is very useful that Gayan gave
explanations to the Vancaka text (the Pali is so compact) which
I shall study. I really appreciate the efforts for translating
the commentary and tika to the Patthana.” She later writes “I
find when reading the Pali commentary I have to go very slowly
because of the amount of words I have to look up in the
dictionary”.
robert




 
2213 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 6:33pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Citta and Abhidhamma (was Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Dear michael,
As I am not sure you are still on the list I just reply very
briefly. If anyone would like any detail on any aspect please
ask.

I earlier wrote RK: However, I would suggest that if we believe
thinking must obstruct
insight into dhammas then that shows that one does not see that 
thinking" is
simply different namas (mental phenomena)including
citta(consciousness) 
and
cetana(volition) arising because they are conditioned to
arise..>>>>

MO: First I see thinking as obstructing insight into Dhammas;
and 
second I
do not see how thinking this way shows that one does not see
that 
thinking
is simply different namas. While one is thinking one is
certainly not 
seeing
the rise and fall of mental phenomena. "Thinking" almost by
definition, 
is
identification of "Self" with these cittas and cetanas.>>>>>

Robert: Did the Buddha ever think? Did the arahants think? I
would suggest they did but they were not identified with cittas
and cetanas. 
Does a fly think? I would guess not in words but they have
concepts, they have papanca- tanha, ditthi and mana.


I earlier wrote RK: If we wish to stop thinking isn't that
moving away from that very 
moment
when thinking arises?>>

MO: We do not "wish" to stop thinking. We train ourselves not to
think
about. Thoughts arise, but not to "us." They are not "our"
thoughts.>>>>
 
Robert: Two sentences ago you said "Thinking almost be
definition is identification of "self" with these cittas and
cetasikas" Now you say "they are not our thoughts"

I earlier wrote RK: Why not be aware of any moment just as it
is. You see there can be
direct awareness even while thinking.>>>>

MO: If you were to say this like this: "There can be direct
awareness 
while
thoughts are rising and falling." I would agree.

RK: Panna (wisdom) slips in and insights any of the many
paramattha
dhammas(realities) that are always arising.

MO: This may be an Abhidhamma thing: the word "realities" has 
implications
of realness. To hold that any phenomena has realness is to hold
the 
ditthi:
"it is". My reading: PARAMATTHA = PARA pas around up overa sun -
um; 
ATTHA
attaining; DHAMMA thing. To avoid the problems associated with 
"ultimate
realities" I would go with something like "fundamental
phenomena.">>>>>>>

Robert: Yes fundamental phenomena is a better term but it is
clumsy that is why most translators opt for realities. Either
way we have to go into some detail to define the term.

<<MO: I am not sure about this "insighting" that Panna does. I
don't see
pa~n~na out there busy doing anything that isn't conditioned by
the 
prior
preparation of the individual in his letting go of low views.>>>

Robert: It is so important to see that there is no individual,
no us. There are simply khandas, dhatus, ayatanas arising and
passing away at enormous speed. It can so easily be a hidden
self who is letting go.

I earlier wrote RK: This happens very quickly. This is one of
the differences between
samattha and satipatthana vipassana.

MO: That these phenomena are occurring at an incredible speed is
not in
question to my mind. The question is: to what degree is it
necessary to
think about it to know how the details of it work in order to be
able 
to see
that identification with it is the recipe for a bad end, and
that 
therefore
it should be let go.>>>>
Robert: Well we could argue about exactly how much detail. Some
people might need less than others. For some no matter how much
they get it doesn't seem to help much. The Mahagopalaka sutta
(majjhima nikaya):
"And how bhikkhus does a Bhikkhu know the ford? In this sasana,
a Bhikkhu who occasionally vistits those monks who are
well-informed and who have learnt DhammaVinaya and patimokkha by
heart asks 'What is the etymology of this word sirs? What is the
meaning of this word Sirs?' Then those venerable monks disclose
to him what is to be disclosed, make clear what is to be made
clear, and on various points of the doctrine they set his doubts
at rest" Then the atthakattha says that "the monk who does not
know the ford" even when he approaches these learned monks does
not ask in the right way.For example "Having approached one who
is learned in Abhidhamma he asks questions about as to what
should be done according to the rules of the Vinaya" or he
doesn't ask anything.

MO:When I hear people comparing "samattha" and "satipatthana"
vipassana, what I am hearing is the discussion of the points of
view of certain schools of Buddhist thought. In my reading I see
the satipatthana sutta as encompassing both samattha and
vipassana, and my tendency is to go with the sutta and forget
about the schools. I believe up past the learning of the theory
of how the system works, the proper practice as described in the
suttas is to develop samattha and vipassana equally.>>>

Robert: I went to your website (Buddhadust) and looked up the
satipatthana sutta and commentary. I cut and pasted this:
"In regard to the pair of the dull-witted and the keen-witted
minds among tamable persons of the craving type and the
theorizing type, pursuing the path of quietude [samatha] or that
of insight [vipassana]" 
Robert


 
2214 From:  
Date: Mon Dec 4, 2000 7:57pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Dear Jim,

so as in loka sutta --> yena yenahi ma~n~nati , tato tam hoti a~n~nata
and then --> a~n~natabhavi bhavasatto loko, bhavapareto, bhavamevabhinandati


so the 'otherwise' happens because of this 'ma~n~nana'

so when no ma~n~nana exists ( as in an arahant ) theres no 'thus' and
'otherwise'



Thanks

 
2215 From: m. nease   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 1:09am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Citta and Abhidhamma (was Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Dear Mo, Robert and Kom,

Thanks to you all:  MO, for your excellent questions
and Robert and Kom for your excellent replies.  I look
forward to more.

