4000 From: Dan Dalthorp   
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 7:51pm
Subject: Re: On Right View (to rpka21)

 
  You mention that sankhara are anicca and dukkha and that dhammas 
are anatta. Aren't dhammas (excepting nibbana) anicca too?

> 
> > I have no idea if it is the right quotations but the 
interpretation 
> is 
> > not one I've seen in the Tipitaka. 
> 
> I have seen that interpretation in the places I've come across the 
> definition of Right View, both in the Tipitaka and the Tibetan 
Dharma.
> 
> > As I understand it there area 
> > several levels of right understanding, but it has to be of things 
> as 
> > they really are, from the time before the Buddha there were levels 
> of 
> > right understanding of what kusala and akusala was, for example, 
> and 
> > that too was panna, for example the right understanding that 
> > distinguishes samma from miccha samadhi.  Higher levels of panna 
> come 
> > with the development of satipatthana, then the levels of nana that 
> > result from that bhavana, up to the magga nana and culminating 
with 
> > the arahanta level.  
> 
> The way you describe (satipatthana) is only true if you're 
> approaching this from the angle of vipassana-yanika trained in the 
> Four Frames of Reference. In addition to cultivating insight as 
> concerns the the body, feelings, mind, and mental factors, 
> there are also many other ways to skin this cat enumerated in the 
> Tipitaka, as there are numerous other ways found in other schools. 
It 
> is possible to apply vipassana to things other than the meditations 
> found in satipatthana (such as the anatta strategy), or in a 
slightly 
> different way, and have it produce the same effect. 
> 
> Also, I'm not sure if you're suggesting insight alone is sufficient, 
> but if you are, the Buddha advises cultivating both vipassana and 
> samatha for his disciples, so the strategy you mention above is 
> insufficient, by itself, for cultivating all the factors of the 
path, 
> as the Buddha notes in the Asankha Sutta:
> 
> "If a monk would wish, 'May I -- with the ending of mental 
> fermentations -- remain in the fermentation-free release of 
awareness 
> & release of discernment, having directly known & realized them for 
> myself in the here-&-now,' then he should be one who brings the 
> precepts to perfection, who is committed to mental calm, who does 
not 
> neglect jhana, who is endowed with insight, and who frequents empty 
> dwellings."
> 
> Also, the Samadhi Sutta notes that:
> 
> "As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena 
> through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of 
> awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained 
internal 
> tranquillity of awareness...and ask him, 'How should the mind be 
> steadied?..."
> 
> What I also think is important to recognize, and from what little 
> I've read the suttas confirm this, is that anicca is only one of 
> three possible arammana the mano-dvaravajjana-citta takes as an 
> object prior to the arising of the lokuttara cittas. I recall at one 
> point disbelieving this was a legetimate strategy, because at that 
> point I was unable to understand the logic behind it. Fortunately, 
my 
> unfounded chauvanism was dispelled when I read what the Pali texts 
> say, and came to see another legitimate (if very different) approach 
> from the one I'd learned.
> 
> By the way, the technique you mention (Satipatthana) isn't formally 
> taught in Vajrayana, where they teach the union of samatha & 
> vipassana exclusively as a strategy, with the object of 
investigation 
> being emptiness. I listed some meditations on emptiness yesterday 
> that come from the Visuddhimagga.
> 
> And I agree with you that there are many levels of understanding of 
> Right View, and there are many lokiya aspects of Right View as well, 
> beginning with the non-denying of kamma and vipaka, up to accepting, 
> intellectually, that sankharas are anicca and dukkha and that all 
> dhammas are anatta. But as is noted in the texts, there is a 
> literally a world of difference between understanding this 
> intellectually and directly knowing via lokuttara panna. As you have 
> noted elsewhere, lokiya Right View is incapable of destroying the 
> samyojanas.
> 
> > I think we must be very careful to distinguish the kinds 
> > of citta involved otherwise there could be very great confusion 
> that 
> > leads to wrong understanding even when one is supposed to read the 
> > texts!  It makes me realize the dangers of translation
> 
> There are certainly dangers in translation. But I think the greatest 
> danger tends to come about from our own misunderstandings of 
> essential doctrines. Ditthupadana is not so easy to abandon!
> 
> I also do not agree that it is necessary to know the intricacies of 
> Abhidharma's classifications to know Right View. Very few historical 
> masters I know of have needed this. Studying Abhidhamma, as I see 
it, 
> is just another legitimate way to get to an understanding of 
> realities, and I particularly like the emphasis on paramattha 
> dhammas. However, there are many ways realities may be understood, 
> and the paramattha dhamma strategy is simply one of many, others 
> being contemplating emptiness, dependent origination, etc.
> 
> So I do not see Abhidhamma as an necesarry aspect of the path for 
> everyone. What I think is truly necessary to rightly understand is 
> that all sankharas are anicca and dukkha and that all dhammas are 
> anatta, in whatever way that understanding is brought about, either 
> through teachings on emptiness (and anatta--same thing) or dependent 
> origination, or on anicca, or on dukkha. I believe if these 
teachings 
> re properly understood then the Abhidhamma will act as a support to 
> confirm our understanding. However, I do not think knowing which 
> cittas fire at which moments is necessarily as helpful as 
> contemplating teachings on things like paramattha dhammas and 
sunnata 
> and anatta, for example.
> 
> Anyway, I would also like to respond to your longer post from the 
> yesterday, but I have some points I would like to research first. I 
> truly appreciate your thorough reply to my earlier post. This is  
> very kusala stuff for me. This type of epistolary discussion one of 
> the most powerful practices I have found in my own life, because it 
> forces me to really consider and research the points under 
> discussion, and serves to greatly aid my own understanding. So I 
> thank you (and everyone else here) for your kindness in providing me 
> this unparalleled opportunity to cultivate yoniso manasikara!

 
4001 From: Amara   
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 8:10pm
Subject: Re: On Right View (to rpka21)

 
  > You mention that sankhara are anicca and dukkha and that dhammas 
> are anatta. Aren't dhammas (excepting nibbana) anicca too?


Can the three lakkhana be separated?  Can there be the one without the 
other two describing the same object?

 
4002 From: Amara   
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 8:20pm
Subject: Re: On Right View (to rpka21)

 
  --- "Dan Dalthorp"  wrote:
> You mention that sankhara are anicca and dukkha and that dhammas 
> are anatta. Aren't dhammas (excepting nibbana) anicca too?


Dear Dan, 

I'm sorry I just realized you were asking Erik!!!  (you got his 
handle wrong, by the way)

Good to hear from you,

Amara

 
4003 From: m. nease   
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 8:56pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Num, 

If I were religious I'd say you were a godsend to this
list.  Always a pleasure, Sir.

mike


 
4004 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo   
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 10:30pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Ta Mok is NOT a buddha. He is a human being and he can have 10 degrees in
Dhamma study. So what?

Yes, I have compassion for the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Yes,
I know he has dukkha like any of us. He is heir to his own karma and that is
the simple fact here.

I do not think Ta Mok falls into the bodhisatta category, either, at least
from my understanding of the requirements, nor would he come close to being
Arahatta.

And just so we are clear:

"Rather than simply identifying the bodhisattva-yaana with the various
Mahaayaana schools and the `sraavaka-yaana with the numerous Hiinayaana
schools (as does the old model, which illustrates the ideas put forth by
Naagaarjuna, Asa^nga, and Candrakiirti), the revised theoretical model may
more accurately portray the differences that exist between the two yaanas by
referring to Mahaayaana Buddhism as a vehicle in which the bodhisattva ideal
is more universally applied, and to Theravaada Buddhism as a vehicle in
which the bodhisattva ideal is reserved for and appropriated by certain
exceptional people."

Samuels, Jeffrey, "The Bodhisattva Ideal In TheravaadaBuddhist Theory And
Practice: A Re-evaluation Of The Bodhisattva-`Sraavaka Opposition"
Philosophy East and West, Volume 47, Number 3, July 1997, P.399-415
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha123.htm

NOTES:

I do not accept the use of "Hinayana" as a properly used term... just for
the record. See: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha140.htm It would be most
wise for everyone here to do so!

"Though the possibility for the existence of other future buddhas beside
Metteyya is mentioned only briefly in the Paali canon, in other
post-canonical Theravaadin texts, there are more specific references to
future bodhisattvas and buddhas. For instance, in the
Dasabodhisattuppattikathaa, the Dasabodhisattaddesa, and in one recension of
the Anaagatava.msa Desanaa, the nine bodhisattvas who will follow Maitreya
are mentioned. Moreover, in one recension of the Dasabodhisattuppattikathaa,
we even find the places of residence of seven of the ten bodhisattvas:
Metteyya, Raama, Pasena, and Vibhuuti are presently residing in Tu.sita
heaven and Subhuuti, Naalaagiri, and Paarileyya are now in Taavati.msa
heaven. Thus, it appears that the Theravaadin tradition acknowledges certain
"celestial" bodhisattvas who are currently residing in various heavenly
realms and not that the only recognized bodhisattva in Theravaada Buddhism
is Maitreya (Edward Conze, Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays
by Edward Conze [Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1967], p. 38).

Given the above, and given that I do not see all this as merely "revised
theoretical modeling", it would be most prudent to know what constitutes the
definition of a "buddha" and for that matter a pacceka-buddha. And
concerning the bodhisatta/arahatta "issue" --- I have no issue with it at
all.

I point out the above quotes and references and notes to show that, again,
their is only one Sasana, there is only one "yana" and not to be trite or
simplistic, but to use as practical example as possible, the Dhamma is like
a pasta. It comes in various shapes. It can be eaten hot, cold, with sauces,
as a salad, or plain with olive oil, butter, salt and pepper, and a
sprinkling of herbs. There is still just the pasta! If I were to make pasta,
I would use the same ingredients but when put through the pasta machine, I
can present it as spaghetti, rigatoni, ziti. But is the pasta there?

Ta Mok does not, in my view, come close to any pacceka-bodhi, either.

And there is no rationalizing that he has "buddha-nature". That is hardly
the issue.

The Blessed One taught the dangers of speculation.

The Blessed One insisted on practice.

It would be well to reflect on here in this community if speculation or
practice is what is taking place.

Clinging to views is miccha ditthi, no? Let's practice more before being so
insistent. Has speculation been a cause for the propagation of the Sasana?
Has any of this speculation brought release, not mere relief from dukkha?

We do not need to prove the Dhamma --- we need to practice like there was
less than 5 minutes left to live. And given the current state of affairs on
this planet, that time may be closer than some us realize, so I entreat
everyone to attend to the Blessed One's Dhamma and not speculating how many
devas can dance on the tip of a 32 gauge acupuncture needle!

May this find everyone well.

Metta cittena,

Bhante D.

 
4005 From: Erik 
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 10:43pm
Subject: Re: On Right View

 
  --- Sarah Procter Abbott  
wrote:

> In the Tipitaka, there is only one way to develop the
> right understanding which eventually eradicates
> defilements. This is by understanding paramattha
> dhammas(realities) as they appear at the present
> moment as anatta (not self).

Interesting. I have never seen anything to indicate this is the only 
way. Also, I have never heard any teacher of Theravada or any system 
say that we must come understand patahattha dhammas in only this way, 
that "this alone is true, all other ways are false." 

> Vipassana (development of
> this right understanding) is not applied to anything.
> There is no self to apply, only realities to be
> unerstood. This is also the development of
> satipatthana, the development of right awareness.

In the sense I use it, it can be applied to objects of negation. That 
act of negating impossible modes of existence (i.e. "true existence") 
is another proven way to do exactly what you say here. 

> When we talk about anatta, anicca, dukkha, dependent
> origination, kamma or vipaka, we're talking about the
> nature of the realities appearing at this moment.

At the most basic level, this is in perfect accord with my 
understanding.

> Thinking about how everything is anatta or anicca has
> nothing to do with understanding the characteristic of
> seeing or hearing as they appear now.

I submit that it does, for those properly trained in this technique. 
If you do not accept at least this possibility, if you are not open 
to accepting that others may also have thoroughly tested systems that 
do bring about lokuttara sammaditthi by the ways I've described, then 
mutual understanding will be very difficult to achieve, I think. I am 
willing to work with textual citations from the Tipitaka and attempt 
to draw out its meanings--which as you must recall for me, is in 
someone else's "language." This is tough enough, and I do not feel I 
can communicate effectively if there are prejudices of the sort that 
hold, absent any firm evidence, that there is only "one" way to go 
about solving the problem or more specifically, that because others 
have learned this a diifferent way they cannot possibly be correct. 
This is what I am picking up from this discussion in some places. If 
this is not a correct intepretation of the patches of light and dark 
impinging on my eye-sense, then please feel free to correct my 
misunderstanding. :)

> Understanding
> anatta is not different from understanding paramatha
> dhammas as far as the Tipitaka is concerned and this
> MAY have been a distinction I found when looking at
> the Tibetan teachings.

If this is so then I am certain you have not had a proper teaching in 
this system. Without this there is no valid basis of knowing if the 
insight brought about through the emptiness strategy is any different 
from the understanding brought about by the paramattha dhamma 
strategy. The point of both strategies is to know realities as they 
are. By entering via the emptiness gateway, all facets of the Dharma 
should become clear. If one approaches from parmattha dhamma angle, 
and gains insight this way, one should have eradicated all doubt 
about how this also works from the perspective I mention. In my 
formulation, insight must eradicate doubt, clarify confusion, and 
dispel ignorance in exactly this way; true insight should resolve all 
facets of the Dharma of all systems into a state of non-
contradiction. If it does not perform at least this function, then I 
would not accept it as genuine insight.

> Finally, Erik, you quote the passages from the Vism.
> on 'Discerning Formations as Void'. May I stress that
> this is not a series of strategies but an explanation
> of realities as not self which can be known at this
> moment. 

Its existence in the spoken Dharma means it is a strategy by my 
definition. To see any teaching as anything more than a strategy 
would be to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of 
the textual or spoken Dharma, because as I noted before this is to 
confuse the labels with what's being pointed at. This directly 
contradicts the advice of the Four Relianecs, to rely on the "inner 
meaning" of the Dharma, and not the words, as well as the advice of 
the Sutta of the simile of the raft (the sutta the on reading it was 
what brought me into the Dharma).

Understanding paramattha dhammas is one way of eradicating this 
tendency to reify the words of the Dharma, and it makes perfect sense 
to me how meditating on paramattha dhammas will yeild this result, 
because I see it as no different from the way it works with the 
meditations I've been trained in. 
 
> There are other points I would like to comment on, but
> I'll leave it here, stressing that anattaness or
> voidness is not something to be contemplated on,

So long as you say that this is true solely in the context of your 
own practice, I cannot disagree. When you extend this to another's 
practice, particularly if you lack fluency in that system, then this 
must be, by definition, an opinion based on conjecture. It cannot be 
otherwise.

> Please don't take any of our comments as
> 'attacks'...we're all delighted to have you with
> us..it's unusual to meet someone who is so obviously
> well-read and sincerely interested in the abhidhamma.

I hope you believe me whan I say that I have not read a single thing 
here I could ever see as a personal attack, so there is nothing for 
you to worry about. I also hope you do not think I am here with any 
hidden agenda, or for any other reason than to learn, from the 
perspective of proponents of the Tipitika, its inner meaning. So you 
must understand again how deeply grateful I am to have been given 
this incredible opportunity. And also, please be aware, this type 
of "practice" (debate) is a central aspect of my own system's 
approach, so I consider this very kusala as I've mentioned elsewhere.

Hopefully I'll be able in the not-too-distant future to communicate 
my own understanding in your preferred language, such that no 
confusion arises about my intended meaning, but in the meanwhile I 
would find it more helpful if it is at least possible for you and 
others to entertain the possibility that others may have discovered 
something just as effective as your own practice, and cut me a little 
slack. On that note I feel it's probably time for me to shut up and 
begin really learning the Tipitika's perspective.

 
4006 From: Erik 
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 10:55pm
Subject: Re: On Right View

 
  --- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" 
 wrote:
> Ta Mok is NOT a buddha. He is a human being and he can have 10 
degrees in
> Dhamma study. So what?

Whoa! Did you somehow read that I said Ta Mok is a Buddha? I had to 
go back and re-read my original quote, because I know I didn't imply 
this. "As far as I know (since I lack the capacity to judge another's 
mentality) he's a Buddha"

This to me is simply stating a truth without any speculation 
whatsoever. Ta Mok could very well be a Buddha. This is simply 
admitting I lack the capacity to judge whether he is or he isn't, 
since I am not a Buddha. In the absence of certain knoedge I have 
found it far more helpful to imagine everyone is a Buddha rather than 
making assumptions about another's mentality. This is just another 
nice strategy for cultivating kusala I have been taught. If it 
doesn't work for you, then no need to waste time with it.

 
4007 From: Erik 
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:02pm
Subject: Re: On Right View

 
  --- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" 

> And just so we are clear:
> 
> "Rather than simply identifying the bodhisattva-yaana with the 
various
> Mahaayaana schools and the `sraavaka-yaana with the numerous 
Hiinayaana
> schools (as does the old model, which illustrates the ideas put 
forth by
> Naagaarjuna, Asa^nga, and Candrakiirti), the revised theoretical 
model may
> more accurately portray the differences that exist between the two 
yaanas by
> referring to Mahaayaana Buddhism as a vehicle in which the 
bodhisattva ideal
> is more universally applied, and to Theravaada Buddhism as a 
vehicle in
> which the bodhisattva ideal is reserved for and appropriated by 
certain
> exceptional people."
> 
> Samuels, Jeffrey, "The Bodhisattva Ideal In TheravaadaBuddhist 
Theory And
> Practice: A Re-evaluation Of The Bodhisattva-`Sraavaka Opposition"
> Philosophy East and West, Volume 47, Number 3, July 1997, P.399-415
> http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha123.htm

This perfectly matches the way I see all of this. I also think I 
recall that King Rama IV not only founded the Thammayut order but 
also took the Bodhisattva vows and vowed to attain Buddhahood for the 
sake of all sentient beings.

 
4008 From: Erik 
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:22pm
Subject: Re: On Right View

 
  --- Robert Kirkpatrick 
 wrote:

> Have a look at this quote from Gunaratana Thera. I don't have
> time to make it clearer. 

I have no choice but to accept that I was mistaken on this point. 
Just so you know, I have had this debate before, and no one has ever 
been able to provide me any conclusive evidence as you have just 
done. So I greatly thank you for clarifying this for me, because I 
can now see another entirely legitimate way of going about things.

 
4009 From: cybele chiodi   
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:29pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Dear Erik

You are definetly prolific and taking the clue about languages and 
communication I disclose to you that my 'preferred language' is the one that 
emerges from the warm heart of wisdom: experience.

You wrote:

"Hopefully I'll be able in the not-too-distant future to communicate
my own understanding in your preferred language, such that no
confusion arises about my intended meaning, but in the meanwhile I
would find it more helpful if it is at least possible for you and
others to entertain the possibility that others may have discovered
something just as effective as your own practice, and cut me a little
slack. On that note I feel it's probably time for me to shut up and
begin really learning the Tipitika's perspective."

Before you 'shut up' and not proponing any accademic discussion but a 
sharing, please could you tell me what is your OWN language; I mean mine for 
example is that of effective knowledge from experience.
Apart your evident delight in accademic discussions, which one is your 
actual inner language considering your buddhist practice, the actual 
language of your mind and your heart when you are not translating it in 
erudition, let's in the awareness of daily life?
I am not merely provocative, I am actually interested in sharing with you.
Please not suttas or intellectual approach; on this side I reckon that you 
are already fluent.
Let's try a different approach - if you agree naturally.

Metta
Cybele




4010 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 0:27am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Contextual reply below:

----- Original Message -----
From: <Erik>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:25 PM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View


> --- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo"
>  wrote:
> > Ta Mok is NOT a buddha. He is a human being and he can have 10
> degrees in
> > Dhamma study. So what?
>
> Whoa! Did you somehow read that I said Ta Mok is a Buddha?

I think the question is foolish.

> I had to
> go back and re-read my original quote,

And what does that tell you?

> because I know I didn't imply
> this. "As far as I know (since I lack the capacity to judge another's
> mentality) he's a Buddha"
>

It appears to me there is an assumption on your part whether you admit it or
not.

As far as I am concerned you do not know.

> This to me is simply stating a truth without any speculation
> whatsoever.

Oh really? Let me point this out in your words: "(since I lack the capacity
to judge another's mentality)" As far as you know? What do you know?

Ta Mok could very well be a Buddha?

Erik, that is silliness. It is frivolous and speculative. I hold no position
but I am not going to assuage what happened to a whole nation of people,
either.

Beware of rationalizing.

> This is simply
> admitting I lack the capacity to judge whether he is or he isn't,

Then stop asserting things you really do not know from experience and
practice. While you have the knowledge, do you have the "cushion time"?

> since I am not a Buddha.

But as far as you might know you could be(come) one?

> In the absence of certain knoedge I have
> found it far more helpful to imagine everyone is a Buddha rather than
> making assumptions about another's mentality.

Absence of certain knowledge. Imagining. Without certain knowledge and by
imagining, you make assumptions.

> This is just another
> nice strategy for cultivating kusala I have been taught.

Sweetheart, Dhamma is not a "strategy" and neither is practice.

Strategy, as "far as I know" is: An elaborate and systematic plan of action
or the branch of military science dealing with military command and the
planning and conduct of a war.

> If it
> doesn't work for you, then no need to waste time with it.
>
I am not so sure it would work for anyone, including yourself.
>
I am only sure of one thing: practice. And the certainty is in the doing not
the thinking about it.

Metta,

Bhante D.

 
4011 From: Howard 
Date: Thu Mar 15, 2001 7:42pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Hi, Amara -

In a message dated 3/15/01 3:01:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Amara writes:

> Bonne nuit, Num!
> 
> Faites de beaux reves!
> 
> A.
> 
===============================
       An interesting difference between French and English idiom: In English 
it is "Have good dreams", and in French it is "Make good dreams". From the 
Buddhist perspective, there is something valid and something invalid in each 
formulation, I think. Dreams are, indeed, fabricated. On the other hand, we 
have only small control over over our dreams.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         

4012 From: Dan Dalthorp   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 1:58am
Subject: Re: On Right View (to rpka21)

 
  Nibbana is described as with anatta but not dukkha nor anicca...

> 
> > You mention that sankhara are anicca and dukkha and that dhammas 
> > are anatta. Aren't dhammas (excepting nibbana) anicca too?
> 
> 
> Can the three lakkhana be separated?  Can there be the one without 
the 
> other two describing the same object?

 
4013 From: Erik 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 1:58am
Subject: Re: On Right View

 
  --- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" 
 wrote:

> > Whoa! Did you somehow read that I said Ta Mok is a Buddha?
> 
> I think the question is foolish.
>
> > I had to
> > go back and re-read my original quote,
> 
> And what does that tell you?

It tells me that I wish to understand how what I said may have led 
you to construe a meaning which was never intended, so that I may 
learn to express myself more skillfuly next time.

> > because I know I didn't imply
> > this. "As far as I know (since I lack the capacity to judge 
another's
> > mentality) he's a Buddha"
> >
> It appears to me there is an assumption on your part whether you 
admit it or
> not.

What assumptions do you see, specifically? That in the absence of 
certain knowledge about another's mentality I have found it far more 
conducive to my own happiness to see all beings as possible Buddhas, 
rather than as deluded fools? If you see any assumptions in this then 
we have a very different understanding of the term. By my definition 
there is no assumption anywhere in what I said. It is a statement of 
concrete fact arising out of direct experience that this strategy has 
been effective at increasing kusala and decreasing akusala for me.

> As far as I am concerned you do not know.

Which I have fully admitted. So I am not exactly sure what you're 
responding to here, since you seem to agree with my claim that I lack 
the capacity to judge if another being is a Buddha or not.
 
> > This to me is simply stating a truth without any speculation
> > whatsoever.
> 
> Oh really? Let me point this out in your words: "(since I lack the 
capacity
> to judge another's mentality)" As far as you know? What do you know?
> 
> Ta Mok could very well be a Buddha?

Ta Mok could very well be a demon too as far as I know. Again, to 
clarify (I hope I am more effectively communicating my meaning to you 
now), the point is not only that I do not know one way or another, 
but without being a Buddha myself I can't possibly know. This is one 
way of always recalling the importance of having a "pramana," 
or "valid cognition," about something. For this reason I would prefer 
not to speculate on another's mentality, and act as if anyone I meet 
may well be a Buddha, though you must understand this sentiment does 
not extend to condoning what appears to be unskillful behavior. I see 
a huge difference between the two, if this is the source of your 
present confusion.

> Erik, that is silliness. It is frivolous and speculative. I hold no 
position
> but I am not going to assuage what happened to a whole nation of 
people,
> either.

I am curious to understand how honestly admitting "I do not know" is 
in the least bit frivolous or speculative. To me it represents a very 
concrete fact rooted in direct experience. To my understanding this 
attitude is perfectly in line with the Buddha's teachings.

> Then stop asserting things you really do not know from experience 
and
> practice. While you have the knowledge, do you have the "cushion 
time"?

Would you please be kind enough to point out where I have asserted 
things I do not know from experience? I would like to be made aware 
of any possible speculations I may have inadvertently engaged in, so 
that I may act more skillfully the next time.

> > since I am not a Buddha.
> 
> But as far as you might know you could be(come) one?

I believe every collection of aggregates labeled "sentient being" has 
the potential of becoming a Buddha.

> > In the absence of certain knoedge I have
> > found it far more helpful to imagine everyone is a Buddha rather 
than
> > making assumptions about another's mentality.
> 
> Absence of certain knowledge. Imagining. Without certain knowledge 
and by
> imagining, you make assumptions.

Again, could you please point out the assumptions you keep insisting 
I'm making? I have seen nothing so far that would indicate the any 
speculation on my part. I have repeatedly said that I lack definitive 
knowledge one way or another about another's mentality. I have also 
said that in the absence of definitive knowledge, I have found it 
more helpful, in my own experience, to act as if everyone I encounter 
may be a holy being, more specifically a Buddha.

Then again, perhaps what is very obvious to me is not so obvious to 
your present understanding. And it appears this sort of practice is 
unsuitable for you anyway, given the appearance of aversion you have 
expressed in relation to it, by suggesting it may not work for 
anyone. I will suggest that that statement is speculation of the very 
highest degree, particularly as it is speculation as regards a key 
strategy set out in a fully-elaborated path, in this case "Mahayana" 
and tantra.

> > This is just another
> > nice strategy for cultivating kusala I have been taught.
> 
> Sweetheart, Dhamma is not a "strategy" and neither is practice.
> 
> Strategy, as "far as I know" is: An elaborate and systematic plan 
of action
> or the branch of military science dealing with military command and 
the
> planning and conduct of a war.

Given the sole aim of the Buddhadharma is to completely defeat the 
armies of Mara, I believe using the word "strategy" is entirely 
appropriate in this context. Speaking of which, I really like Sun 
Tzu's quote from "The Art of War.": "Many can see the individual 
tactics necessary to succeed, but rare is the one who can see the 
strategy out of which total victory is evolved."

To that end I'll quote Thanissaro Bikkhu on this idea: 

"To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," 
[the Buddha] offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: 
the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the 
path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining 
to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what 
they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and 
then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be 
comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the 
path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in 
which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path 
of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-
being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the 
Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there 
a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because 
I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, 
or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" 
These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help 
you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and 
clinging -- the residual sense of self-identification -- that cause 
it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and 
all that's left is limitless freedom. 

"In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but 
a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its 
cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, 
questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the 
experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern 
about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?"

> > If it
> > doesn't work for you, then no need to waste time with it.
> >
> I am not so sure it would work for anyone, including yourself.

It is certainly your prerogative to hold to any views you wish. So 
you know, my teachers have taught that this practice is an 
indispensible aspect of the path I'm currently traversing. I know 
whose opinions on these matters I choose to listen to, because 
everything else they've taught me has proven, in my own experience, 
to be more dead-on than I could have ever imagined.

> I am only sure of one thing: practice. And the certainty is in the 
doing not
> the thinking about it.

And of course, as I have mentioned, the practice of dak-nang ("pure 
view") is to do exactly as I've described above--to strive to see all 
beings as Buddhas, and all experience as the enlightened play of the 
Buddhas. This is the attitude that all tantric practitioners are 
encouraged to cultivate at all times. It is also a very common 
strategy found in all "Mahayana" systems I know of, and is entirely 
consistent with the notions found in the Prajanaparamita on how those 
practicing the Bodhisattva path have to train their minds to arrive 
at the perfection of wisdom. Given this, I think it would be more 
helpful to begin with a clearer understanding the points under 
discussion before making unwarranted assumptions about another's 
preferred practice of the Buddhadharma.

 
4014 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 3:07am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Contextual reply below:

----- Original Message -----
From: <Erik>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View


> --- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo"
>  wrote:
>
> > > Whoa! Did you somehow read that I said Ta Mok is a Buddha?
> >
> > I think the question is foolish.
> >
> > > I had to
> > > go back and re-read my original quote,
> >
> > And what does that tell you?
>
> It tells me that I wish to understand how what I said may have led
> you to construe a meaning which was never intended, so that I may
> learn to express myself more skillfuly next time.
>
It is good to want to understand what you expressed that may have lead to my
construing a meaning which was never intended.

1. I did not construe nor misconstrue anything.
2. Be careful in this medium. Words written are forensic --- more so than
speech.

> > > because I know I didn't imply
> > > this. "As far as I know (since I lack the capacity to judge
> another's
> > > mentality) he's a Buddha"
> > >
> > It appears to me there is an assumption on your part whether you
> admit it or
> > not.
>
> What assumptions do you see, specifically? That in the absence of
> certain knowledge about another's mentality I have found it far more
> conducive to my own happiness to see all beings as possible Buddhas,
> rather than as deluded fools? If you see any assumptions in this then
> we have a very different understanding of the term.

Imagine as you like. I am not judging Ta Mok the person but I will tell you
that his actions are another story altogether.

> By my definition
> there is no assumption anywhere in what I said.

I respect your statement, but it is not about "my" definition or "your"
definition, it is about logic. And that logic is not merely Aristotelian
logic.

> It is a statement of
> concrete fact

Concrete fact? Oh?

> arising out of direct experience that this strategy has
> been effective at increasing kusala and decreasing akusala for me.
>
I am not asking about what is kusala and akusala for you, nor did I before.

> > As far as I am concerned you do not know.
>
> Which I have fully admitted.

You admitted it, yes, but then continued as it appears from this end, that
you attempted to reach a conclusion by some logic of your own.

> So I am not exactly sure what you're
> responding to here,

I responded to this Ta Mok stuff.

> since you seem to agree with my claim that I lack
> the capacity to judge if another being is a Buddha or not.
>
Please don't twist words here. I am not interested in tautologies. I am not
a tautologist.

> > > This to me is simply stating a truth without any speculation
> > > whatsoever.
> >
> > Oh really? Let me point this out in your words: "(since I lack the
> capacity
> > to judge another's mentality)" As far as you know? What do you know?
> >
> > Ta Mok could very well be a Buddha?
>
> Ta Mok could very well be a demon too as far as I know.

Ta Mok could be all kinds of things. The point is that the criteria for a
Living Buddha are clear.