Mike




 
2216 From: m. nease   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 1:28am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Citta and Abhidhamma (was Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Bravo, MO and Robert--this keeps getting better. 
Please continue!
--- Michael Olds  wrote:
> Robert,
> 
> You first in that my dialog with you began first:
> 
> RK: . . . I have a feeling we see, or will see, a
> sizeable
> portion in much the same light. Not necessary that
> we have to agree about
> everything; what we should do though is clearly
> explain our interpretations
> so that we and anyone listening can fully understand
> our positions.
> Hopefully we all learn something that improves our
> understanding of Dhamma.
> 
> MO: I have been discussing the dhamma with people
> since the early sixties. I
> have always found that putting myself out there and
> taking the battering
> that usually resulted was one of the most effective
> learning tools for me. I
> look to the suttas and how most of them came to be
> as my model. Debate in
> the old days was a lively art.
> 
> The problem, as I see it is that there are one or
> two key concepts which if
> taken in the wrong way can alter one’s entire
> understanding of the Dhamma. I
> cit-a um . . . Letting Go for one. If one does not
> grasp the idea that the
> key to the entire structure is letting go, [sammaa
> Sankappa #1: nekkhamma]
> then the purpose of every other teaching is lost. So
> my response to this is:
> Agree on anything or not, I wish you nothing but the
> best, but the key for
> me is seeing a few things correctly whether or not
> anyone agrees with me.
> 
> MO: . . .but just let me tell you where my doubting
> mind has immediately
> focused: On this business of needing to "think
> about" in order to see
> not-self, and this breaking this thinking up into
> right
> Thinking [and wrong thinking]
> 
> RK: Were you thinking about Dhamma when you composed
> this reply? Do
> you think about Dhamma when you study the suttas?
> There are so
> many levels of understanding but if there has never
> been
> consideration of the Dhamma - and that is thinking -
> then
> higher levels cannot arise. Imagine telling someone
> to sit and
> meditate but never teaching them any Dhamma- what
> could they
> understand?
> 
> MO: It is possible for an individual who has never
> heard the Dhamma to
> attain the goal by careful observation. This is the
> condition of the Buddha,
> this is the condition of “Silent” Buddhas. Putting
> those to one side as
> being the case for beings of extraordinary
> determination; for the rest
> hearing [what we can conclude is essential key
> concepts of] the Dhamma is
> needed. We do have the case of individuals who have
> heard extremely little
> of the Dhamma who have grasped it’s meaning. That
> this must be the case is
> dictated by simple logistics: most people in the
> Buddha’s day will have
> heard no more than one sutta (pick one). There was
> no writing in the general
> population. Not everyone could follow the Buddha
> around. If you examine the
> suttas you will notice that even broken into parts
> they almost always hold
> up as complete “Dhammas” in the sense of having the
> essential ingredients in
> them to lead an energetic, determined individual to
> the goal. I recall one
> case where a Bhikkhu was taught only that “whatever
> it is, if it has
> anything to do with Tanha, know that to be
> Not-Dhamma.”
> 
> My point in terms of studying the dhamma is that
> this study must be aimed
> correctly. If we are going to be “thinking about”
> then we should approach
> this thinking about as a matter of comprehending
> that which will most
> readily facilitate letting go. Thinking should be
> done expeditiously. Study
> dhamma to grasp the basic idea of dhamma – for this
> you will not find any
> better vehicle than the Four Truths. “He who grasps
> the Four Truths Grasps
> Dependent Origination.” Study Dhamma with the idea
> that by studying Dhamma
> you are not making trouble for yourself elsewhere.
> Study Dhamma to develop
> focus of mind so that when you have achieved Vision
> you will be able to see
> what you see, not because studying dhamma will bring
> about vision. If you
> study dhamma because you think that by understanding
> the detailed meaning of
> each of its constituent parts in detail you will
> have in any way advanced
> your progress toward freedom over and above what you
> could have got from the
> Four Truths and you are doomed.
> 
> RK: Certainly if we believe that thinking about
> dhammas is the same
> as directly experiencing them then that is a
> delusion which must
> obstruct direct insight.
> 
> MO: Agreed – I believe this is the point I was
> making above in different
> words.
> 
> RK:  The moments of direct insight are not a matter
> of thinking in
> words -for instance if understanding vedana as
> vedana (feeling as
> feeling)there is simply sati-sampajanna (mindfulness
> and clear
> comprehension)for those brief moments.
> 
> MO: Here I see the first building block of a
> misunderstanding of the
> Satipatthana: that Insight is it’s goal. We all
> study the words between the
> refrains of the Satipatthana; few of us notice the
> refrain that ends each
> section:
> 
> . . . thus he lives without self, downbound to
> nothing at all in the world.
> 
> Insight too is a passing phenomena. Insight if
> grasped incorrectly, as the
> gain of some “right” view, is just leaping from one
> bound up condition to
> another. It becomes an intellectual phenomena.
> Without “letting go” as the
> guiding principle behind one’s effort, insight is
> useless.
> 
> RK: However, I would suggest that if we believe
> thinking must obstruct
> insight into dhammas then that shows that one does
> not see that thinking" is
> simply different namas (mental phenomena)including
> citta(consciousness) and
> cetana(volition) arising because they are
> conditioned to arise.
> 
> MO: First I see thinking as obstructing insight into
> Dhammas; and second I
> do not see how thinking this way shows that one does
> not see that thinking
> is simply different namas. While one is thinking one
> is certainly not seeing
> the rise and fall of mental phenomena. “Thinking”
> almost by definition, is
> identification of “Self” with these cittas and
> cetanas.
> 
> 
> RK: If we wish to stop thinking isn't that moving
> away from that very moment
> when thinking arises?
> 
> MO: We do not “wish” to stop thinking. We train
> ourselves not to think
> about. Thoughts arise, but not to “us.” They are not
> “our” thoughts.
> 
> RK: Why not be aware of any moment just as it is.
> You see there can be
> direct awareness even while thinking.
> 
> MO: If you were to say this like this: “There can be
> direct awareness while
> thoughts are rising and falling.” I would agree.
> 
> RK: Panna (wisdom) slips in and insights any of the
> many paramattha
> dhammas(realities) that are always arising.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



 
2217 From: m. nease   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 3:48am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] set a time in the chat room for dhamma talk

 
  Dear Khun Shin,

I've thought of this myself--so naturally, I think
it's an excellent suggestion!  Why not propose a few
GMT's and see what kind of response you get?

Mike
--- shin lin  wrote:
> Dear Dhamma Friends,
> There is a chat room in the egroup. Would it be good
> if we set a GMT time 
> for everyone to meet on the net and chat dhamma
> together on the net. It 
> would be nice. 
> suggestion,
> Shin
> 
> 
> 



 
2218 From: JODY PAUL,PIRRET   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 4:49am
Subject: Hello all

 
  Kia ora koutou (hello all), 

  My name is Jody Pirret and I am pleased to introduce myself 
  to other members of this email group. In addition to the 
  personal information made available through the egroups 
  registration, I would just like to elaborate on my interests. 

  Through university study, I have come to be very interested 
  in the development of Western culture, philosophically, 
  materially, and, scientifically. I feel I am coming to know 
  how I have been conditioned to view myself within such 
  paradigms as biomedicine, psychology, physics, and, 
  economics. Presently, I question the way in which such 
  paradigms promote their truths above all other ways of doing 
  things. 

  Through philosophy, I have enjoyed discussing mind and reality. 
  Such topics have inevitably opened my eyes to the truths of 
  the East in the form of confucianism, taoism, and, Buddhism. 
  Therefore, it is with an empty cup that I seek to learn from 
  such treasures through such things as martial arts and meditation. 

  I feel all forms of buddhism have much to offer Western culture. 
  In terms of Theravada Buddhism, I read a book by Nina Van Gorkom.
  It had an old contact address of Robert Kirkpatrick's in it, and
  I was able to track him down. Thankfully, he put me on to this egroup.
  Therefore, I look forward to receiving comments from this, the 
  Dhamma study egroup. 

  Regards, Jody.

 
2219 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 7:36am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Citta and Abhidhamma (was Request -- Samma Ditthi

 
  Dear group,
I wrote to Michael O privately and he politely wrote back
confirming that he was definitly staying off the list, not only
because of Amara's letter but also because:
<<<MO"I again noticed the reference to the idea that the
Abhidhamma considers
certain elements to have an ultimate reality. For me that closes
the 
case on
the Abhidhamma. This is definately not-dhamma and clearly
indicates to 
me
that this is a late aberation.">>>>

Needless to say I do not think Abhidhamma is "not-dhamma".
Back in april I had a discussion with a Mahayana monk and wrote
this (I think post 285- by the way searching the files is easy
using the search engine on egroups):


<<<<<<"Now a few words on the nature of dhammas (cittas,
cetasikas  and rupas). 
The word dhamma is often translated as reality. But
the word reality has connotations of something
substantial whereas dhammas , are too evanescent to
imagine. As I said  recently on this list. Any words
we
use to describe the nature of realities –impermanent,
momentary, temporary, instant by instant- cannot
convey the rapidity of the arising and passing away.
 
Take a moment of seeing: For  seeing to arise there
must be cakkhu
pasada (seeing base). This is the extremely refined
rupa that arises in the center of the eye. This
special rupa is the result of kamma. But
it only lasts for the briefest moment before falling
away . The reason we can keep seeing is that at this
moment the force of the kamma is still working to
continue replacing the cakkhu pasada. The visible eye,
the eyeball, and the surrounding matter, the rest of
the body, are also conditioned by different conditions
- not only kamma- and these rupas also only last for a
moment before vanishing forever. Every conditioning
factor is simarly evanescent as is every conditioned
moment. 

The reason I added this is to highlight the Theravada
understanding of dhammas. While the theravada is not
quite as radical in its interpretation of reality as
the Prajna- parimita sutta, it does nevertheless
demolish any ideas of substantiality.
I think this needs consideration as we(I mean
Theravada people) are prone to talk about "moments" of
mind, and so on. However what we mean by moments is
rather open to interpretation. Some might have an idea
of a moment as a self-contained unit- sort of like a
box that contains things  but that is prone to
disappear rather quickly. However from the Patthana -
the last book of the abhidhamma - we learn that
"moments" are highly dynamic with influences from past
and present factors. The dhammas themselevs are not
different form the quality they posses. In fact the
subcommentary to the Dhammasangani says that "there is
no other thing than the quality born by it" .   And no
moment is identical with another-It is true that such
dhammas as sanna or vedana are classified under the
same heading but the actual quality is influenced by
so many diverse factiors that not even one moment of
feeling is exactly the same.
I write all this as I want to emphasize that any idea
of cittas or cetasikas  being like some mental atom
(This is sort of how I saw things in my early days) is
not correct"".>>>>>> 

 I add this in case any of you are having the same concerns as
MO. As always if anyone wants elaboration on any point please
ask.


 Robert
--- "m. nease"  wrote: > Bravo, MO and
Robert--this keeps getting better. 
> Please continue!
> --- Michael Olds  wrote:
> > Robert,



 
2220 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 8:04am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello all

 
  Dear Jody,
thanks for joining in! A number of the regular members,
including the list owners, are now in Cambodia meeting to
discuss Dhamma. Nina van gorkom and her husband as well as Sujin
Boriharnwanaket and other teachers of Dhamma are also there.
Hopefully someone will be able to get to a computer and pass on
a little of their discussions. 
robert
--- "JODY PAUL,PIRRET"  wrote: > Kia ora
koutou (hello all), 
> 
>   My name is Jody Pirret and I am pleased to introduce myself 
>   to other members of this email group. In addition to the 
>   personal information made available through the egroups 
>   registration, I would just like to elaborate on my
> interests. 
> 
>   Through university study, I have come to be very interested 
>   in the development of Western culture, philosophically, 
>   materially, and, scientifically. I feel I am coming to know 
>   how I have been conditioned to view myself within such 
>   paradigms as biomedicine, psychology, physics, and, 
>   economics. Presently, I question the way in which such 
>   paradigms promote their truths above all other ways of doing
> 
>   things. 
> 
>   Through philosophy, I have enjoyed discussing mind and
> reality. 
>   Such topics have inevitably opened my eyes to the truths of 
>   the East in the form of confucianism, taoism, and, Buddhism.
> 
>   Therefore, it is with an empty cup that I seek to learn from
> 
>   such treasures through such things as martial arts and
> meditation. 
> 
>   I feel all forms of buddhism have much to offer Western
> culture. 
>   In terms of Theravada Buddhism, I read a book by Nina Van
> Gorkom.
>   It had an old contact address of Robert Kirkpatrick's in it,
> and
>   I was able to track him down. Thankfully, he put me on to
> this egroup.
>   Therefore, I look forward to receiving comments from this,
> the 
>   Dhamma study egroup. 
> 
>   Regards, Jody. 
> 
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
> 
> 
> 



 
2221 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 11:40am
Subject: Dana to Myanmar?

 
  Dear group,
I sent a parcel of books (30 copies of Realities and Concepts,
Boriharnawanaket) to Burma (Bhikkhu Bodhi gave me the address
and said they would appeciate it).
It was to the International Buddhist University in Rangoon.
I got a nice letter back today.
"thank you for the valuable package. We are now teaching
vipassana and satipatthana and the subject of 'Realities and
concepts' is very informative and useful to us. As we are
teaching Nuns and bhikkhus also at the "sukra Theravada
university" we can also distribute these books there. This book
helps us with mental development in daily life. many thanks!"
They then ask if we have other English titles and whether we
could send them copies of those as well as more copies of R and
C.
So for those of you who are now in Bangkok and would like to
make merit take your chance!
The Address is
U Han Htay
International Buddhist University
NO.98 , 46th street
Yangoon
Myanmar


 
 
2222 From: Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 4:10pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Digest Number 214

 
  Dear Robert,
Yes, I realized my mistake right after I sent it, so I apologize for any
inconvenience caused.

Anumodhana,
Betty
__________________________
Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala
38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road
Bangkok 10900, Thailand
tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160

 
2223 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 9:47pm
Subject: Cambodia update

 
  dear Robert & friends,

just a quick check in from Pnom Penh to pick up on yr
hint! So glad to see all the messages, but we're all
behind on reading them! We've all been quite
overwhelmed by the reception from our Cambodian dhamma
friends. Busloads came to meet us at the airport and
talks given by A.Sujin at the temples are attended by
several hundred Cambodians each time and a lot of
monks also. They are really, really apprciative and
they seem to ask very intelligent questions which
reflect their abhidhamma studies and the time they
have been listening to her radio programs and the
teachings of one of her students who now teaches here.

We also had a very nice English discussion today and
the last part was concerning the details of the
abhidhamma and the purpose of studying these and how
much it was necessary to know. I may report in detail
later. 

Pnom Penh is very peaceful and members in our group
who were last here 30 yrs ago say that apart from one
or two new hotels, there are no apparent changes from
that time!

Jody, a big welcome and thankyou for giving us some
details about yourself. I look forward to more
discussion with you when I return to Hong Kong.

Best rgds to all...short of time for now.

Sarah
p.s. (again!)  JOE, I forgot to add your name last
time- do hope you can also join us in Bkk next
weekend. Pls check Amara's 2nd Schedules message about
a week ago for the details. IVAN we also hope you're
back for this!

--- Robert Kirkpatrick
 wrote: > Dear Jody,
> thanks for joining in! A number of the regular
> members,
> including the list owners, are now in Cambodia
> meeting to
> discuss Dhamma. Nina van gorkom and her husband as
> well as Sujin
> Boriharnwanaket and other teachers of Dhamma are
> also there.
> Hopefully someone will be able to get to a computer
> and pass on
> a little of their discussions. 
> robert



 
2224 From: SELAMAT   
Date: Tue Dec 5, 2000 11:09pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cambodia update

 
  Dear Sarah,
Just want to say "how are you" to Mrs Nina van Gorkom. May she always be
happy and healthy.