> Again, to
> clarify (I hope I am more effectively communicating my meaning to you
> now), the point is not only that I do not know one way or another,

Then why this long epistle from you,  young sir?

> but without being a Buddha myself I can't possibly know. This is one
> way of always recalling the importance of having a "pramana,"
> or "valid cognition," about something.

Nice words. I prefer silence, solitude, and practice.

> For this reason I would prefer
> not to speculate on another's mentality, and act as if anyone I meet
> may well be a Buddha, though you must understand this sentiment does
> not extend to condoning what appears to be unskillful behavior.

What "appears" to be unskillful behavior? Did Ta Mok's behavior appear
skilled? My good man, go to Cambodia. Talk to the Cambodian people. The
whole nation of people needs, as many a professional have unabashedly
stated: psychiatric therapy.

> I see
> a huge difference between the two, if this is the source of your
> present confusion.
>
> > Erik, that is silliness. It is frivolous and speculative. I hold no
> position
> > but I am not going to assuage what happened to a whole nation of
> people,
> > either.
>
> I am curious to understand how honestly admitting "I do not know" is
> in the least bit frivolous or speculative.

Then perhaps you need to change your "strategy"?

> To me it represents a very
> concrete fact rooted in direct experience.

Who is the "me"? What is "concrete"?

> To my understanding this
> attitude is perfectly in line with the Buddha's teachings.
>
What you appear to call "concrete fact" and "direct experience" are now
expressed as "attitude"?

> > Then stop asserting things you really do not know from experience
> and
> > practice. While you have the knowledge, do you have the "cushion
> time"?
>
> Would you please be kind enough to point out where I have asserted
> things I do not know from experience?

Re-read your original post. Look at your imaginings.

> I would like to be made aware
> of any possible speculations I may have inadvertently engaged in, so
> that I may act more skillfully the next time.
>
I cannot make you aware. You must make yourself aware.

> > > since I am not a Buddha.
> >
> > But as far as you might know you could be(come) one?
>
> I believe every collection of aggregates labeled "sentient being" has
> the potential of becoming a Buddha.
>
I am not interested in "belief". It is always coupled with "doubt".

> > > In the absence of certain [knowledge] I have
> > > found it far more helpful to imagine everyone is a Buddha rather
> than
> > > making assumptions about another's mentality.
> >
> > Absence of certain knowledge. Imagining. Without certain knowledge
> and by
> > imagining, you make assumptions.
>
> Again, could you please point out the assumptions you keep insisting
> I'm making?

I already did that.

> I have seen nothing so far that would indicate the any
> speculation on my part.

What was your original post about Ta Mok then?

> I have repeatedly said that I lack definitive
> knowledge one way or another about another's mentality.

But then you vacillated there, and suddenly return with "concrete fact" and
"direct experience" . Sorry, I am not able to follow your thinking.

> I have also
> said that in the absence of definitive knowledge, I have found it
> more helpful, in my own experience, to act as if everyone I encounter
> may be a holy being, more specifically a Buddha.
>
Ah... here is the part of the problem. All life is precious. Every sentient
being is precious. Don't act as "if" they are holy... they are holy. Ta Mok
did terrible things but his life is as precious as those he destroyed.
Understand?

Before you or I act more specifically as if others may be a buddha, then
perhaps you and I need to act like a buddha first. Where does genuine
compassion begin?

> Then again, perhaps what is very obvious to me is not so obvious to
> your present understanding.

Perhaps the above statement is a bit risky on your part? But that is
alright. I do not expect you to have any iota of a modcum of that
understanding.

> And it appears this sort of practice is
> unsuitable for you anyway, given the appearance of aversion you have
> expressed in relation to it, by suggesting it may not work for
> anyone.

I see the above as twisting words with politeness and in debate. You are the
owner of your own perceptions. It is not that I have aversion or attachment
at all in this case. But what we do have is the clear Teachings of the
Blessed One, so what really is your point in all this?

> I will suggest that that statement is speculation of the very
> highest degree,

I see your suggestion as error. This is about practice my dear.

> particularly as it is speculation as regards a key
> strategy set out in a fully-elaborated path, in this case "Mahayana"
> and tantra.
> I have been taught.

Spare me the sectarian jargon, please. It will not work.

> >
> > Sweetheart, Dhamma is not a "strategy" and neither is practice.
> >
> > Strategy, as "far as I know" is: An elaborate and systematic plan
> of action
> > or the branch of military science dealing with military command and
> the
> > planning and conduct of a war.
>
> Given the sole aim of the Buddhadharma is to completely defeat the
> armies of Mara, I believe using the word "strategy" is entirely
> appropriate in this context.

Well, I do not. Read: Sayadaw U Pandita's *In This Very Life* and you will
know how to deal well with the 10 Armies of Mara. My dear, you will need
more than a strategy. You need a scientific method not based on the
theoretical but facts. Understand?

>Speaking of which, I really like Sun
> Tzu's quote from "The Art of War.": "Many can see the individual
> tactics necessary to succeed, but rare is the one who can see the
> strategy out of which total victory is evolved."
>
With the 10 Armies of Mara, we do not have the time to evolve total victory.
Merciless compassion must be applied immediately. Total liberation from
kilesas is attainable at any time said the Blessed One. Either you know this
or you do not.

So, what are you going to do know that this has been expressed to you?

r other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what
> they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and
> then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be
> comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the
> path to its cessation developed.

Yes, the Four Noble Truths are clear.

>These duties form the context in
> which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path
> of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-
> being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the
> Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there
> a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because
> I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself,
> or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?"
> These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help
> you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and
> clinging -- the residual sense of self-identification -- that cause
> it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and
> all that's left is limitless freedom.
>
The why imagine about buddhas and demons?

> doctrine of no-self, but
> a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its
> cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point,
> questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the
> experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern
> about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?"
>
Yes.

> > > If it
> > > doesn't work for you, then no need to waste time with it.
> > >

It is not about what works for "me". Understand?

>yurself.
>
> It is certainly your prerogative to hold to any views you wish. So
> you know, my teachers have taught that this practice is an
> [indispensable] aspect of the path I'm currently traversing. I know
> whose opinions on these matters I choose to listen to, because
> everything else they've taught me has proven, in my own experience,
> to be more dead-on than I could have ever imagined.
>
Good. Keep practicing. Just practice.

e. And the certainty is in the
> doing not
> > the thinking about it.
>

f course, as I have mentioned, the practice of dak-nang ("pure
> view") is to do exactly as I've described above--to strive to see all
> beings as Buddhas, and all experience as the enlightened play of the
> Buddhas. This is the attitude that all tantric practitioners are
> encouraged to cultivate at all times.

I have realized this some time ago.

> It is also a very common
> strategy found in all "Mahayana" systems I know of, and is entirely
> consistent with the notions found in the Prajanaparamita on how those
> practicing the Bodhisattva path have to train their minds to arrive
> at the perfection of wisdom. Given this, I think it would be more
> helpful to begin with a clearer understanding the points under
> discussion before making unwarranted assumptions about another's
> preferred practice of the Buddhadharma.

I did not make assumptions about anyone's preferred practice of the
Buddhadhamma. What I was pointing to are what you expressed as
imaginings --- which I did not read as "visualizations".

Let's be more careful with words then?
>

And please wait sometime before you respond. Take this to practice for a
time.

I am not here to compete with anyone or defeat anyone. I am here to learn
but at the same time, what I have learned and practiced, I would share
openly.

I do not expect that it is always comfortable, either.

With Loving Deep Metta,

Bhante D.


 
4015 From: Howard 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 0:04am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Hi, Robert (and Erik) -

> Textual evidence that there can
> be arahats lacking mundane jhana is provided by the Susima Sutta
> (S.ii, 199-23) together with is commentaries. When the monks in
> the sutta are asked how they can be arahats without possessing
> supernormal powers of the immaterial attainments, they reply:
> "We are liberated by wisdom" (pannavimutta kho mayam). The
> commentary glosses this reply thus: "We are contemplatives,
> dry-insight meditators, liberated by wisdom alone" (Mayam
> nijjhanaka sukkhavipassaka pannamatten'eva vimutta ti,
> SA.ii,117). The commentary also states that the Buddha gave his
> long disquisition on insight in the sutta "to show the arising
> of knowledge even without concentration" (vina pi samadhimevam
> nanuppattidassanattham, SA.ii,117). The subcommentary
> establishes the point by explaining "even without concentration"
> to mean "even without concentration previously accomplished
> reaching the mark of serenity" (samathalakkhanappattam
> purimasiddhamvina pi samadhin ti), adding that this is said in
> reference to one who makes insight his vehicle (ST.ii,125).
> >>>>endquote
> 
==================================
       I don't think the matter is 100% clear. You wrote << When the monks in
the sutta are asked how they can be arahats without possessing
supernormal powers of the immaterial attainments, they reply:
"We are liberated by wisdom" (pannavimutta kho mayam). >> I understand 
"immaterial attainments" to refer to the 4 higher absorptions. On the basis 
of that understanding, being liberated by wisdom alone might not rule out 
attaining the first four absorptions. I do seem to recall that there are 
places in the sutta pitaka where the Buddha identifies "Right Concentration" 
with the attaining of the first four jhanas. Thus, what ever the "bottom 
line" really is on all this, it does seem to me that there is less than 
complete certainty on the matter, at least as regards what appears in the 
suttanta.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4016 From: Howard 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 0:26am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Hi again, Rob (and Erik) -

In a message dated 3/15/01 4:05:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, Howard 
writes:


> I do seem to recall that there are 
> places in the sutta pitaka where the Buddha identifies "Right 
> Concentration" 
> 
================================
       Actually, I found support for this on Access to Insight in an article 
by Bhikkhu Bodhi in which he quotes DN 22. It seems to me that this, together 
with Right Concentration being one factor of the the 8-fold path, tends to 
support the importance of the jhanas on the path to freedom. The relevant 
portion of the article is the following, written by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

The four jhanas make up the usual textual definition of right concentration. 
Thus the Buddha says: 
> And what, monks, is right concentration? Herein, secluded from sense 
> pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a monk enters and dwells in 
> the first jhana, which is accompanied by initial and sustained application 
> of mind and filled with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. Then, with 
> the subsiding of initial and sustained application of mind, by gaining 
> inner confidence and mental unification, he enters and dwells in the second 
> jhana, which is free from initial and sustained application but is filled 
> with rapture and happiness born of concentration. With the fading out of 
> rapture, he dwells in equanimity, mindful and clearly comprehending; and he 
> experiences in his own person that bliss of which the noble ones say: 
> "Happily lives he who is equanimous and mindful" -- thus he enters and 
> dwells in the third jhana. With the abandoning of pleasure and pain and 
> with the previous disappearance of joy and grief, he enters and dwells in 
> the fourth jhana, which has neither-pleasure-nor-pain and purity of 
> mindfulness due to equanimity. This, monks, is right concentration.[<A HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/#n64">64</A>] 
===============================
With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         




 
4017 From: Dan Dalthorp   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:10am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Howard, Robert, et al.)

 
  Hi Howard,
It is oh-so-tempting to cling to the notion of the "dry insight 
worker" because it: (a) looks like a shortcut to developing wisdom, 
(b) it feels somehow purer to think exclusively about the parts of 
Dhamma that are unique to the Buddha and not think so much about 
things that most traditions and cultures revere (viz. virtue) and 
about things like samadhi that seem so difficult and yet ultimately 
are not THE key to liberation, and (c) many serious meditators get 
burned at some point by mistaking samadhi for pañña. As Robert pointed 
out, the so-called suddha-vipassana-yanika does receive some 
scriptural support in the commentary and subcommentary to the Susima 
sutta (S.ii, 199-23). It is also mentioned in Abhidhammatha sangaha, 
chapter I. However, the support is scarce. On the other hand, one 
thing that really strikes me about the suttas (and Abhidhamma too) is 
how frequently and clearly they discuss the importance of cultivating 
virtue and concentration and how important such cultivation is to 
development of the path. The cultivation means such unpopular things 
as renunciation, restraint of senses, seeing danger in the slightest 
fault, and meditation. One particularly pernicious and venomous view 
is that practicing these things is not helpful because there is no 
"who" to direct the practice or work toward active, conscious 
purification of virtue, concentration, and insight. "After all, 
moments of awareness can arise at any time--whether in anger, at the 
movies, looking at porn magazines, etc. So what's the point in trying 
to cultivate the path? You are just deceiving yourself to think 
there's anything you can do." Of course, Buddha explicitly rouses us 
to practice virtue and meditation (samatha and vipassana) and says 
explicitly that he would not do so if progress could not be made.

Dan

 
4018 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 10:05am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (Howard, Robert, et al.)

 
  Dear Dan,
Comments below>
--- Dan Dalthorp  wrote:
> Hi Howard,
> It is oh-so-tempting to cling to the notion of the "dry
> insight 
> worker" ....
However, the support is scarce. On the other hand,
> one 
> thing that really strikes me about the suttas (and Abhidhamma
> too) is 
> how frequently and clearly they discuss the importance of
> cultivating 
> virtue and concentration and how important such cultivation is
> to 
> development of the path. One particularly pernicious and
> venomous view 
> is that practicing these things is not helpful because there
> is no 
> "who" to direct the practice or work toward active, conscious 
> purification of virtue, concentration, and insight. "

Dan I guess I am the one who holds these "particularly
prenicious and venomous views" as you addressed this post to me
and Howard? And Howard seems to discount the idea of a
dry-insight worker as you do. 
Do you really think that developing the path of the
sukkhavipassaka means not cultivating any sila or samattha? And
that that is my position?
If so then I have really being misrepresenting what this path
entails and I sincerely apologize to everyone. 

Here is a section from a message I sent a while back:
>>>WE might think that we will understand all this later, after
we
get enlightened, or next life. However, there is only now. For
deep panna to arise there must be many conditions - we have to
begin to understand this moment. Are the colours appearing now
"something", or is it understood at some level that there is
nothing except visible object appearing to condition seeing?
Seeing is only citta, a majicians trick. Visible object is only
a lump of foam. 
Nina wrote to me yesterday how urgent it is to develop
satipatthana. It is true: the moments flash by, but we are so
neglectful. We want to be aware 'when the time is right'. We
think we will be aware when we are calm, or relaxed, or after we
study more, or when concentration is stronger, or after we keep
sila, or when we are not busy, or when we meet with khun sujin.
This is just thinking and all the time countless moments go
past, lost to understanding.
Sati and panna can only arise when  the right conditions
coincide but knowing about the urgency can be a condition too.
And understanding that nothing at all is self is a basic
understanding that should be very firm intellectually so that
deeper insight can occur. 
If tommorow we are seriously injured will we think this is a
trajedy? Or will we know that a moment is just a moment - no
self - it can be understood. >>>

You know one of my teachers is nina van gorkm.
She notes that the bodhisatta "esteemed virtue as the foundation
of all achievements" - she then carries on and gives so many
deatils about sila. This is in her book The perfections leading
to enlightenment".
On generosity she writes:
"if one is sincere in the development of satipatthana one will
become less selfish and have more consideration for others..one
will not expect any gain for oneself.." A whole chapter
continues in this vein.
On determination:
"Are we determined to continue to develop right understanding
until we have reached the goal?"

On renunciation:
She gives many stories form the jataka about renunciation and
later notes that a monk friend Dhammadharo"told me that in his
temple monks usually drank plain water, no coffee tea or other
beverages and how glad he was to learn to be contented with
plain water" She shows many ways that we can renounce in our
daily lives.