Would you please pass it to her.
anumodana,

selamat rodjali
dhamma study group bogor.


 
2225 From: Jim Anderson   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 6:40am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] letter from Nina

 
  Thanks, Robert, for posting these extracts from the letter. I'm the same
when it comes to reading Pali commentaries as I too have to spend a lot of
time looking up words in dictionaries and checking with other commentaries.
It can be quite a tedious process. I have been taking my time working on the
translation of the Patthana commentaries. It is something I'm not doing
everyday as I often get diverted to other areas of Pali & dhamma study,
partly due to the influence of this discussion group. I probably won't have
anything ready from the commentary to post to the group until after the new
year as the holiday season is coming up shortly and I'll be away for about
two weeks starting in about 10 days or so.

With best wishes,
Jim A.

>Dear group,
>I thought you might like to hear some extracts from a letter I
>got from Nina Van Gorkom today.
>“It is a great asset for the internet group that Pali scholars
>like Jim have joined. And it is very useful that Gayan gave
>explanations to the Vancaka text (the Pali is so compact) which
>I shall study. I really appreciate the efforts for translating
>the commentary and tika to the Patthana.” She later writes “I
>find when reading the Pali commentary I have to go very slowly
>because of the amount of words I have to look up in the
>dictionary”.
>robert

 
2226 From: jaran jai-nhuknan   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 9:36am
Subject: Cambodia

 
  Hello from Cambodia:

This is Jaran along with Nina, Amara, Sarah, Jonathan, Jack, Oii, Ell and O
(and her husband Chai). We are on a Dhamma trip to Cambodia with Tan A. Sujin.

We have been , to say the least, overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of the
Cambodians and the Dhamma we heard from the mouth of Tan A. Sujin. Questions
for the audience and Tan A. Sujin's answers are profound.

On the first session with Cambodians (more than thousand of them), she talks
about the three kinds of dhukka: physical suffering and unhappiness, the
changing of happiness and the impermanence of all dhamma. These three and
realized by different level of panna. (more later).

I met Nina, Jonathan, Sarah and Amara for the first time. They are great! We
are holding English sessions daily. Yesterday, we talked about something very
important (for me at least): the ''right study". The key is one has to know
what will help the arise of the awareness of THIS moment here and now. And one
has to know one's limit of understanding HERE and NOW.

Hope you all are well. My lobha wishes Kom was here, so I could learn more.

Full reports will come later. I have to go now.



 
2227 From: shinlin   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 11:24am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello all

 
  Welcome Jody !! One thing you would learn from this group is definitely the realities. Oh !! forgot, you will probably learn some Pali here too.
with regards,
shin
Ms.Shin Lin
Zebra Computer Company Limited
1091/71-73, Petchburi 33, New Petchuri Rd
Rajathavee, Phayathai, Bangkok, Thailand 10400
Tel : 66-2-6516000 ( 35 lines )
Fax : 66-2-6516001
company website : - http://www.zebra.co.th/
  
 
2228 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 1:32pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] letter from Nina

 
  Dear Jim,

--- Jim Anderson  wrote: > Thanks, Robert, for
I have been taking my time
> working on the
> translation of the Patthana commentaries. It is something I'm
> not doing
> everyday as I often get diverted to other areas of Pali &
> dhamma study,
> partly due to the influence of this discussion group.

Don't feel any time pressure from us. Somehow it is  comforting
just knowing you are working on them.

 I
> probably won't have
> anything ready from the commentary to post to the group until
> after the new
> year as the holiday season is coming up shortly and I'll be
> away for about
> two weeks starting in about 10 days or so.

Off to paint the town red, eh. (just joking)

Best wishes
Robert



 
2229 From: Sukinderpal Narula   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 5:25pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dana to Myanmar?

 
  Dear group,
I have taken the chance to do merit as suggested by Robert, by
visiting the foundation today and obtaining some books and sent
them to U Han Htay in Myanmar.
Fearing that I might be taking too many copies from a limited
amount of stock, I chose to take and send the following:-
10 copies of 'Realities and concepts'.
20 copies each of the 'Mental development' series.
10 copies of 'Abhidhamma in Daily life'.
20 copies of the 'Letters'
20 copies of the thin grey book the name of which I don't remember.
This I mention in case if anyone who might have a better estimate of
the stock of books at the foundation, might see the possibility of
sending more copies and do it.

Sukin.

Robert Kirkpatrick wrote:

> Dear group,
> I sent a parcel of books (30 copies of Realities and Concepts,
> Boriharnawanaket) to Burma (Bhikkhu Bodhi gave me the address
> and said they would appeciate it).
> It was to the International Buddhist University in Rangoon.
> I got a nice letter back today.
> "thank you for the valuable package. We are now teaching
> vipassana and satipatthana and the subject of 'Realities and
> concepts' is very informative and useful to us. As we are
> teaching Nuns and bhikkhus also at the "sukra Theravada
> university" we can also distribute these books there. This book
> helps us with mental development in daily life. many thanks!"
> They then ask if we have other English titles and whether we
> could send them copies of those as well as more copies of R and
> C.
> So for those of you who are now in Bangkok and would like to
> make merit take your chance!
> The Address is
> U Han Htay
> International Buddhist University
> NO.98 , 46th street
> Yangoon
> Myanmar
>
>

 
2230 From: shinlin   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 6:42pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dana to Myanmar?

 
  Anumodana Khun Sukin and Khun Robert.
Ms.Shin Lin
Zebra Computer Company Limited
1091/71-73, Petchburi 33, New Petchuri Rd
Rajathavee, Phayathai, Bangkok, Thailand 10400
Tel : 66-2-6516000 ( 35 lines )
Fax : 66-2-6516001
company website : - http://www.zebra.co.th/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Sukinderpal Narula 
To: dhammastudygroup@egroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dana to Myanmar?


Dear group,
I have taken the chance to do merit as suggested by Robert, by
visiting the foundation today and obtaining some books and sent
them to U Han Htay in Myanmar.
Fearing that I might be taking too many copies from a limited
amount of stock, I chose to take and send the following:-
10 copies of 'Realities and concepts'.
20 copies each of the 'Mental development' series.
10 copies of 'Abhidhamma in Daily life'.
20 copies of the 'Letters'
20 copies of the thin grey book the name of which I don't remember.
This I mention in case if anyone who might have a better estimate of
the stock of books at the foundation, might see the possibility of
sending more copies and do it.

Sukin.