On energy:
She writes how for so many live ste Bodhisatta endured great
hardship and affliction without becoming disenchanted. She notes
it takes energy to listen to dhamma. And especially to be aware
over and over again of namas and rupas. That this has to be done
not just a few times but should becoem our habit in life. 
Dan - this is effort that I can attest to is not imaginary. It
is no easy task to learn to study dhammas as they arise. To be
so patient that one will not take imitation awareness for the
real one. It is such a slow process that many are inclined not
to do so or think it can't be done. It can - it takes so much
effort though, nothing could be harder or more difficult to
understand.
Nina writes "we need to consider dhammas ardently , that is with
courage and perserverance"

On patience:
She writes "can there be patience when it is too cold or too
hot, when things in the house are out of ordwer, when we are in
the midst of traffic jam? At such moments we should consider "If
I don't develop patience now there will never be any
patience"."" She gives many examples. She notes that if we
develop understanding we gradully see that there is nothing
other than nama and rupa and so patience becomes stronger as
there is no self to protect.

On truthfulness:
A whole chapter. I am running out of time so will leave that for
now.
Metta - another whole chapter. And also I recommend Khun sujins
book "metta - loving kindness" This is one of the ways of
samattha that has to be developed in tandem with satipatthana.

Upekkha - equanimity.
She explains so many ways and how we should develop equanimity
to all the vicissitudes in life. Not only that but in each
momnet there is understanding of nama and rupa there is true
uppekka of a very high degree.

You might enjoy reading the book Deeds of Merit by Sujin
Boriharnwanaket  It hasn't been prepared for publication yet and
has formatting problems and a few spelling mistakes but can be
read at
http://www.abhidhamma.org/meri1.html


I have to go. Please let me know what you think Dan.
robert




4019 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 10:29am
Subject: URGENT!!!

 
  Please sign the petition and spread the word! Thank you! 

 http://msf.org/

 
4020 From: Howard 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 5:31am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (Howard, Robert, et al.)

 
  Hi, Rob -

In a message dated 3/15/01 9:06:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Robert Kirkpatrick writes:


> Dan I guess I am the one who holds these "particularly
> prenicious and venomous views" as you addressed this post to me
> and Howard? And Howard seems to discount the idea of a
> dry-insight worker as you do. 
> 
===========================
       Just so you don't misunderstand what I had written, I don't exactly 
discount that idea. What I was questioning was really what being a 
"dry-insight worker" actually means. My point was only that the term seems to 
be compatible with attaining the first four jhanas, but not the formless 
absorptions, and that the Buddha did seem to make much of the jhanas, 
particularly the first four.
       It is in fact my own experience from a 10-day Goenka retreat that the 
intensity of concentration that can be attained during "insight meditation" 
(vipassana bhavana) can be *enormous*, and that it is accompanied by rapture 
at one stage, then by calm and happiness, then contentment, and then a 
pristine equanimity. Whether this is jhanic or not I cannot say. It is 
certainly powerful. It seems to me that concentration (and calm) and 
mindfulness are mutually supportive, growing together (with mindfulness 
taking the lead), and, in tandem, lead to insight.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4021 From: Amara   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:17am
Subject: Re: On Right View

 
  > > Bonne nuit, Num!
> > 
> > Faites de beaux reves!
> > 
> > A.
> > 
> ===============================
>        An interesting difference between French and English idiom: 
In English 
> it is "Have good dreams", and in French it is "Make good dreams". 
From the 
> Buddhist perspective, there is something valid and something invalid 
in each 
> formulation, I think. Dreams are, indeed, fabricated. On the other 
hand, we 
> have only small control over over our dreams.


Dear Howard,

Languages are just pannatti, 'shadows of paramattha dhamma' for people 
to communicate through.  Actually I have only ever heard in English 
things like 'have a nice night, sweet dreams', etc.  and the literal 
French translation would be more like 'good night, make some beautiful 
dreams'.  

You're right that 'we' can't control even our own dreams, which are 
just thoughts anyway and like all things arise from conditions, here 
our own accumulations.  One interesting point, if I remember 
correctly, the arahanta do not dream anymore.

Amara

 
4022 From: Amara   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:19am
Subject: Re: On Right View (to rpka21)

 
  > Nibbana is described as with anatta but not dukkha nor anicca...


Absolutely!  I was thinking of arammana that we can experience in our 
lives.

A.

 
4023 From: Herman Hofman   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:37am
Subject: Hello

 
  Hi, one and all,

My name is Herman. I am a Dutch-born person resident in Australia.

I have read messages from this group for some time, with great interest.

I have found in the teachings of the Buddha the profoundest expression of
reality.

In my opinion it would be nice if Nibbana were more than a concept.

My knowledge of the pali canon is minimal.

Look forward to sharing wisdom (or lack thereof  :-) ) with you all.

Herman

 
4024 From: Amara   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:48am
Subject: Re: Hello

 
  > Hi, one and all,
> 
> My name is Herman. I am a Dutch-born person resident in Australia.
> 
> I have read messages from this group for some time, with great 
interest.
> 
> I have found in the teachings of the Buddha the profoundest 
expression of
> reality.
> 
> In my opinion it would be nice if Nibbana were more than a concept.
> 
> My knowledge of the pali canon is minimal.
> 
> Look forward to sharing wisdom (or lack thereof  :-) ) with you all.
> 
> Herman


Hello Herman!

Welcome to the discussions, to share whatever we have, I'm very glad 
you have joined in! 

Looking forward to your contributions, a fellow member of the group,

Amara

 
 
4025 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:01am
Subject: Moderator message

 
  Dear Ven. Dhammapiyo

Please note carefully the guidelines as to what are
suitable posts for this list.  The guidelines can be
found at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/

Thanks
Jon and Sarah


 
4027 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 0:36pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello

 
  Welkomstgroet, Herman,

Look forward to corresponding to you.

mike


 
4028 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 2:07pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Dear Mike & Num,

--- "m. nease"  wrote: > Num, 
> 
> If I were religious I'd say you were a godsend to
> this
> list.  Always a pleasure, Sir.
> 

May I share my appreciation too. I really appreciate
the keen appreciation of the heart of the Teachings
and the humour and style is always welcome! Actually
I'm rather missing your humourous posts, mike, now I
think about it...(lobha and dosa)! Num, I agree with
the comments you made sometime about how it's more fun
studying together on list than on one's own. We share
an interest in people and accumulations and this is a
perfect forum to combine that interest with our
appreciation of the dhamma! No reason why studying the
dhamma shouldn't be fun too!

Just a couple of points NUM:

1. To quote from the end of a good post to Cybele, you
said: 'Let me give you some of my opinion, be kind to
yourself.  Metta is not only for everyone else, in
turns inward to a person who has it as well.'

Just to clarify, metta cannot be to oneself, it can
only be to others...  I do agree however that it is
wise and sensible to take care of oneself, to look
after one's health and needs. For one thing, it can
make it a little easier to study and share dhamma.

2. You mentioned in a post to Erik that you always
'learn a lot from my friends, my teachers, my
students, my clients and at time even from animals and
trees'. Now Num, let me in on your secret; what do you
learn from animals and trees??!??

Mike,
The list has been so busy and there were a couple of
points of yours I meant to pick up on but won't spend
time looking now. You suggested that now you <have
studied quite a lot of abhidhamma and> appreciate
intellectually the speed at which all these processes
of namas and rupas are passing by, that being aware of
a (any) reality at this moment seems pretty
impossible. More recently you said to Jon sth about
very little chance of being aware of a nama or a rupa.


Although it is essential (according to my
understanding, Erik) to have some theoretical
understanding of abhidhamma and to have heard about
nama and rupa (or what they represent in whaterver
language), the knowledge has to penetrate deeper at
this moment. At this moment there cannot be
understanding of billions of processes or even of more
than one nama or rupa appearing. So, I suggest it's
better to forget any idea of what should be known (let
alone what could be known by the Buddha himself) and
live normally, naturally, letting awareness do its
job, having read and considered about the various
realities. Any sati or panna (awareness or wisdom) of
realities has to be very little (in quantity and
depth) in the beginning, with many moments of doubt,
wondering and confusion in between. 

However these moments of doubt and wondering are also
real and can be known when they appear. Sometimes I
even find myself smiling or laughing at them! If we
take the path or practice too seriously, count the
moments of awareness or lack of awareness (now we know
how seldom they arise), it shows that clinging to
self, clinging to progress, that I've mentioned
recently in the compassion discussions with Howard. 

The Buddha stressed the value of khanti (patience) and
khanti parami. Khanti with our own accumulations and
the difficulty of developing the path will help us to
also have more khanti for others in the same boat...No
easy path for anyone. (Personally, I find it more
realistic to thinks of others lost in samsara with
moha (ignorance) than as potential Buddhas as this can
be a condition for metta and compassion.)  

Mike, appreciating the shere difficulty of the task
and how little is known about what appears at this
moment is a very big step in the right direction and
should be cause for encouragement, not discouragement.


Best regards and thank you & Num for your support &
friendship,

Sarah


 
4029 From: jinavamsa 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 2:09pm
Subject: Re: On Right View

 
  hello dear Amara, 
ah, yes, to draw from one well and taste its waters as 
refreshing and clarifying is to give us grounded reason
to return to that well. 
jinavamsa (glad to be returning).

--- "Amara"  wrote:
> 
> > This seems to touch on the question of when we should accept a 
> > given teaching, with the focus on who the person is from whom
> > the teaching is coming. 
> > 
> > One orientation suggests that even if a teaching is said to 
> > come from the Buddha, that is no reason to accept it as true. 
> > And even if it comes directly from the Buddha's mouth (for 
> > those living in such a context, which according to some 
> > versions of Buddhist cosmology isn't the case since the 
> > Buddha died for the rest of the present cosmic cycle), even 
> > then it is not to be accepted merely because he said it. 
> > 
> > So if this has any relevance, we are back to seeing if a 
> > teaching is nonsense or inspiring (or something else). 
> > 
> > Be a light/island unto yourself was one bit of advice. Of course
> > we don't have to accept that, either! 
> 
> Dear Jina,
> 
> Welcome back!
> 
> I am still for the Tipitaka and commentaries for several reasons, 
the 
> most important of which is that no other teachings offer such study 
of 
> the present moment which everyone can verify for himself 
immediately, 
> about the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body sense and mind, and their 
> object.  Anyone who can teach me about these with such truth and 
logic 
> is has my attention.  But so far for me personally no one else makes 
> as much sense, and this is why I place it above any other reading.
> 
> Amara

 
4030 From: jinavamsa 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 2:13pm
Subject: Re: suttas about death (to comfort)

 
  --- "cybele chiodi"  
wrote:
> 
thank you Cybele. I hope you have a good stay in London. 
Jinavamsa


> Dear Jinavamsa
> 
> Thank you for your kindness in recollecting this sutta, it's also 
one of my 
> favourites.
> I am just arrived in London but before going to my hotel I stopped 
by to 
> check my mail.
> It has been suggested indeed but i am grateful the same for your 
interest.
> 
> Love and respect
> Cybele
> 
>

 

 
4032 From: jinavamsa 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 2:17pm
Subject: Re: On Right View (to rpka21)

 
  hello Dan and Amara and all, 
if we have no qualifiers here it is perhaps ambiguous. 
if we add the "all" [sabbe] from the Dhammapada (Dhp), it's 
hopefully clearer: 
all sankharas are anicca
all sankharas are dukkha
all dhammas are anatta
(Dhp. 277-279) 


--- "Amara"  wrote:
> 
> > Nibbana is described as with anatta but not dukkha nor anicca...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!  I was thinking of arammana that we can experience in 
our 
> lives.
> 
> A.

 
4033 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 2:19pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello

 
  Hi Herman,

Many thanks for letting us know you've joined us.
you've made your entrance in one of the busiest (most
active) weeks of the list for a long time. If you or
any other new members find they're having trouble
keping up with posts, I suggest using a filter or
digest system (message about options in the files on
the homepage).

--- Herman Hofman  wrote: >
Hi, one and all,
> 
> My name is Herman. I am a Dutch-born person resident
> in Australia.

Whereabouts? Jon is from Adelaide (but in Thailand and
Hog Kong for most of the last 30yrs) and we'll be in
Sydney very soon....just v.briefly..
> 
> I have read messages from this group for some time,
> with great interest.

Good, you're obviously coping fine...
> 
> I have found in the teachings of the Buddha the
> profoundest expression of
> reality.
> 
> In my opinion it would be nice if Nibbana were more
> than a concept.

sounds like some wishful thinking here...
> 
> My knowledge of the pali canon is minimal.

There are some useful messages on the files page under
useful messages, 'new to the list and new to the
dhamma' with strategies (!) for tackling the pali
here..
> 
> Look forward to sharing wisdom (or lack thereof  :-)
> ) with you all.

Me too....I'm sure you're being very modest..if you're
already following and up-to-date (which is more than I
am), you must have a real interest in the
dhamma...look forward to hearing more from you,
especially about this interest....

Sarah

p.s. Dan, Lee and Jina,

Glad to see you back on list after your long
holidays..hope to respond more. Lee, look forward to
hearing how you view the path and the practice these days.


 
4034 From: Herman Hofman   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 2:36pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello

 
  Sarah,

>> My name is Herman. I am a Dutch-born person resident
>> in Australia.
>
>Whereabouts? Jon is from Adelaide (but in Thailand and
>Hog Kong for most of the last 30yrs) and we'll be in
>Sydney very soon....just v.briefly..

I live in Bathurst, (regional NSW)  about 200kms west of Sydney. I have
lived in Sydney, Adelaide, Broken Hill, all over the place really. I have
very fond memories of Adelaide.

Thank you for the kind advice.


Herman

 
4035 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 3:43pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Dear Erik,

I think you've single-handedly doubled the size of the
list and I certainly appreciate your keen interest in
the Teachings. As I mentioned at the beginning, there
is no 'collective reasoning' here and you're rapidly
establishing your own 'relationship' with all the
active members....Please don't be deterred if some of
can't keep up with your output or become a little
heated or impatient at times....

Back to the meat of your message(s):

--- Erik wrote: 
>  I have never seen anything to indicate
> this is the only 
> way. Also, I have never heard any teacher of
> Theravada or any system 
> say that we must come understand patahattha dhammas
> in only this way, 
> that "this alone is true, all other ways are false."

Perhaps I should start with a couple of quotes as it
is the Buddha and his teachings (certainly not just my
limited understanding) which we are attempting to
discern here.

As I mentioned, the Buddha encouraged us to understand
the realities appearing now through 6 doorways.

The following is from Sam. Nik. (part 1V,
Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense,111,23):

'"Monks I will teach you the all.  Do you listen to
it. And what, monks, is the all?  It is eye and
object, ear and sound, nose and scent, tongue and
savour, body and things tangible, mind and
mind-states.  That, monks, is called 'the all'.

Whoso, monks, should say: "Rejecting this all, I will
proclaim another all, -it would be mere talk on his
part, and when questioned he could not make good his
boast, and further would come to an ill pass.  Why so?
Because, monks, it would be beyone his scope to do
so."' 

So, Erik, I think we agree on what are paramattha
dhammas already. Further on, the Buddha continues:

'"I will teach you a teaching, monks, for the
abandoning of the all by fully knowing, by
comprehending it. Do you listen to it.  And what,
monks, is that teaching?

The eye, monks, must be abandoned by fully knowing, by
comprehending it. 
Objects...eye-consciousness..eye-contact..that
pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral
feeling...that also must be abandoned by fully
knowing, by fully comprehending it.

The mind..mind-states...that pleasant feeling,
unpleasant feeling or neutral feeling...that also must
be abandoned by fully knowing it, by comprehending
it."'

The Buddha continues a little later: '....."Bhikkhus,
without directly knowing and fully understanding the
all, without developing dispassion towards it and
abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying
suffering....."' 

The note from the commentary at this point adds:'In
this sutta the three kinds of full understanding are
discussed; full undestanding of the known, full
understanding by scrutinization, and full
understanding as abandonment.'