Robert Kirkpatrick wrote:

> Dear group,
> I sent a parcel of books (30 copies of Realities and Concepts,
> Boriharnawanaket) to Burma (Bhikkhu Bodhi gave me the address
> and said they would appeciate it).
> It was to the International Buddhist University in Rangoon.
> I got a nice letter back today.
> "thank you for the valuable package. We are now teaching
> vipassana and satipatthana and the subject of 'Realities and
> concepts' is very informative and useful to us. As we are
> teaching Nuns and bhikkhus also at the "sukra Theravada
> university" we can also distribute these books there. This book
> helps us with mental development in daily life. many thanks!"
> They then ask if we have other English titles and whether we
> could send them copies of those as well as more copies of R and
> C.
> So for those of you who are now in Bangkok and would like to
> make merit take your chance!
> The Address is
> U Han Htay
> International Buddhist University
> NO.98 , 46th street
> Yangoon
> Myanmar
>
>


 
 
2231 From:  
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 8:50pm
Subject: But Abhidhammatha Sangaha told me...

 
  An uncle of mine died a few weeks ago. Such events prompt sadness, 
which is an unpleasant mental sensation. It SEEMS to be rooted in 
craving for something that isn't there, but Abhidhammatha Sangaha 
indicates that cittas rooted in greed are either pleasant or neutral. 
Is mourning rooted in ill-will? How so?

I can see how aversion to the new conditions without the loved one 
might arise, but the feeling really seems to be more rooted in craving 
than aversion. Am I reading Abhidhammatha Sangaha correctly? 

Because the Abhidhamma presents such complex ideas in such a clear, 
simple way, there are bound to be other ways to organize and classify 
the same information that might be equally valid. However, part of 
what makes Abhidhamma work so well is that it has the imprimature of 
Buddha himself. Other Abhidhammas--even ones that were equally 
valid--would not be such worthy vehicles for faith. So, help me to 
understand "craving for things not present" as "aversion."

 
2232 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 9:56pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] But Abhidhammatha Sangaha told me...

 
  Dear dhd5,
Your questions and comments (in all your correspondence incl.
t.gem) shows your sincerity, confidence, understanding AND your
wish to understand more. I think these qualities are shared by
others on this forum and when I see it I am inspired too. Thank
you. I hope Kom, Mike and others will also reply to this most
useful post.
---  wrote: > An uncle of mine died a few weeks
ago. 

Condolences on your loss.

Such events prompt
> sadness, 
> which is an unpleasant mental sensation.
 
Unpleasant mental sensation - dukkha vedana can be grouped into
two types. 
The first type is bodily unpleasant feeling and is actually
akusala vipaka (unpleasant result) through the body sense. This
can be very slight(eg sitting on slightly hard chair) or
extremely severe painful feeling.
The other type is not vipaka (result) but is the unpleasant
feeling (domanassa vedana) that accompanies the different types
of dosa -mula -citta (consciousness rooted in aversion).


It SEEMS to be rooted
> in 
> craving for something that isn't there, but Abhidhammatha
> Sangaha 
> indicates that cittas rooted in greed are either pleasant or
> neutral. 
> Is mourning rooted in ill-will? How so?


Yes, mourning is always rooted in dosa(ill-will). It is in fact
dosa - mula-citta which is always accompanied by domanassa
vedana (unpleasant feeling).  
> 
> I can see how aversion to the new conditions without the loved
> one 
> might arise, but the feeling really seems to be more rooted in
> craving 
> than aversion. Am I reading Abhidhammatha Sangaha correctly? 

Craving is a strong condition that supports the dosa (ill-will)
to arise. You want your uncle back - this is craving but because
this cannot happen there is immediate ill-will. 
It happens so fast - during the actual moments of craving there
is no unpleasant feeling but in a split second there can be so
many processes.  Craving, ill-will, craving, ill-will, craving,
ill-will. The ill-will (dosa), if it is strong, is accompanied
by equally strong unpleasant feeling. And this feeling will be
dominant and the neutral feeling (mostly)that is arising
intermittantly with the craving will not be noticed.
 However, our "job" is to learn about these matters, even under
these difficult circumstances. There can be direct study now of
these dhammas (eg dosa, unpleasant feeling, craving) and if this
is done in the right way (without looking for any results) you
may begin to see this, to some extent, as it really is. Then
your confidence in Abhidhamma with grow even firmer. 



> 
> Because the Abhidhamma presents such complex ideas in such a
> clear, 
> simple way, there are bound to be other ways to organize and
> classify 
> the same information that might be equally valid. However,
> part of 
> what makes Abhidhamma work so well is that it has the
> imprimature of 
> Buddha himself. Other Abhidhammas--even ones that were equally
> 
> valid--would not be such worthy vehicles for faith. 

So pleased to hear this expression of confidence in the Buddha's
Dhamma. (I don't know if there could be other equally valid ones
though?)
anumodana
Robert



 
2233 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 10:07pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dana to Myanmar?

 
  Dear sukin,
 `I read in a commentary that one should not delay when doing
good. We should think "let me be first to do it" and one should
take every opportunity. You are like that.
I don't know about other books but I know they have over a
thousand copies of Realities and Concepts left at the
foundation. So if anyone else wants to send more these might be
the book to go for. It is so expensive to send though. I was
amazed that it costs the same to send a parcel to Burma
(neighbour to Thailand) as it does to England! Still they
appreciate Abhidhamma there and English books on Dhamma are
scarce and much appreciated. Also very few people have internet
so they can't read the material on the web. I think it is very
worthwhile to send them to this address where they are likely to
be distributed in a most useful way.
Robert
ps Sukin - I hope you are can meet with sarah and the group when
they get back from cambodia.

--- Sukinderpal Narula  wrote: > Dear
group,
> I have taken the chance to do merit as suggested by Robert, by
> visiting the foundation today and obtaining some books and
> sent
> them to U Han Htay in Myanmar.
> Fearing that I might be taking too many copies from a limited
> amount of stock, I chose to take and send the following:-
> 10 copies of 'Realities and concepts'.
> 20 copies each of the 'Mental development' series.
> 10 copies of 'Abhidhamma in Daily life'.
> 20 copies of the 'Letters'
> 20 copies of the thin grey book the name of which I don't
> remember.
> This I mention in case if anyone who might have a better
> estimate of
> the stock of books at the foundation, might see the
> possibility of
> sending more copies and do it.
> 
> Sukin.
> 
> Robert Kirkpatrick wrote:
> 
> > Dear group,
> > I sent a parcel of books (30 copies of Realities and
> Concepts,
> > Boriharnawanaket) to Burma (Bhikkhu Bodhi gave me the
> address
> > and said they would appeciate it).
> > It was to the International Buddhist University in Rangoon.
> > I got a nice letter back today.
> > "thank you for the valuable package. We are now teaching
> > vipassana and satipatthana and the subject of 'Realities and
> > concepts' is very informative and useful to us. As we are
> > teaching Nuns and bhikkhus also at the "sukra Theravada
> > university" we can also distribute these books there. This
> book
> > helps us with mental development in daily life. many
> thanks!"
> > They then ask if we have other English titles and whether we
> > could send them copies of those as well as more copies of R
> and
> > C.
> > So for those of you who are now in Bangkok and would like to
> > make merit take your chance!
> > The Address is
> > U Han Htay
> > International Buddhist University
> > NO.98 , 46th street
> > Yangoon
> > Myanmar
> >
> >
> 



 
2234 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 10:16pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cambodia