I could continue, but I think you'll understand why
there is an emphasis on understanding paramattha
dhammas at all levels of wisdom in the Theravada
teachings. 

Seeing is anatta, not self. It is a nama, a reality
which experiences an object. It sees and then it falls
away. It arises when there are the right conditions
only, not by will or strategy. If there is no visible
object there cannot be seeing, for example.

This is how it is for all the other phenomena that
make up our lives. Understanding these phenomena as
they really are is the way to understand that they are
anatta. There has to be repeated understanding and
awareness over and over again of the different mental
and physical phenomena so that gradually the
impermanent and unsatisfactory nature of these
realities can become more apparent as higher levels of
wisdom are developed. These characteristics are not
concepts to be known through contemplation outside the
realities appearing now. This is the development of
vipassana (right understanding) as explained by the
Buddha. 

> At the most basic level, this is in perfect accord
> with my 
> understanding.

This is the basic level, the intermediate level and
the higher level. Panna (rt understanding) has to
understand these realities (in the quote) and
accumulate and understand more and more precisely
until the defilements are eradicated. The path or
strategy or raft is the same in the beginning, middle
and end. It may seem to be prejudiced or missing out
on other valuable gateways or strategies, but this
(view) would show (to me) a lack of confidence and
full appreciation of the Buddha's teachings. 
 
> Hopefully I'll be able in the not-too-distant future
> to communicate 
> my own understanding in your preferred language,

I don't think the language is the issue her, Erik. We
all come to the dhamma with different languages such
as psychotherapic, physic, Italian, Sunset
appreciative, yogic or wherever our understandings
have led us. I'm sure we all apprciate your sincerity
and effort to understand what we're saying with our
different languages and understandings. One more quote
in the Buddha's language to finish up:

'At Savatthi.  "Bhikkhus, form is nonself, feeling is
nonself, perception is nonself.  Seeing thus...he
undertands:..there is no more for this state of
being."'  (Sam.Nik. 111, khandhavagga, 14)

Writing this post has been my lunch today and I
couldn't think of any better sustenance, so I thank
you for this opportunity.

Best regards,
Sarah 



 
4036 From: Amara   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 4:32pm
Subject: Re: Hello

 
  > In my opinion it would be nice if Nibbana were more than a concept.


Dear Herman,

When I said nibbnana was not something I would experience in this life 
I was being pessimistic, I suppose, since according to the 
commentaries in the third millenium of the sasana enlightenment is 
possible up to the stage of the anagami.  Still I wonder if I would 
even get close to the sotapanna level!!!  But with the right 
conditions, anything can happen, don't you think?

Theoretically, nibbana is real, and I believe in its existence, 
logically there should be something like that, and most importantly 
the Buddha said that the right level of panna would show us this 
reality.  That such is the unique truth of nibbana that the experience 
of its characteristics would eradicate kilesa, according to the level 
of panna.  

One can see from the level or daily accumulation of sati and right 
understanding in daily life gives us a new perspective on things that 
appear around us.  Instead of being swept along with all the arammana 
that persent themselves through the eyes, ears, nose, etc. and 
especially the mind with its infinity of trains of thoughts' one sees 
realities as they really are.  Through the eyes right now there is 
visible object, and we take them for messages on the computer screen, 
arguments and all sorts of situations.  Actually all this is thoughts 
and emotions, and especially the memory thereof, which the self is 
made up of, and which drags us on even as we read.  Whereas if we 
studied realities right now, the self can't even be found.  Is it in 
the eyes?  In seeing?  In the mind?  In the body?  Wherever the citta 
arises, all the clinging makes us take that as ours.  

Without the study of realities as they really are, we continue to take 
this conglomeration as us, whether we are doing samadhi or arguing 
with anyone.  With the understanding of the citta as not one 
continuous soul, as an I who can decide to control this or that, one 
begins to have an intellectual comprehension of the tilakhana, of 
impermanence, instantaneous changes, and non self, under no one's 
control.  Right understanding at the beginning level, theoretical and 
contemplative, could start and lead to the experiencing of awareness 
of things as they really are, when the awareness that arises with all 
kusala citta, that is, sati cetasika that is one of the 'automatic' 
kusala cetasikas arising with all kusala citta, could study realities. 
 

At the moment of study, we accumulate kusala, and there is a level of 
bhavana, as satipatthana.  How?  First consider what samadhi is.  It 
is the moment the citta is free from lobha, dosa and moha.  Before the 
Buddha's time they knew this and tried to avoid the arammana of the 
six senses and concentrate on a single object, that is replaced by 
something more and more refined as the jhana deepened in level of 
attainment.  The result of the highest attainment is to be born in the 
highest brahma bhumi for the longest time, after which they come back 
to start over and over again.  The Buddha taught that even those who 
practice the deepest jhana are themselves only sankhara, under no 
one's control, that even the jhana and those who practice did not 
really have a self, a soul.  Something they did not know before, and 
this knowledge liberated thousands who were with jhana but no 
understanding of anatta at that time, which had never happened before, 
and at that time they practiced samma samadhi.

Bud satipatthana does not need jhana from samadhi practice.  It has 
several powers worthy of a Buddha's teachings, the first of which is 
that is only arises with kusala citta.  Those who think they are given 
the license to become libertines do not have any idea of what sati is 
(or are they just pretending to be ignorant?), in which case they 
should read up on the chapter on cetasika in the 'Summary' in the 
advanced section of < http://www.dhammastudy.com/ >.  Unlike samadhi or 
ekaggata cetasika that arises with all citta, sati arises with all 
kusala only, ie when the citta evolves with dana, sila or bhavana.  
And studying realities as they arise is bhavana, it develops panna to 
gather knowledge about the characteristics of things that appear, as 
nama and rupa, not conventional pannatti we live with all our lives.  
This additional knowledge, when accumulated from these tiny, 
imperceptible moments of sati could build up into a powerful enough 
reality to begin to show its prowess in moments of deeper sati, to 
already give us a glimpse of anattaness.

Of course as things happen at a blinding speed, we would have to 
develop satipatthana like picking up grains of sand to build a step to 
stand on, with these tiny flashes of awareness, but each moment is 
kusala and at that moment kilesa doesn't arise.  It is khanika 
samadhi, and will deepen imperceptibly as well, until the moment of 
nama-rupa-pariccheda-nana, when panna reveals the complete and total 
separation of the rupa from the nama.  Ordinarily we never experience 
the mind dvara, which is obscured by speed and arammana.  At that 
first nana, the nama presents itself, for the first time in that 
person's life.  Even those with the highest jhana would never have 
this experience, much less nibbana, which is a long way off.  This is 
only the first nana of the sixteen levels of knowledge reached by 
panna through the accumulations fed by satipatthana.  Studying one 
single arammana would never reach this.  Which is why the Tipitaka is 
full of exhortations to be aware of all the dvara, eyes, ears, nose, 
etc, and at all times, and in all positions, not just the four people 
tend to refer to.  

Those who begin to know how to develop satipatthana would be able to 
experience realities as they truly are at each moment.  And looking 
back they will see how much they have learned compared to when they 
had no idea what it was all about, and the gradual increase in that 
distance.  But looking forward to nibbana can only be pannatti, simply 
because there are no conditions for us to experience that yet.  If one 
has never seen the snow, or the sea, can one really see what it is 
like just from descriptions?  Surely one can only speculate.  Nibbana 
needs very specific conditions , especially panna of power to arise, 
it is clearly not for me in this lifetime, I don't think.  But at 
least I am accumulating the right conditions for it to happen sometime 
in the future, according to the Tipitaka.

Anumodana with all those who study,

Amara

 
4037 From: Amara   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 4:37pm
Subject: Re: On Right View (to rpka21)

 
  --- jinavamsa wrote:
> hello Dan and Amara and all, 
> if we have no qualifiers here it is perhaps ambiguous. 
> if we add the "all" [sabbe] from the Dhammapada (Dhp), it's 
> hopefully clearer: 
> all sankharas are anicca
> all sankharas are dukkha
> all dhammas are anatta
> (Dhp. 277-279) 

Dear Jina,

Yes indeed, thank you,

Amara
 
> --- "Amara"  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Nibbana is described as with anatta but not dukkha nor anicca...
> > 
> > 
> > Absolutely!  I was thinking of arammana that we can experience in 
> our 
> > lives.
> > 
> > A.

 
4038 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 5:48pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello

 
  Dear Herman,

Welcome to the group and may you find (and be able to
discern) the true teachings of Buddha in this group.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herman Hofman 

> In my opinion it would be nice if Nibbana were
> more than a concept.

Buddha did teach that Nibbana is real.  There is just no
condition for most of us to experience it.

Anumoddhana.

kom

 
4039 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 5:49pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Dear Howard,

The general question is, do we have control of anything?  My
understanding is since "we" do not exist, we certainly
cannot control.  If all (except one) dhammas arise because
of complex conditions, indeed, only one dhamma alone cannot
condition the arising of another dhamma.  Can we control
sati to arise?  Who/what are we?  How does sati arise?  What
conditions sati to arise?

Just a thought.

> -----Original Message-----
>        An interesting difference between French
> and English idiom: In English
> it is "Have good dreams", and in French it is
> "Make good dreams". From the
> Buddhist perspective, there is something valid
> and something invalid in each
> formulation, I think. Dreams are, indeed,
> fabricated. On the other hand, we
> have only small control over over our dreams.

 
4040 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 5:49pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (Howard, Robert, et al.)

 
  Dear Howard,

> -----Original Message-----
>        It is in fact my own experience from a
> 10-day Goenka retreat that the
> intensity of concentration that can be attained
> during "insight meditation"
> (vipassana bhavana) can be *enormous*, and that
> it is accompanied by rapture
> at one stage, then by calm and happiness, then
> contentment, and then a
> pristine equanimity. Whether this is jhanic or
> not I cannot say. It is
> certainly powerful. It seems to me that
> concentration (and calm) and
> mindfulness are mutually supportive, growing
> together (with mindfulness
> taking the lead), and, in tandem, lead to insight.

Leaving aside the discussion of whether or not Goenka
retreat/Mahasi's retreat is a valid way of developing
satipatthana or not, may I contribute my understadings of
Abhidhamma (without implying about what arose for you during
the time since I cannot know)

1) concetration (samathi, eggakata cetasika) arise with both
Kusala and Akusala
2) Rapture (Piti) can arise with both Kusala and lobha-mula

Regardless of whether or not the dhammas are kusala or
akusala, it is still not-self, insignificant, not worth
clinging to.  I often cling to the feeling of contentment,
only to realize conceptually later that this is yet another
not-so-subtle lobha of believing that I have or I am.

With Metta,

kom

 
 
4041 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 8:16pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Moderator message

 
  Dear Sarah and Jon,

Would you be kind enough to write me off list and tell me what the problem
is? I read the guidelines and I am not sure what it is that is the problem.

Thanks!

Metta,

Bhante D.

 
4042 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 8:21pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Moderator message

 
  Dear venerable Dhammapiyo,
Perhaps I can second guess sarah and jon. One section of
guidelines says:>>
The following are off-topic for our purposes (no matter how
interesting or useful they may seem):  chain letters, virus
alerts, ‘everybody in my address book’ messages, circulars,
petitions ">>

You probably were not aware of the 'petition' subclause. You
aren't the first to  be reprimanded under this section (most
people don't know about it.)

rob



--- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo"  wrote:
> Dear Sarah and Jon,
> 
> Would you be kind enough to write me off list and tell me what
> the problem
> is? I read the guidelines and I am not sure what it is that is
> the problem.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Metta,
> 
> Bhante D.
> 



 
4043 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 8:58pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Moderator message

 
  Hi Robert,

I think the that the petition is in line with the Dhamma. I do not send out
such things lightly.

The Blessed One gave clear instructions about His relationship to the care
of the sick.

I confess I do not regret sending the link. There are times that require us
to engage in Buddhadhamma action for the benefit of humanity and this is
surely one of those times.

While I, of course, respect the purpose of this community, the intention was
purely motivated out of compassion and overwhelming need.

Thank you so very much for your kind explanation.

May this find you well.

Metta cittena,

Bhante D.

 
4044 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 9:08pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Moderator message

 
  No argument here from me venerable, a very worthy petition.
Second guessing again, but I imagine sarah and jon feel they
shouldn't make exceptions.
 Someone promoted the publishing of a new book by Sujin
Boriharnwanaket (saying where donations could be made) a few
months back and was  told on list that even this is not allowed
on dsg.

robert
--- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo"  wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> I think the that the petition is in line with the Dhamma. I do
> not send out
> such things lightly.
> 
> The Blessed One gave clear instructions about His relationship
> to the care
> of the sick.
> 
> I confess I do not regret sending the link. There are times
> that require us
> to engage in Buddhadhamma action for the benefit of humanity
> and this is
> surely one of those times.
> 
> While I, of course, respect the purpose of this community, the
> intention was
> purely motivated out of compassion and overwhelming need.
> 
> Thank you so very much for your kind explanation.
> 
> May this find you well.
> 
> Metta cittena,
> 
> Bhante D.
> 



 
4045 From: Howard 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 4:26pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Hi, Kom -

In a message dated 3/16/01 4:50:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, kom
writes:


> Dear Howard,
> 
> The general question is, do we have control of anything?
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Indeed. I had that in mind when I pointed out that we have little 
contol over our dreams (using dreams as a case in point).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
   > understanding is since "we" do not exist, we certainly
> cannot control.  If all (except one) dhammas arise because
> of complex conditions, indeed, only one dhamma alone cannot
> condition the arising of another dhamma.  Can we control
> sati to arise?  Who/what are we?  How does sati arise?  What
> conditions sati to arise?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Well, of course I understand that there is no "we" except in a 
conventional sense. All dhammas are impersonal (anatta). When we speak 
conventionally of "our" exercising, or not exercising control, what we are 
actually speaking of is the role of volition in affecting events. 
       Generally, the primary sense of 'ownership' is that of control. If a 
person supposedly owns a business, but most of what the business does is 
controlled by the government, then that person's "ownership" is little more 
than ownership in name only. The fact that volition has only limited contol 
over "ones" body and mind is used in the Dhamma as one means of showing lack 
of ownership. It is a means of pointing out impersonality/no-self.
-----------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> >        An interesting difference between French
> > and English idiom: In English
> > it is "Have good dreams", and in French it is
> > "Make good dreams". From the
> > Buddhist perspective, there is something valid
> > and something invalid in each
> > formulation, I think. Dreams are, indeed,
> > fabricated. On the other hand, we
> > have only small control over over our dreams.
> 
=============================
With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4046 From: Winkworth Derick SrA USAFE CSS/SCIE   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 9:38pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  All:

    I am completely blown away by this e-mail list.  You guys are really
into the dhamma here, hardcore!  Lots of Pali terms and scriptural
references.  I'm completely amazed.

    I don't think I'm quite ready to keep up with you here.  I read and try
to understand what's being said.  It seems sometimes that based on some of
the arguments on this particular thread, and some others, that some of you
are basically saying that we are mindless automotons, hopelessly moving
through a never ending stream of unfolding karma.  The best we can hope for
is some spontaneous enlightenment, or maybe some acute form of awareness
allowing us to see things "as they are."

     If there's nothing to "develop" and no one to do the "developing" then
what exactly are we to do if anything at all?  Just sit and hope for the
best?  Apparently concentration or insight is near unattainable by most
people.  What exactly should we be doing?

     I like this list because it's challenging me, but I feel maybe I need
to really sit and ponder over what the dhamma study home page is saying and
then try follow the e-mail list in mind.  

Derick

 
4047 From: Amara   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 10:08pm
Subject: Re: On Right View

 
  >     I am completely blown away by this e-mail list.  You guys are 
really
> into the dhamma here, hardcore!  Lots of Pali terms and scriptural
> references.  I'm completely amazed.


Hi Derick, 

It's great to hear from you!  Don't let us intimidate you with all the 
technical terms, we're just checking the sources and pooling resources 
in order to get at the right understanding.  You might compare it to 
your having to learn how to call parts of a gun or a tank or even an 
airplane in order to communicate among those who use them.  Just shout 
when you need some help with a certain term and someone will surely 
explain it to you, or point you to the right glossary!


>     I don't think I'm quite ready to keep up with you here.  I read 
and try
> to understand what's being said.  It seems sometimes that based on 
some of
> the arguments on this particular thread, and some others, that some 
of you
> are basically saying that we are mindless automotons, hopelessly 
moving
> through a never ending stream of unfolding karma.  The best we can 
hope for
> is some spontaneous enlightenment, or maybe some acute form of 
awareness
> allowing us to see things "as they are."
> 
>      If there's nothing to "develop" and no one to do the 
"developing" then
> what exactly are we to do if anything at all?  Just sit and hope for 
the
> best?  Apparently concentration or insight is near unattainable by 
most
> people.  What exactly should we be doing?


My personal opinion is that before we start doing anything we should 
first understand what and why we should be doing it.  I think that the 
gist of the teachings is to attain wisdom of things as they really 
are, which will then automatically eradicate wrong understanding and 
then kilesa or bad tendencies level by level permanently.  To 
accumulate wisdom awareness would study what appears at each moment, 
whether through the eyes now as we read this, or as we think or use 
the mouse, all the different characteristics of realities should be 
noted and will be automatically kept in the panna 'database' used to 
build the most powerful weapon to wipe all the bad cetasikas from the 
citta, ending all kilesa and rebirth.

That's the survey of the situation, all you need is the finesse of the 
practical part of knowing that sati can arise at any time and place 
and study whenever it does, because it can only arise from conditions, 
one being right understanding of the theoretic level, and the other, 
on the practical level, meaning that the more it arises to study 
realities as they really are, the more it conditions other sati to 
arise.  Something like 'practice makes perfect'.  At that level, you 
can forget all the theories and study whatever realities that present 
themselves, you will see, it is quite enjoyable and you will never be 
bored again, realities do change at all times, even right now in front 
of your eyes, nothing ever stays the same, all are impermanent, ever 
changing and under no one's control.


>      I like this list because it's challenging me, but I feel maybe 
I need
> to really sit and ponder over what the dhamma study home page is 
saying and
> then try follow the e-mail list in mind.  


No need to ponder too much, if you have the basics, jump in and add to 
your knowledge with the study of realities!  And tell me how it turns 
out for you, I love to hear refreshing frankness!

Amara

 
4048 From: Erik 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 10:14pm
Subject: Javana Cittas

 
  Does anyone have a list of the names of the seven javana cittas or 
their function?

 
4049 From: Amara   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 10:27pm
Subject: Re: Javana Cittas

 
  > Does anyone have a list of the names of the seven javana cittas or 
> their function?


Dear Erik,

Perhaps Kom could help you, but I personally just call them the first, 
second, third, etc.  For their functions read Citta ch. 4, in the 
'Summary' Part II, <http://www.dhammastudy.com/>

Enjoy!

Amara

 
4050 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 10:41pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (derick)

 
  Dear derick,
See my comments below yours;
--- Winkworth Derick SrA USAFE CSS/SCIE
 wrote:
> All:
> 
>     I am completely blown away by this e-mail list.  You guys
> are really
> into the dhamma here, hardcore!  Lots of Pali terms and
> scriptural
> references.  I'm completely amazed.
> 
The Pali is hard going I know. please sing out if you don't know
a word and someone will give a careful translation. I know many
new members are put off by this and also some of the threads are
quite diificult. Bring us back to earth sometimes by making
comments or asking basic questions on Dhamma- for instance about
giving or sila (morality). These are very important things to
discuss.

>     I don't think I'm quite ready to keep up with you here.  I
> read and try
> to understand what's being said.  > are basically saying that
we are mindless automotons,
> hopelessly moving
> through a never ending stream of unfolding karma.  The best we
> can hope for
> is some spontaneous enlightenment, or maybe some acute form of
> awareness
> allowing us to see things "as they are."
> If there's nothing to "develop" and no one to do the
> "developing" then
> what exactly are we to do if anything at all? 

There is a path derick and it takes effort of heroic proportions
 to develop it. But there is no one on it: Visuddimagga xix19
"phenomena alone flow on- no other view than this is right"

 Just sit and
> hope for the
> best?  Apparently concentration or insight is near
> unattainable by most
> people.  What exactly should we be doing?
> 

 If you are starting to see that developing the path is hard
then you concur with the Buddha:
Sv454 it is more difficult to do sir that a man should penetrate
 the tip of of a hair split a hundred times with the tip of a
similar hair." "They penetrate something far more difficult than
that Ananda, who penetrate correctly This is suffering..."

Some of us on this list are saying it is extremely difficult and
takes careful and sustained study and application and many
different types of kusala that need to be developed to support
the path. This offends some who feel that it should be explained
in a more straightforward matter and that it is difficult but
not overly so. 
Is it off-putting to you if you were to find out that the true
path is  profound beyond anything else and might even take
lifetimes? To a soldier, Derick, this knowledge should cause
energy and determination to arise. The sort of determination
that will go on for no matter how long and how hard things get,
until the goal is reached.

>      I like this list because it's challenging me, but I feel
> maybe I need
> to really sit and ponder over what the dhamma study home page
> is saying and
> then try follow the e-mail list in mind.  
> 
There is a book I recommend as an intro. that is not too
difficult (not so many pali words)Deeds of merit by Sujin
Boriharnwanaket
http://www.abhidhamma.org/meri1.html


kindest regards
robert



 
4051 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:11pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Howard,

Just wanted to say (assuming you haven't blocked my
address):

--- Howard wrote:

> Howard:
>        Well, of course I understand that there is no
> "we" except in a 
> conventional sense. All dhammas are impersonal
> (anatta). When we speak 
> conventionally of "our" exercising, or not
> exercising control, what we are 
> actually speaking of is the role of volition in
> affecting events. 
>        Generally, the primary sense of 'ownership'
> is that of control. If a 
> person supposedly owns a business, but most of what
> the business does is 
> controlled by the government, then that person's
> "ownership" is little more 
> than ownership in name only. The fact that volition
> has only limited contol 
> over "ones" body and mind is used in the Dhamma as
> one means of showing lack 
> of ownership. It is a means of pointing out
> impersonality/no-self.

I've tried to formulate a response to the frequent
rhetorical question, 'can we...?' without much
success.  I think you've done well here (for what my
opinion's worth).  Right (or wrong) effort, for
example, is still effort and, as you've pointed out,
volition is still volition even though devoid of self.

Since 'we' won't be free of the illusion of someone
behind the will until stream-entry, it seems to me
that the most worthwhile efforts are those that arise
to distinguish kusala from akusala.

Just a thought.

mike


 
4052 From: Howard 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:23pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Hi, Mike -

       Thank you for this reply. You begin by writing "Just wanted to say 
(assuming you haven't blocked my address) ...". I can't imagine such a 
thought ever entering my head, Mike! I value your posts very highly!!

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 3/16/01 10:15:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
mike nease writes:


> Howard,
> 
> Just wanted to say (assuming you haven't blocked my
> address):
> 
> --- Howard wrote:
> 
> > Howard:
> >        Well, of course I understand that there is no
> > "we" except in a 
> > conventional sense. All dhammas are impersonal
> > (anatta). When we speak 
> > conventionally of "our" exercising, or not
> > exercising control, what we are 
> > actually speaking of is the role of volition in
> > affecting events. 
> >        Generally, the primary sense of 'ownership'
> > is that of control. If a 
> > person supposedly owns a business, but most of what
> > the business does is 
> > controlled by the government, then that person's
> > "ownership" is little more 
> > than ownership in name only. The fact that volition
> > has only limited contol 
> > over "ones" body and mind is used in the Dhamma as
> > one means of showing lack 
> > of ownership. It is a means of pointing out
> > impersonality/no-self.
> 
> I've tried to formulate a response to the frequent
> rhetorical question, 'can we...?' without much
> success.  I think you've done well here (for what my
> opinion's worth).  Right (or wrong) effort, for
> example, is still effort and, as you've pointed out,
> volition is still volition even though devoid of self.
> 
> Since 'we' won't be free of the illusion of someone
> behind the will until stream-entry, it seems to me
> that the most worthwhile efforts are those that arise
> to distinguish kusala from akusala.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> mike
> 



/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4053 From: Erik 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:35pm
Subject: Re: Javana Cittas

 
  > Perhaps Kom could help you, but I personally just call them the 
first, 
> second, third, etc.  For their functions read Citta ch. 4, in the 
> 'Summary' Part II, <http://www.dhammastudy.com/>

Hi Amara, I was unable to find this on the English part of ths site. 
Is is under Beginner, Intermediate, or Advanced, or someplace else?

Thank you again!
Erik

 
4054 From: Num 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:38pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Javana Cittas

 
  Hi Erik,

Look in  http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/dhamma.htm     Scroll down to 
almost at the end of the web.  Click on "REALITIES AND CONCEPTS,
The Buddha's explanation of the world," by Khun Sujin.  3 parts plus 3a and 
appendix. There are some definition and function of javana citta in there.

Num






 
4055 From: Amara   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:44pm
Subject: Re: Javana Cittas

 
  > > Perhaps Kom could help you, but I personally just call them the 
> first, 
> > second, third, etc.  For their functions read Citta ch. 4, in the 
> > 'Summary' Part II, <http://www.dhammastudy.com/>
> 
> Hi Amara, I was unable to find this on the English part of ths site. 
> Is is under Beginner, Intermediate, or Advanced, or someplace else?


Hi Erik,

Glad to hear you're reading!  It's in the advanced section, the full 
title is 'Summary of Paramatthadhamma'.  It's my favorite book!  I 
think you'll like it too,

Amara

 
 
4056 From: Dan Dalthorp   
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:48pm
Subject: Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  Hi mike,
You write:
> Since 'we' won't be free of the illusion of someone
> behind the will until stream-entry

That's not quite right. We're not free from the illusion of someone 
behind the will until arahantship.

As the anagami Khemaka said (S.22:89/iii,130): "I do not say 'I am' in 
regard to material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, or 
consciousness, nor do I say that there is an 'I am' apart from 
material form, feeling, perception, mental fomations, and 
consciousness. However, a sense that 'I am' is still found in me in 
reference to the five clinging aggregates; but I do not consider 'this 
I am'... Even though the ariyan disciple has abandoned the five lower 
fetters, nevertheless a residual conceit 'I am', desire 'I am', latent 
tendency 'I am' still remains in him in reference to the five clinging 
aggregates."

Bhikkhu Bodhi explains it as follows (in introduction to his 
translation of Mulapariyaya sutta and commentaries, BPS): "The idea 'I 
am' is a spontaneous, athematic notion born from the basic unawareness 
of the egoless nature of phenomena...[Its manifestations] are in 
essence prereflective...The view of a self, on the other hand, is a 
thematic consideration bound up with reflectivity as an inherent part 
of its structure."  

With stream-entry, the fetter of the view "I am" (or the reflective 
creation and active support that sakkayaditthi entails) is broken. But 
the manifestations of the illusion "I am" still arise as conceit and 
desire for being. Thus, we aren't really free of the illusion until we 
are fully liberated.

Dan

 
4057 From: Erik 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 0:39am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  --- "Dan Dalthorp"  wrote:

Dan, just wanted to say I really appreciate your superbly insightful 
posts I've read so far, also yesterday for reopening the debate in my 
own mind about the legitimacy of "dry insight" as truly sufficient 
for liberation. 

I was thinking about this, and that of course sammasamadhi entails 
jhana, and can we do away with a single one of the aspects of the 
Eightfold Path? The "dry insight" route seems to suggest that we do 
not need to cultiave this part of the Eightfold path. Can anyone tell 
me if I am misunderstanding something about this? Would "dry insight" 
mean there's no need to cultivate sammasamadhi?

> Hi mike,
> You write:
> > Since 'we' won't be free of the illusion of someone
> > behind the will until stream-entry
> 
> That's not quite right. We're not free from the illusion of someone 
> behind the will until arahantship.

My understanding is that so long as the limbs of dependent arising 
are present (as is true for all non-arahats) there must by definition 
be avijja, and avijja directly implies mana because avijja is the 
type of ignorance that still conceives of a "self" at the level of 
the khandas as you mention below, which isn't fully eradicated until 
arahat--as the very last thing, to my understanding. I have heard 
mana described as the "last great defilement."

> With stream-entry, the fetter of the view "I am" (or the reflective 
> creation and active support that sakkayaditthi entails) is broken. 
But 
> the manifestations of the illusion "I am" still arise as conceit 
and 
> desire for being. Thus, we aren't really free of the illusion until 
we 
> are fully liberated.

One analogy for this is the simile of the magician. Imagine a 
magician and "magic dust" (maybe it's PCP!) that makes people 
hallucinate. The magician spreads his magic dust around the audience, 
the magic dust enthralls them so that they hallucinate the appearance 
of a elephant on stage. To everyone in the audience it appears as 
though a real, live elephant is there. To the magician, since the 
magician has also breathed the magic dust, he also sees the elephant. 
Hoever, the differnce is that the magician knows the elephant is an 
illusion, whereas the people in the audience mistake the elephant for 
real.

 
4058 From: Dan Dalthorp   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 0:59am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  The magician must be the sotapanna, and what of the arahat? He must be 
the guy wearing the gas mask. No, that can't be right. The arahat 
doesn't use a gas mask. Which one could he be? Hmmm... The illusion of 
the elephant doesn't arise for him because his vision is clear. But he 
wouldn't necessarily avoid being in the room where illusions are 
arising. I can't tell which one he is!

But what of the sotapanna? Why on earth would a noble disciple spread  
magic dust around to make people hallucinate? He wouldn't. He would be 
the dispeller of illusion. He would probably even encourage people to 
take the eight precepts and avoid going to the show in the first 
place because he'd know of the dangers therein. Heck, imbibing the 
magic dust would be in violation of the five precepts, and the 
sotapanna would never do anything to cause others to tarnish their 
sila.

Now look what I've done! I've taken an entirely simple and innocuous 
simile and somehow managed to confuse myself dreadfully trying to 
decipher it...

> One analogy for this is the simile of the magician. Imagine a 
> magician and "magic dust" (maybe it's PCP!) that makes people 
> hallucinate. The magician spreads his magic dust around the 
audience, 
> the magic dust enthralls them so that they hallucinate the 
appearance 
> of a elephant on stage. To everyone in the audience it appears as 
> though a real, live elephant is there. To the magician, since the 
> magician has also breathed the magic dust, he also sees the 
elephant. 
> Hoever, the differnce is that the magician knows the elephant is an 
> illusion, whereas the people in the audience mistake the elephant 
for 
> real.

 
4059 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 1:00am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (jina)

 
  --- jinavamsa wrote : (about tipitaka)
> hello dear Amara, 
> ah, yes, to draw from one well and taste its waters as 
> refreshing and clarifying is to give us grounded reason
> to return to that well. 
> jinavamsa (glad to be returning).