 
  Dear jaran,
Lovely to hear from you and thanks for the informative letter. I
hope you will be a regular contributor to the list. 
Yes, Acharn sujin is so helpful to let us understand that
Abhidhamma is not in the book - it is happening right now at
this moment. Whether we feel happy, sad, restless, calm,
confused or clear- it is simply dhammas and can be comprehended
as it is, as conditioned phenomena, not us.
Robert
--- jaran jai-nhuknan  wrote: > Hello from
Cambodia:
> 
> This is Jaran along with Nina, Amara, Sarah, Jonathan, Jack,
> Oii, Ell and O
> (and her husband Chai). We are on a Dhamma trip to Cambodia
> with Tan A. Sujin.
> 
> We have been , to say the least, overwhelmed by the enthusiasm
> of the
> Cambodians and the Dhamma we heard from the mouth of Tan A.
> Sujin. Questions
> for the audience and Tan A. Sujin's answers are profound.
> 
> On the first session with Cambodians (more than thousand of
> them), she talks
> about the three kinds of dhukka: physical suffering and
> unhappiness, the
> changing of happiness and the impermanence of all dhamma.
> These three and
> realized by different level of panna. (more later).
> 
> I met Nina, Jonathan, Sarah and Amara for the first time. They
> are great! We
> are holding English sessions daily. Yesterday, we talked about
> something very
> important (for me at least): the ''right study". The key is
> one has to know
> what will help the arise of the awareness of THIS moment here
> and now. And one
> has to know one's limit of understanding HERE and NOW.
> 



 
2235 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 10:45pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] But Abhidhammatha Sangaha told me...

 
  Hi,

As Robert mentioned, the mental unpleasantness (domanassa vedana) can
only arise with aversion (dosa).  Dosa has the characteristic of being
coarse, inflexible, unbending, not a suitable condition for kusala
citta to be arising with it.  Dosa arise because of the attachments
toward the 5 senses and their objects (kamakun 5): seeing, hearing,
tasting, smelling, and touching.  Only when there is no attachment to
the kamakun 5 that dosa will have no condition for arising (for Anagami
pugala, for arupa brahma).

Mourning is most likely a diverse set of cittas: one that cognizes the
good of the person who passes away (kusala), one that is attached to
the person's sight, sound, smell, and touch (akusala) or other that we
are associated as the person's, one that rises with dosa because of the
attachment (akusala), etc.  

If we remember what abhidhamma is: the truth, then there is no other
way to explain an event.  That's simply how it works.  It's only the
question of whether or not the explainer can explain the truth as it
truly is: the way the Buddha does.

Anumoddhana for your search of the truth.

kom

---  wrote:
> An uncle of mine died a few weeks ago. Such events prompt sadness, 
> which is an unpleasant mental sensation. It SEEMS to be rooted in 
> craving for something that isn't there, but Abhidhammatha Sangaha 
> indicates that cittas rooted in greed are either pleasant or neutral.
> 
> Is mourning rooted in ill-will? How so?
> 
> I can see how aversion to the new conditions without the loved one 
> might arise, but the feeling really seems to be more rooted in
> craving 
> than aversion. Am I reading Abhidhammatha Sangaha correctly? 
> 
> Because the Abhidhamma presents such complex ideas in such a clear, 
> simple way, there are bound to be other ways to organize and classify
> 
> the same information that might be equally valid. However, part of 
> what makes Abhidhamma work so well is that it has the imprimature of 
> Buddha himself. Other Abhidhammas--even ones that were equally 
> valid--would not be such worthy vehicles for faith. So, help me to 
> understand "craving for things not present" as "aversion."



 
2236 From: m. nease   
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2000 11:59pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] But Abhidhammatha Sangaha told me...

 
  Friends,

Would a simple way to express this be that the
domanassa vedana here accompanies dosa *conditioned
by* lobha?  Thanks in advance for corrections.

Dhd5, may you and your family be well and happy and
free from suffering, and know peace.

mn

--- Kom Tukovinit  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As Robert mentioned, the mental unpleasantness
> (domanassa vedana) can
> only arise with aversion (dosa).  Dosa has the
> characteristic of being
> coarse, inflexible, unbending, not a suitable
> condition for kusala
> citta to be arising with it.  Dosa arise because of
> the attachments
> toward the 5 senses and their objects (kamakun 5):
> seeing, hearing,
> tasting, smelling, and touching.  Only when there is
> no attachment to
> the kamakun 5 that dosa will have no condition for
> arising (for Anagami
> pugala, for arupa brahma).
> 
> Mourning is most likely a diverse set of cittas: one
> that cognizes the
> good of the person who passes away (kusala), one
> that is attached to
> the person's sight, sound, smell, and touch
> (akusala) or other that we
> are associated as the person's, one that rises with
> dosa because of the
> attachment (akusala), etc.  
> 
> If we remember what abhidhamma is: the truth, then
> there is no other
> way to explain an event.  That's simply how it
> works.  It's only the
> question of whether or not the explainer can explain
> the truth as it
> truly is: the way the Buddha does.
> 
> Anumoddhana for your search of the truth.
> 
> kom
> 
> ---  wrote:
> > An uncle of mine died a few weeks ago. Such events
> prompt sadness, 
> > which is an unpleasant mental sensation. It SEEMS
> to be rooted in 
> > craving for something that isn't there, but
> Abhidhammatha Sangaha 
> > indicates that cittas rooted in greed are either
> pleasant or neutral.
> > 
> > Is mourning rooted in ill-will? How so?
> > 
> > I can see how aversion to the new conditions
> without the loved one 
> > might arise, but the feeling really seems to be
> more rooted in
> > craving 
> > than aversion. Am I reading Abhidhammatha Sangaha
> correctly? 
> > 
> > Because the Abhidhamma presents such complex ideas
> in such a clear, 
> > simple way, there are bound to be other ways to
> organize and classify
> > 
> > the same information that might be equally valid.
> However, part of 
> > what makes Abhidhamma work so well is that it has
> the imprimature of 
> > Buddha himself. Other Abhidhammas--even ones that
> were equally 
> > valid--would not be such worthy vehicles for
> faith. So, help me to 
> > understand "craving for things not present" as
> "aversion."
> 
> 
> 



 
 
2237 From:  
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 2:15am
Subject: Re: Mulapariyaya sutta

 
  Dear Gayan et al.:

Copies of Bhikku Bodhi's 'Mulapariyaya' with commentary are on the 
way to Gayan, Alex and myself.  If anyone else would like a copy, 
please send your mailing address to:

	ProtectID

If you've already sent me your address and I've mislaid it, my 
apologies.  Please send it again and I'll get off a copy to you right 
away.

p.s.

---   wrote:

> when it comes to papanca, its a perversion of vitakkas,
> ['advanced' version of vitakkas]

is 'papanca' the word sometimes translated as 'proliferation(s)'?

Thanks again...

mn

 
2238 From: JODY PAUL,PIRRET   
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 4:34am
Subject: Some thoughts

 
  Hello everybody,

Thank you for the welcome's. I thought to make some
comments as a way to begin some input into any discussions. 
It seems Cambodia is a wholesome place!

In this lifetime, I have had experiences which have caused
the questioning of what it is to be in this world. I
was not born into comfort and acceptance, and so I did not
become contented into a fixed identity that a family
can provide, for example. Of course, I did develop attachments to a
"self" that were promoted through my upbringing, but
these were not very productive- the word akusala seems
fitting. In reality, no attachment seems productive, though
is it right to say that some produce better results towards
achieving nibbaana?

For many years, I assumed I was a substantial unity,
an autonomous individual with reason and unreason. I struggled
to find something to explain my humanity, my psychology.
I looked towards religions, self-development philosophies, etc,
but all seemed to promote a "self" to be attained and to
be practiced in certain ways. It seemed as if I was trapped
within "games of truth". They all seemed to say that they
knew how to play the "game of life", and that it had to be played
by their rules to win. How confusing! Actually, if I was to
elaborate on these "selves" with the use of an ancient Greek
concept: logos. All promoted a logos, a "master of truth"
within that is developed, which commands, and silences the
"barking dogs" of fear and doubt.

Then I discovered "social construction". This is the recognition
of how humans are shaped by the time they live in, as well as
by the culture, the body, the society, the community, the
social institutions, the geographic location, the family, 
the technologies, the language, and the social relationships 
they are a part of.In short, their accumulated conditions. Therefore, 
even our experiences of the six-doors vary, for example, aquired tastes.

Studying ideas related to such things as social construction,
I have come to realise how I have been conditioned to take things
for granted for the mere fact that they were all I had known,
such as the view of myself as a substantial unity. The history of
many things that are taken for granted as natural, upon examination,
creates an awakening. It seems that throughout my life I have been
docile to what it has presented. With this awareness, I have been
lead to this moment in the present which promotes the grappling
of Dhamma study, or Thervada buddhism.Although, I have come to be
quite lobha to critical thinking, almost to the point of
skeptism, I sense that this will dissipate the more I Dhamma study.

I'm not overstating when I say "lead" either. In recent academic work, 
I grappled with ultimate realities. With the hybrid of information I had
accumulated, I presented two: the discursive and the non-discursive.
Having never read any books by Nina, I was astounded by the parallels
between the above in relation to nama and rupa. Yet, I don't proclaim
to have grasped nama and rupa, but from the basic introduction as far,
there are definite similarities between nama and the discursive mentioned
above, and rupa- and the non- discursive. Well that's all for now, its
been pleasant sitting here and trying to be aware of the citta, cetasika,
and the nama which have been and gone!

Be wholesome, Jody.

 
2239 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 11:25am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Some thoughts

 
  Dear jody, Thanks for the comments that help us to understand
you a little. See my comments below yours.
> Thank you for the welcome's. I thought to make some
> comments as a way to begin some input into any discussions. 
> It seems Cambodia is a wholesome place!

Does seem that way. They are so poor but the Buddha once noted
that such things as loss of wealth, loss of health, even loss of
children and spouse are trifling matters. But loss of wisdom is
a great loss. Those in cambodia are gaining; accumulating that
which is priceless. 

> In this lifetime, I have had experiences which have caused
> the questioning of what it is to be in this world. I
> was not born into comfort and acceptance, and so I did not
> become contented into a fixed identity that a family
> can provide, for example. Of course, I did develop attachments
> to a
> "self" that were promoted through my upbringing, but
> these were not very productive- the word akusala seems
> fitting. In reality, no attachment seems productive, though
> is it right to say that some produce better results towards
> achieving nibbaana?

The only way that attachment (tanha and upadana) helps is as a
pakatupanissaya paccaya (natural-decisive support condition).
So, for example, someone sees there life is "shit" and wants to
find a way out. So they look for paths that will help. There may
be much desire(tanha), but by  looking they might come across
the Buddha's teaching. However, conditions are never singular,
there are other factors such as kamma-paccaya and vipaka-
paccaya, that are needed before it can come about that one will
meet Saddhamma (true Dhamma). If these conditions are not
present one will search with great energy and tanha and settle
for either a non- buddhist path or an imitation of dhamma.
Further than this  once one does find correct teaching if it is
not seen that tanha, desire, hinders the path, one is liable to
cling to subtle wrong practice and views; always studying and
practising with a sense of self and control. Thus
tanha(atachment, desire) is a major danger, is samudaya -sacca,
the cause of dukkha(suffering).


> For many years, I assumed I was a substantial unity,
> an autonomous individual with reason and unreason. I struggled
> to find something to explain my humanity, my psychology.
> I looked towards religions, self-development philosophies,
> etc,
> but all seemed to promote a "self" to be attained and to
> be practiced in certain ways. It seemed as if I was trapped
> within "games of truth". They all seemed to say that they
> knew how to play the "game of life", and that it had to be
> played
> by their rules to win. How confusing! Actually, if I was to
> elaborate on these "selves" with the use of an ancient Greek
> concept: logos. All promoted a logos, a "master of truth"
> within that is developed, which commands, and silences the
> "barking dogs" of fear and doubt.

Yes it is all simply concepts, mannati, papanca. 

> 
> Then I discovered "social construction". This is the
> recognition
> of how humans are shaped by the time they live in, as well as
> by the culture, the body, the society, the community, the
> social institutions, the geographic location, the family, 
> the technologies, the language, and the social relationships 
> they are a part of. In short, their accumulated conditions.

Yes, this helps people realise that even their ideas and
thinking are simply conditioned phenomena. It is still too
limited because they only think about this brief life and that
cannot explain the differences that we see. It has all being
going on for countless aeons. It is not simply chance
happenings.
You were born in new zealand and so accumulated some of the
ideas existent in that culture, but because of experiences and
development also in other lives it happens that you are now
intrigued by Buddhism. And this  will condition future interest
and experiences. 
I was reading over the Therigatha yesterday, this is the stories
of the leading Nuns in the Buddha's time. It says in the
therigatha-atthakatha talking about Theri sundari nanda that at
the time of the Buddha Padumuttara "she heard the doctrine
preached...she accumulated merit for one hundred thousand aeons
(one aeon is billions of years or more) journeying on among
devas and men." Finally she attained under this Buddha. The
Theri Sukkha heard the Buddha Vipassi. She gained faith, went
forth, was one of great learning, expert in the doctrine and
possessed of intelligence. Similarly at the time of the Blessed
one Sikhi and the Blessed one Vessabhu she observed virtuous
conduct and was one of great learning and one expert in the
Dhamma. Similarly she went forth in the teaching of Kakusandha,
Konagama and Kassapa Buddha's, and she was one of pure virtuos
conduct, one of great learning, and one who preached the
doctrine..In this buddha era she went forth under Dhammadina and
finally became arahant." The time between even one buddha is
immense but conditions are carried on citta to citta.



> Therefore, 
> even our experiences of the six-doors vary, for example,
> aquired tastes.

There are three rounds : kamma-vatta(action),
vipaka-vatta(result) and kilesa-vatta (defilements such as
greed, aversion ignorance). the actual moments of experience
through the doorways are vipaka (result) but immediately there
is reaction (partly by "acquired taste") which is defilement and
this conditions kamma. These rounds are all spinning now,
continually, as they always have in samasara. The Buddha's path
analyses and untangles these rounds and eventually brings them
all to a halt.