> 
Thanks for the nice turn of phrase. I like to think that even a
philistine like myself can appreciate poetic writing as I age.
rob


 
4060 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 1:19am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Dear Howard,

I can second Mike to say that I am happy with your answer.
I also would like to contribute my understandings further
here:

Volition that is arising now is also conditioned by
innumerous past namas in more than one ways (anantara
pacaya, samantara pacaya, upanissaya pacaya, and probably
others).  Even volition cannot be controlled [only when
conditions are riped, a volition may occur], even if it
really feels like we can.  Hearing something can be a pacaya
to a certain kind of volition (hearing music often causes
strong lobha for me, hearing dhamma sometimes inspires good
deeds).  Of course, volition can condition considering the
meaning of dhamma, giving, keeping sila, etc.  The question
is, again, what is the condition of for the arising of a
moment of volition, kusala or akusala?

kom

> -----Original Message-----
> Howard:
>        Well, of course I understand that there is
> no "we" except in a
> conventional sense. All dhammas are impersonal
> (anatta). When we speak
> conventionally of "our" exercising, or not
> exercising control, what we are
> actually speaking of is the role of volition in
> affecting events.
>        Generally, the primary sense of
> 'ownership' is that of control. If a
> person supposedly owns a business, but most of
> what the business does is
> controlled by the government, then that person's
> "ownership" is little more
> than ownership in name only. The fact that
> volition has only limited contol
> over "ones" body and mind is used in the Dhamma
> as one means of showing lack
> of ownership. It is a means of pointing out

 
4061 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 1:24am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Javana Cittas

 
  Dear Erik,

This is teh section about the citta that Khun Amara
mentioned: http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat4.html.  It
doesn't give the explicit names of the different javana
citta, however.  The differentiation of the 7 pacaya I have
heard are based on how they conditioned one another, and how
they condition the arising of future vipakas.  I am not sure
if this is what you are looking for.

kom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amara 
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 7:44 AM
> Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Javana Cittas
>
> > > Perhaps Kom could help you, but I personally
> just call them the
> > first,
> > > second, third, etc.  For their functions read
> Citta ch. 4, in the
> > > 'Summary' Part II, <http://www.dhammastudy.com/>
> >
> > Hi Amara, I was unable to find this on the
> English part of ths site.
> > Is is under Beginner, Intermediate, or
> Advanced, or someplace else?
>
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> Glad to hear you're reading!  It's in the
> advanced section, the full
> title is 'Summary of Paramatthadhamma'.  It's my
> favorite book!  I
> think you'll like it too,
>
> Amara
>

 
4062 From: Erik 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 1:30am
Subject: Re: Hello

 
  A really great post, Amara, and very instructive to me, and I have a 
couple of comments:

> When I said nibbnana was not something I would experience in this 
life 
> I was being pessimistic, I suppose, since according to the 
> commentaries in the third millenium of the sasana enlightenment is 
> possible up to the stage of the anagami.  

A couple of question here. What teachings in Lord Buddha's Dhamma 
suggests this sort of pessimism is beneficial and connected with the 
Goal? Is this type of pessimism in accord with the first indriya and 
bala, for example?

> Nibbana 
> needs very specific conditions , especially panna of power to 
arise, 
> it is clearly not for me in this lifetime, I don't think.  But at 
> least I am accumulating the right conditions for it to happen 
sometime 
> in the future, according to the Tipitaka.

Another few questions. Did Lord Buddha teach accumulating merit for 
the sake of our next lives, or for release here & now? Is it the 
purpose of the Dhamma to create favorable conditions for the next 
life if we are able to study and practice the Dhamma with the aim of 
release in this life? (and forget what is said about arahat being 
impossible today: none of us can possibly know, and in absence of 
clear proof I see no reason to believe we can't). Can you even be 
certain that you will have all the conditions in your next life to 
practice the Dhamma? Also, what better opportunity could you imagine 
than right here and now? What better teachers can you hope to find 
than the ones you have right now?

If we still have hopes for anything in this or a next life, then my 
teachers have said we need to cultivate renunciation. As Dan noted in 
another post, this isn't as much fun as other things, like talking 
about paramattha dhammas and the like. But it is much more central; 
it is a prerequisite to effective practice of Dhamma. I see no way to 
practice Dhamma without a foundation in the renunciation that refuses 
to work for a next life, but endeavours to work for release in this 
life.

Without renunciation it is very hard to do practice any Dhamma 
instruction, because the motivation is not there to practice.  
Without renunciation viriya has few conditions to arise. Why bother 
if samsara doen't seem like all that bad of a place, or that samsara 
is a place we might like to hang out in for awhile? 

My teachers have instructed me that our Dhamma practice should be 
done as if we are in a burning building with only one thought: to get 
out as quickly as possible. To do this we must have total confidence 
(saddha) that we can escape this burning building here and now. If we 
don't, then we will never apply the appropriate effort to the 
problem, and die in agony. It is really this black and white, Amara. 
We must have total confidence that the word of the Buddha can 
liberate us here & now if we resolutely work toward it by learning 
the inner meaning of his instructions. 

I suggest that thinking about paramattha dhammas and the like is no 
help at all unless there is already the burning inner resolve to 
escape the torments of samasara. And also, to know that as in the 
simile of the sea-turtle and wooden ring, if we allow ourselve to "go 
with the flow" of the kilesas and work for an imaginary "future 
life," or give in to hindrances like vicikicca about the Buddha, 
Dhamma, Sangha, we may have to experience aeons of suffering before 
ever finding the Dhamma again. In terms of the indriyas and balas, we 
must have both saddha and viriya as the condition for the arising of 
sati, samadhi, and panna. And Viriya cannot come without very strong 
renunciation and saddha.

 
4063 From: Erik 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 1:36am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  --- "Dan Dalthorp"  wrote:

> But what of the sotapanna? Why on earth would a noble disciple 
spread  
> magic dust around to make people hallucinate? He wouldn't. He would 
be 
> the dispeller of illusion. He would probably even encourage people 
to 
> take the eight precepts and avoid going to the show in the first 
> place because he'd know of the dangers therein. Heck, imbibing the 
> magic dust would be in violation of the five precepts, and the 
> sotapanna would never do anything to cause others to tarnish their 
> sila.
> 
> Now look what I've done! I've taken an entirely simple and 
innocuous 
> simile and somehow managed to confuse myself dreadfully trying to 
> decipher it...

But you made some great points and you gave me a good laugh at the 
same time! It remindds me I will always endeavour to use the 
snake/rope simile from hereon out! :)

 
4064 From: Dan Dalthorp   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 2:04am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  Hi Erik,
It's nice to have you on board. Your posts have done a lot to light up 
an already lively discussion group!

Have no doubts about the legitimacy of "dry insight" as truly 
sufficient for liberation. First, the idea of it makes sense: 
Liberation comes when insight into dhammas is keen enough. 
Second, sukkhavipassaka arahants make their appearance in the suttas 
and commentaries. And third, the viability of sukkhavipassaka is 
clearly suggested in the Abhidhamma. So it is a legitimate 
vehicle. The question is how much that matters. 

Contrary to how it appears at first glance (e.g. as expounded in 
Mahasi's approach), the dry insight vehicle is incredibly difficult to 
drive, and I would suspect that it is appropriate only for those with 
unusually solid accumulations of merit. That excludes me. 

One danger of trying to drive the vehicle is that it is easy to get 
all wrapped up in the idea of "progress of insight" before that 
insight starts to take hold. At some point, one learns to recognize 
what is and what is not insight. The mind starts to imagine: "Oh what 
a wonderful thing this insight is. How liberating it can be! All 
that is truly necessary can be accomplished by wondrous insight." This 
is all very true, but the unconcentrated and unrestrained mind doesn't 
stop there: "Only insight matters. Cultivating samadhi is not 
important. Cultivating sila is not important. When insight is strong 
enough, sila and samadhi of necessity will be perfected. Those people 
who cultivate sila and samadhi and TRY to cultivate pañña are 
deluded. They sit like statues; they try to keep the precepts; they 
try to cultivate calm. They don't realize that only insight matters. 
Merit is only an obstacle to the true practice because liberation 
involves transcending both the wholesome and unwholesome." This skit 
is of course hyperbole, but aversion to merit is most certainly a 
danger to a dry-insight worker. There's a wonderful sutta where Buddha 
exhorts bhikkhus not to fear merit. I wish I could find it again...

Dan

 
4065 From: Erik 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 2:28am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  --- "Dan Dalthorp"  wrote:
> Hi Erik,
> It's nice to have you on board. Your posts have done a lot to light 
up 
> an already lively discussion group!
> 
> Have no doubts about the legitimacy of "dry insight" as truly 
> sufficient for liberation. First, the idea of it makes sense: 
> Liberation comes when insight into dhammas is keen enough. 

Fair enough. I had come to accept that insight to the degree of 
sotapatti was possible through dry insight, just not the stage of 
arahat given some conflicting statements in the Suttas where the 
Buddha mentions the need for cultivating the jhanas (and that this is 
a path-factor). Though if I had really used my noggin to think it 
rhgouth more, I don't know why I didn't see that if you can destroy 
any samyojanas at all with dry insight, you couldn't also destroy all 
the other samyojans this way too. The main reson I was interested in 
understanding this is because I wouldn't want to toss a whole aspect 
of the Dhamma out on its ear over a misunderstanding on a point like 
this, so thank you very much for clarifying!

> aversion to merit is most certainly a 
> danger to a dry-insight worker. There's a wonderful sutta where 
Buddha 
> exhorts bhikkhus not to fear merit. I wish I could find it again...

I am very thankful for your bringing this up, because this seems to 
be a danger for many people--also in the Bodhisattvayana where the 
emphasis is too much on the "wisdom" aspect without emphasizing the 
importance of dana and sila.

 
4066 From: Robert Kirkpatrick 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 2:49am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  --Dear Dan,
- "Dan Dalthorp"  wrote:
> > Have no doubts about the legitimacy of "dry insight" as truly 
> sufficient for liberation. First, the idea of it makes sense: 
> Liberation comes when insight into dhammas is keen enough. 
> Second, sukkhavipassaka arahants make their appearance in the 
suttas 
> and commentaries. And third, the viability of sukkhavipassaka is 
> clearly suggested in the Abhidhamma. 

perhaps it could be noted that after one attains anagami- even if by 
sukkhavipassaka - it is quite possible that jhana would be easily 
attainable for many even if they had not practised it much before 
this. An anagami has no more dosa or wrong view or doubt and has 
eliminated desire for the 5 sense objects.  I don't know what the 
textual position is on this; just my speculation.

. 
> 
> Contrary to how it appears at first glance (e.g. as expounded in 
> Mahasi's approach), the dry insight vehicle is incredibly difficult 
to 
> drive, and I would suspect that it is appropriate only for those 
with 
> unusually solid accumulations of merit. That excludes me. 

Actually according to the commentaries as I read them the 
sukkhavipassaka path is considered easier (easier being a relative 
term) simply because it is not as complete as the one that takes 
jhana as a basis. For this one has to become skilled at jhana as well 
as develop vipassana. One may be a sukkhavipassaka and also develop 
samattha but not to the degree of mastery required by the one who 
uses samattha as a basis. 

> 
> One danger of trying to drive the vehicle is that it is easy to get 
> all wrapped up in the idea of "progress of insight" before that 
> insight starts to take hold. At some point, one learns to recognize 
> what is and what is not insight. The mind starts to imagine: "Oh 
what 
> a wonderful thing this insight is. How liberating it can be! All 
> that is truly necessary can be accomplished by wondrous insight." 
This 
> is all very true, but the unconcentrated and unrestrained mind 
doesn't 
> stop there: "Only insight matters. Cultivating samadhi is not 
> important. Cultivating sila is not important. When insight is 
strong 
> enough, sila and samadhi of necessity will be perfected. Those 
people 
> who cultivate sila and samadhi and TRY to cultivate pañña are 
> deluded. They sit like statues; they try to keep the precepts; they 
> try to cultivate calm. They don't realize that only insight 
matters. 
> Merit is only an obstacle to the true practice because liberation 
> involves transcending both the wholesome and unwholesome." This 
skit 
> is of course hyperbole, but aversion to merit is most certainly a 
> danger to a dry-insight worker. There's a wonderful sutta where 
Buddha 
> exhorts bhikkhus not to fear merit. I wish I could find it again...


Yes all this is true (hybebole aside). It is a trap and I know 
sometimes(often?) I fall into it. The Buddha said that merit is 
another word for pleasant result (or something like that) and 
strongly encouraged the monks to develop all types of kusala- merit.
Dan this is an important thread . I hope it can continue to be 
discussed and perhaps others can add points about sila(virtue), 
genorosity,  and other ways of merit. They should not be overlooked. 
I have thought for some time that there should be more discussion 
along these lines on dsg. Already so much has been said about wisdom 
in hundreds of posts. let us remind each other of the other 
perfections.
rob


> 
> Dan

 
4067 From: mike nease 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 2:50am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  Dan,

--- "Dan Dalthorp"  wrote:

> That's not quite right. We're not free from the illusion of someone 
> behind the will until arahantship.

Thanks for the correction.

mike

 
4068 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 3:11am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  Dear Erik,

--- Erik wrote:
> --- "Dan Dalthorp" 
> wrote:
> 
> I was thinking about this, and that of course sammasamadhi
> entails 
> jhana, and can we do away with a single one of the aspects of
> the 
> Eightfold Path? The "dry insight" route seems to suggest that
> we do 
> not need to cultiave this part of the Eightfold path. Can
> anyone tell 
> me if I am misunderstanding something about this? Would "dry
> insight" 
> mean there's no need to cultivate sammasamadhi?


There can be no direct insight- even for the sukkha vipassaka at
any stage of the path - including well before sotapanna unless
there is sammasamadhi: the factor of wisdom needs support from
saati and samadhi. But this samadhi arises together with
sammaditthi and other factors of the eightfactored path. In the
case of the sukkhavipassaka the sammasamadhi is sometimes
referred to as khanika-samadhi (momentary samadhi) as it only
lasts during the moments of insight into whatever paramattha
dhammas are being insighted. 
rob


 
4069 From: Num 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 10:16pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View :metta and secret

 
  Hi Sarah,

I really appreciate your input and your careful attention.  I guess that you 
are pretty busy with your work and your life.  I can only wish that I can be 
more heedful.

Let me clarify what said, and there is no secret. Reality and dhamma are so 
simply honest. :)

<<
<<'Let me give you some of my opinion, be kind to
yourself.  Metta is not only for everyone else, in
turns inward to a person who has it as well.'>>

Just to clarify, metta cannot be to oneself, it can
only be to others...  I do agree however that it is
wise and sensible to take care of oneself, to look
after one's health and needs. For one thing, it can
make it a little easier to study and share dhamma>>

Hmmmm.  When I said that to Cybele I meant adosa cetasika has it's immediate 
action as well as it's consequence in kusula-vipaka to the one who had done 
the action with adosa cetasika.   So the fruit is not only outward effect to 
the entities or people as but also give both immediate and future effects to 
a person who had done any actions with metta.         Anyway, you made me 
think.  At times I am mad or angry at myself, or really give myself a hard 
time.  At times I can aware of my sense of self and just that moment of 
awareness gave me sense of calm and peace, feeling of friendliness even to 
myself.   Can I call that metta? May be just call it adosa moment.

<<let me in on your secret; what do you
learn from animals and trees??!??>>

:) there is no secret, Sarah.  What I've learned is they are the same as 
other dhamma, just a aggregation of rupa or rupa and nama.  The frogs with 
fast life cycles egg, tadpole,..., adult. They lay eggs and die. When  was 
younger, I went fishing.  To see the fish twisting on the floor just reminded 
me that they are in pain as I can be.   Well, just a thought, I cannot read 
the fish's mind but I speculated from their external behavior.     The tree 
is always changing, like the Bhuddha said, nobody can step twice in the same 
river.  When I was on vacation and asked my friend to water my plants, at 
time when I came back some of them died or just dried.  I was upset at my 
friend, but the plant just simply grew back again.   I asked myself what is 
the lesson,"self", "this is my plant".   Reminded of the story that the 
Buddha asked group of monks that why nobody was crying when someone cut or 
burnt the trees in Chetawan.  B/c they are not objects of their clinging.  