> 
> Studying ideas related to such things as social construction,
> I have come to realise how I have been conditioned to take
> things
> for granted for the mere fact that they were all I had known,
> such as the view of myself as a substantial unity. The history
> of
> many things that are taken for granted as natural, upon
> examination,
> creates an awakening. It seems that throughout my life I have
> been
> docile to what it has presented. With this awareness, I have
> been
> lead to this moment in the present which promotes the
> grappling
> of Dhamma study, or Thervada buddhism.Although, I have come to
> be
> quite lobha to critical thinking, almost to the point of
> skeptism, I sense that this will dissipate the more I Dhamma
> study.

In the end it is not so much critical thinking that is needed as
direct study of paramattha dhammas, the physical(rupa) and
mental(nam) phenomena that are arising now. But right
contemplation helps us to differentiate and understand what
these namas and rupas are.

> 
> I'm not overstating when I say "lead" either. In recent
> academic work, 
> I grappled with ultimate realities. With the hybrid of
> information I had
> accumulated, I presented two: the discursive and the
> non-discursive.
> Having never read any books by Nina, I was astounded by the
> parallels
> between the above in relation to nama and rupa. Yet, I don't
> proclaim
> to have grasped nama and rupa, but from the basic introduction
> as far,
> there are definite similarities between nama and the
> discursive mentioned
> above, and rupa- and the non- discursive. Well that's all for
> now, its
> been pleasant sitting here and trying to be aware of the
> citta, cetasika,
> and the nama which have been and gone!
> 
 
keep up the good work Jody!
Best wishes
Robert


 
2240 From:  
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 11:32am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Some thoughts

 
  Dear Jodi,

Thanks for your compassionate post..


rgds

 
2241 From:  
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 11:40am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Mulapariyaya sutta

 
  Dear Mike

u asked -> "
is 'papanca' the word sometimes translated as 'proliferation(s)'?
"

Yes sir


rgds.

 
2242 From:  
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 7:26pm
Subject: Re: But Abhidhammatha Sangaha told me...

 
  Robert, you wrote:
> So pleased to hear this expression of confidence in the Buddha's
> Dhamma. (I don't know if there could be other equally valid ones
> though?)
I'm confident that there could be equally valid expressions of 
abhidhamma. After all, abhidhamma is just a description of some 
extraordinarily complex phenomena. On top of that, it is a short and 
simple description [yes, I know it sometimes may seem like a long and 
complicated description, especially given the length and intracacy of 
the Patthana, but it really is like a handful of leaves in a forest 
:) ]. In my experience, complicated phenomena can always be described 
adequately in a number of different ways. Buddha was famous for 
giving descriptions and lessons tailored to meet the needs of the 
people he was teaching at the time. If he were alive today, would his 
Abhidhamma be the same as the one he taught 2500 years ago? Or would 
his handful of leaves look different? I think there is little doubt it 
would look different, but we can't know what "our" abhidhamma would 
look like. People's understanding of the Dhamma decays as the time of 
the Buddha gets farther and farther away. Perhaps this is in part due 
to the teachings being geared toward the ears that abounded 2500 years 
ago...

 
2243 From:  
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 7:31pm
Subject: Re: But Abhidhammatha Sangaha told me...

 
  > Would a simple way to express this be that the
> domanassa vedana here accompanies dosa *conditioned
> by* lobha?  Thanks in advance for corrections.
Thank you for your kind words. 

If the dosa is "conditioned by" lobha, wherefore dosa as "root"?

 
2244 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 7:44pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: But Abhidhammatha Sangaha told me...

 
  Dear dhd5,
I think I read a passage somewhere that indicates all the
buddhas of the past teach basically the same things (although
some taught less vinaya because there disciples were ones who so
quickly became enlightened that the patimokkha wasn't
necessary).
When it comes to the Abhidhamma in particular, which describes
actual fundamental phenomena, how could it be taught in a
different way? Dosa, aversion is dosa. We could call it by a
diferent name but it is still the same thing. Lobha, moha etc.,
and also the physical phenomena  cannot be divided into anything
more basic or have their characteristics changed.
 
I don't know what others think about this. 

You wrote that he Dhamma was geared for ears 2500 years ago. But
those ears had the same experience- various sounds - as ours
right now. Anyone who could understand sound as sound and
penetrate the difference between sound (rupa) and hearing (nama)
could become enlightened. It is the same now and will be in the
future too.  

Many of the sutta are teachings tailored specifically for the
listener but I think the Abhidhamma, because it deals in
fundamental phenomenena, is suited for all who wish to listen.
Robert 
---  wrote: > Robert, you wrote:
> > So pleased to hear this expression of confidence in the
> Buddha's
> > Dhamma. (I don't know if there could be other equally valid
> ones
> > though?)
> I'm confident that there could be equally valid expressions of
> 
> abhidhamma. After all, abhidhamma is just a description of
> some 
> extraordinarily complex phenomena. On top of that, it is a
> short and 
> simple description [yes, I know it sometimes may seem like a
> long and 
> complicated description, especially given the length and
> intracacy of 
> the Patthana, but it really is like a handful of leaves in a
> forest 
> :) ]. In my experience, complicated phenomena can always be
> described 
> adequately in a number of different ways. Buddha was famous
> for 
> giving descriptions and lessons tailored to meet the needs of
> the 
> people he was teaching at the time. If he were alive today,
> would his 
> Abhidhamma be the same as the one he taught 2500 years ago? Or
> would 
> his handful of leaves look different? I think there is little
> doubt it 
> would look different, but we can't know what "our" abhidhamma
> would 
> look like. People's understanding of the Dhamma decays as the
> time of 
> the Buddha gets farther and farther away. Perhaps this is in
> part due 
> to the teachings being geared toward the ears that abounded
> 2500 years 
> ago...
> 



 
2245 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 8:43pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: But Abhidhammatha Sangaha told me...

 
  Dear Robert,

Digha Nikaya, Sampasadaniya Sutta also talks about the teachings of
Buddhas, past, present, and future.  I didn't see the English
translation on the web.

kom
--- Robert Kirkpatrick  wrote:
> I think I read a passage somewhere that indicates all the
> buddhas of the past teach basically the same things (although
> some taught less vinaya because there disciples were ones who so
> quickly became enlightened that the patimokkha wasn't
> necessary).



 
2246 From:  
Date: Thu Dec 7, 2000 8:53pm
Subject: Mulapariyaya and different abhidhammas?

 
  Asserting that there can be other, different, but equally valid 
expressions of Abhidhamma is not at all the same thing as speculating 
on what they might look like. 

I could envision some value to such a discussion: Talk and talk and 
think about what an alternative might be. Come up with some 
possibilities. Shoot those down. Put forth some more. Have some people 
accept some and others accept others and some accept none. Rancor and 
division arise. Then: Some who did not realize it before then realize 
that we already have a rich and beautiful abhidhamma and feel regret 
that they wasted time looking for an alternative. I can't imagine that 
the value of this would offset the costs in speculation about things 
non-path. I will resist the temptation.

It may be useful to think about the POSSIBILITY of alternative 
abhidhammas, though. Abhidhamma is just a description--albeit, a 
wondrous description, but a description nonetheless. As a 
biologist/statistician, I build models to describe complex phenomena 
is simpl