Erik brought up a quote from "the art of war" or "romance of the three 
kingdoms" yesterday, also reminded me of another quote "know yourself, know 
your enemy, in a 100 battles, win a 100 victory".   Who is my enemy, nobody 
can but myself, my ignorance.

So to me, every moment, this moment is very precious.  And we can learn a lot 
from every moment, here and now. Everybody and being are my friends who share 
the same path of changing and samsara.   Just a thought.


Appreciate,

Num 



 
4070 From: Robert Kirkpatrick 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 3:32am
Subject: Re: On Right View :metta and secret

 
  > <<let me in on your secret; what do you
> learn from animals and trees??!??>>
> 
> :) there is no secret, Sarah.  What I've learned is they are the 
same as 
> other dhamma, just a aggregation of rupa or rupa and nama.  The 
frogs with 
> fast life cycles egg, tadpole,..., adult. They lay eggs and die. ]

One point in the satipatthana sutta has always puzzled me a little:

Thus he lives contemplating mental object in mental objects, 
internally, or he lives contemplating mental object in mental 
objects, externally, or he lives contemplating mental object in 
mental objects, internally and externally. He lives contemplating 
origination-things in mental objects, or he lives contemplating 
dissolution-things in mental objects, or he lives contemplating 
origination-and-dissolution-things in mental objects. 

About contemplating the external mental objects. I assume this is a 
type of inferential contemplation. Any ideas?
robert

 
 
4071 From: m. nease   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 4:08am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Hello, Howard,

--- Howard wrote:

> Hi, Mike -
> 
>        Thank you for this reply. You begin by
> writing "Just wanted to say 
> (assuming you haven't blocked my address) ...". I
> can't imagine such a 
> thought ever entering my head, Mike! I value your
> posts very highly!!

Mettaa is definitely one of your many strengths. 
Anyway, the feeling is surely mutual...

mike


 
4072 From: Num 
Date: Fri Mar 16, 2001 11:08pm
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Mana :pride and esteem

 
  Hi all,

As Erik brought up about mana.   I would  like to discuss and get some inputs 
about mana cetasika.  How many different ways can mana cetasika manifest?  
Pride, esteem, feeling of superiority, inferiority, equality, etc.  

I have read about Ven. Sariputta who said that he considered himself as only 
a dustrag or a floormat.  His humbleness is really impressed me. I admire his 
wisdom, his kindness, his patience and his humbleness.   I asked my self do I 
like to feel as a dustrag,  definitely not. At time I thought about how being 
ariyan feel like.  Like a dustrag!??    V.Sariputta is the foremost Bhuddha 
disciple in wisdom 2nd only to the Buddha.   When his mom invited group of 
monk for offering food, she was really mean and sarcastic to the monks.  
V.Sariputta was calm and patient.   When he was wrongly accused by a young 
monk, and after the Buddha cleared the accusation he even asked for a pardon 
from the younger monk if he had offended him in any means.  A lot more 
incidents rgd V.Sariputta's humbleness.

Recommended reading: The Life of Sariputta, 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel090.html


What's the consequence of mana?  Most people like to feel superior, like to 
be approved.


Num



 
4073 From: Dan Dalthorp   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 4:44am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Robert--sukkhavipassaka)

 
  Robert, you wrote:
> Actually according to the commentaries as I read them the 
> sukkhavipassaka path is considered easier (easier being a relative 
> term) simply because it is not as complete as the one that takes 
> jhana as a basis. For this one has to become skilled at jhana as 
well 
> as develop vipassana. 

I'm wondering whom it is easier for. In the mundane view of the path, 
i.e. as a set of "rights" to cultivate to inch toward purification, 
there is samadhi and there is sila. Why is that? Because these things 
are very helpful in developing wisdom. Who can develop wisdom without 
explicitly, consciously, intentionally, actively, and directly 
cultivating samadhi and sila? Such wonderful tools when developed! 
Easier to progress without them? I'm dubious. Maybe for the 
exceptional few for whom sila and samadhi are already purified to such 
an extent that directly cultivating them does not help as much 
directing all effort to developing insight, but since I am not in that 
class, I will actively, directly, consciously, explicitly cultivate 
sila and samadhi, fully realizing that my efforts will be impure for 
some time to come.

 
4074 From: Howard 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 0:53am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Hi, Kom -

       I agree with the following completely. Volition, like all dhammas 
other than nibbana, is conditioned. If this were not so, there would be no 
truth of anatta.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 3/16/01 12:22:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Kom writes:


> Dear Howard,
> 
> I can second Mike to say that I am happy with your answer.
> I also would like to contribute my understandings further
> here:
> 
> Volition that is arising now is also conditioned by
> innumerous past namas in more than one ways (anantara
> pacaya, samantara pacaya, upanissaya pacaya, and probably
> others).  Even volition cannot be controlled [only when
> conditions are riped, a volition may occur], even if it
> really feels like we can.  Hearing something can be a pacaya
> to a certain kind of volition (hearing music often causes
> strong lobha for me, hearing dhamma sometimes inspires good
> deeds).  Of course, volition can condition considering the
> meaning of dhamma, giving, keeping sila, etc.  The question
> is, again, what is the condition of for the arising of a
> moment of volition, kusala or akusala?
> 
> kom
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Howard:
> >        Well, of course I understand that there is
> > no "we" except in a
> > conventional sense. All dhammas are impersonal
> > (anatta). When we speak
> > conventionally of "our" exercising, or not
> > exercising control, what we are
> > actually speaking of is the role of volition in
> > affecting events.
> >        Generally, the primary sense of
> > 'ownership' is that of control. If a
> > person supposedly owns a business, but most of
> > what the business does is
> > controlled by the government, then that person's
> > "ownership" is little more
> > than ownership in name only. The fact that
> > volition has only limited contol
> > over "ones" body and mind is used in the Dhamma
> > as one means of showing lack
> > of ownership. It is a means of pointing out
> 



/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4075 From: Erik 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:07am
Subject: Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  --- Robert Kirkpatrick 

> There can be no direct insight- even for the sukkha vipassaka at
> any stage of the path - including well before sotapanna unless
> there is sammasamadhi: the factor of wisdom needs support from
> saati and samadhi. But this samadhi arises together with
> sammaditthi and other factors of the eightfactored path. In the
> case of the sukkhavipassaka the sammasamadhi is sometimes
> referred to as khanika-samadhi (momentary samadhi) as it only
> lasts during the moments of insight into whatever paramattha
> dhammas are being insighted. 

Hi Robert, thank you again very much for your insights. As I was 
rooting around for more on this I found this great description of it 
from Mahasi Sayadaw, in his commentary to the Dhammachakkapavattana 
Sutta. Look for item #66 "Explanation on Insight Momentary 
Concentration." Also very interesting stuff on "The Path of Right 
Concentration."

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism//dhamack3.htm

Mahasi Sayadaw mentions "This access concentration, as explained in 
the Great Subcommentary of Visuddhi Magga, is not in the 
neighbourhood of any appana samadhi (absorption concentration) and, 
as such, is not a true Access concentration. Nevertheless, since it 
is akin to access concentration in its capacity in overcoming the 
hindrances and producing tranquillity, it assumes the name of access 
concentration by virtue of identity in capacities."

So it appears that this "vipassanakhanika samadhi" is quite a 
different animal from the sort of samadhi arising in jhana. This is 
exactly one of this things that had tripped me up in discussions of 
vipassana-yanika practice. So what this is saying to me is this is a 
technically different type of "samadhi" that performs the same 
function as samadhi arising in jhana, even though it isn't the same 
thing. Does this make sense to your understanding?

 
4076 From: cybele chiodi   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:41am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: suttas about death (to comfort)

 
  Dear Jina

Thank you for your wishes.
I appreciate this straight, simple practice of metta.

Love and respect

Cybele

>From: jinavamsa
>Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: suttas about death (to comfort)
>Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:13:13 -0000
>
>--- "cybele chiodi" 
>wrote:
> >
>thank you Cybele. I hope you have a good stay in London.
>Jinavamsa
>
>
> > Dear Jinavamsa
> >
> > Thank you for your kindness in recollecting this sutta, it's also
>one of my
> > favourites.
> > I am just arrived in London but before going to my hotel I stopped
>by to
> > check my mail.
> > It has been suggested indeed but i am grateful the same for your
>interest.
> >
> > Love and respect
> > Cybele
> >


 
4077 From: jinavamsa 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 9:44am
Subject: Re: On Right View (jina)

 
  hello Robert, 
a poem then! please send it on directly (well, when you wish)! 
jinavamsa

--- Robert Kirkpatrick 
 wrote:
> 
> --- jinavamsa wrote : (about tipitaka)
> > hello dear Amara, 
> > ah, yes, to draw from one well and taste its waters as 
> > refreshing and clarifying is to give us grounded reason
> > to return to that well. 
> > jinavamsa (glad to be returning).
> 
> > 
> Thanks for the nice turn of phrase. I like to think that even a
> philistine like myself can appreciate poetic writing as I age.
> rob
> 

 
4078 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 9:44am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View & Right Concentration

 
  Erik

> I was thinking about this, and that of course
> sammasamadhi entails 
> jhana, and can we do away with a single one of the
> aspects of the 
> Eightfold Path? The "dry insight" route seems to
> suggest that we do 
> not need to cultiave this part of the Eightfold
> path. Can anyone tell 
> me if I am misunderstanding something about this?
> Would "dry insight" 
> mean there's no need to cultivate sammasamadhi?

You are perhaps equating the description of the
factors of the Eightfold Path with the development of
understanding that leads to the arising of those
factors.  This is a common but (in my view) mistaken
assumption.

The description of the factors of the Eightfold Path
is just that - a description of the functions of the
eight cetasikas that constitute the path.  Those
functions are unique to those path moments.  That is
to say, the same cetasikas arising at other moments
lack the particlar noble qualities there described.

It is the development of the mundane path moments that
leads to the eventual arising of supramundane path
moments.  A moment of true satipatthana, in which 5 of
the path-factor cetasikas (including samma-samadhi)
arise, is a moment of mundane path consciousness.

Jon


 
4079 From: jinavamsa 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 9:51am
Subject: Re: Hello <Rikpa on the burning bldg.>

 
  hello Rikpa and all, 
Ah, yes, the building is burning, indeed. This may not be the 
time, then, to develop the patience of an ox (to stay dumbly
in a situation that calls for a movement elsewhere), as one 
Thai teacher put it. 
The stress on putting this great energy into the task here 
for some reason reminds me of the story of the middle way, 
neither too tense that the string breaks, nor so relaxed that
the string does not vibrate at all. (The metaphor is of a 
vînâ or stringed instrument on the `ud/viola/guitar model.) 
play away then! (seriously, please). 
jinavamsa



--- Erik wrote:
> 
> A really great post, Amara, and very instructive to me, and I have a 
> couple of comments:
> 
> > When I said nibbnana was not something I would experience in this 
> life 
> > I was being pessimistic, I suppose, since according to the 
> > commentaries in the third millenium of the sasana enlightenment is 
> > possible up to the stage of the anagami.  
> 
> A couple of question here. What teachings in Lord Buddha's Dhamma 
> suggests this sort of pessimism is beneficial and connected with the 
> Goal? Is this type of pessimism in accord with the first indriya and 
> bala, for example?
> 
> > Nibbana 
> > needs very specific conditions , especially panna of power to 
> arise, 
> > it is clearly not for me in this lifetime, I don't think.  But at 
> > least I am accumulating the right conditions for it to happen 
> sometime 
> > in the future, according to the Tipitaka.
> 
> Another few questions. Did Lord Buddha teach accumulating merit for 
> the sake of our next lives, or for release here & now? Is it the 
> purpose of the Dhamma to create favorable conditions for the next 
> life if we are able to study and practice the Dhamma with the aim of 
> release in this life? (and forget what is said about arahat being 
> impossible today: none of us can possibly know, and in absence of 
> clear proof I see no reason to believe we can't). Can you even be 
> certain that you will have all the conditions in your next life to 
> practice the Dhamma? Also, what better opportunity could you imagine 
> than right here and now? What better teachers can you hope to find 
> than the ones you have right now?
> 
> If we still have hopes for anything in this or a next life, then my 
> teachers have said we need to cultivate renunciation. As Dan noted 
in 
> another post, this isn't as much fun as other things, like talking 
> about paramattha dhammas and the like. But it is much more central; 
> it is a prerequisite to effective practice of Dhamma. I see no way 
to 
> practice Dhamma without a foundation in the renunciation that 
refuses 
> to work for a next life, but endeavours to work for release in this 
> life.
> 
> Without renunciation it is very hard to do practice any Dhamma 
> instruction, because the motivation is not there to practice.  
> Without renunciation viriya has few conditions to arise. Why bother 
> if samsara doen't seem like all that bad of a place, or that samsara 
> is a place we might like to hang out in for awhile? 
> 
> My teachers have instructed me that our Dhamma practice should be 
> done as if we are in a burning building with only one thought: to 
get 
> out as quickly as possible. To do this we must have total confidence 
> (saddha) that we can escape this burning building here and now. If 
we 
> don't, then we will never apply the appropriate effort to the 
> problem, and die in agony. It is really this black and white, Amara. 
> We must have total confidence that the word of the Buddha can 
> liberate us here & now if we resolutely work toward it by learning 
> the inner meaning of his instructions. 
> 
> I suggest that thinking about paramattha dhammas and the like is no 
> help at all unless there is already the burning inner resolve to 
> escape the torments of samasara. And also, to know that as in the 
> simile of the sea-turtle and wooden ring, if we allow ourselve to 
"go 
> with the flow" of the kilesas and work for an imaginary "future 
> life," or give in to hindrances like vicikicca about the Buddha, 
> Dhamma, Sangha, we may have to experience aeons of suffering before 
> ever finding the Dhamma again. In terms of the indriyas and balas, 
we 
> must have both saddha and viriya as the condition for the arising of 
> sati, samadhi, and panna. And Viriya cannot come without very strong 
> renunciation and saddha.

 
4080 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 10:02am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello

 
  Erik

> Without renunciation it is very hard to do practice
> any Dhamma 
> instruction, because the motivation is not there to
> practice.  
> Without renunciation viriya has few conditions to
> arise. Why bother 
> if samsara doen't seem like all that bad of a place,
> or that samsara 
> is a place we might like to hang out in for awhile? 

Renunciation in the sense you seem to be using it is a
somewhat simplistic notion of nekkhamma.  It might be
better to think of it in terms of renunciation of
attachment of all kinds.  I believe it is in this
sense that it is considered an aspect of Right Thought
of the Eightfold Path

> My teachers have instructed me that our Dhamma
> practice should be 
> done as if we are in a burning building with only
> one thought: to get 
> out as quickly as possible. To do this we must have
> total confidence 
> (saddha) that we can escape this burning building
> here and now. If we 
> don't, then we will never apply the appropriate
> effort to the 
> problem, and die in agony.

We are all agreed about the urgency.  But what was the
exact way taught by the Buddha?  You may consider that
you have found a functional equivalent, but you run
the risk of being wrong.  Is it a risk worth taking?

> I suggest that thinking about paramattha dhammas and
> the like is no 
> help at all unless there is already the burning
> inner resolve to 
> escape the torments of samasara.

The two are not mutually exclusive, I suggest,
especially  if the former is a necessary part of the
escape path!

Jon


 
4081 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 10:09am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  Dear Erik,
Yes that is pretty much how it seems to me. All samadhi as
ekagata cetasika has certain universal characteristics.  But the
samadhi of samattha(concentration practice) takes the same
object repeatedly whereas khanika samadhi does not.
robert
--- Erik wrote:
> --- Robert Kirkpatrick 
> 
> > There can be no direct insight- even for the sukkha
> vipassaka at
> > any stage of the path - including well before sotapanna
> unless
> > there is sammasamadhi: the factor of wisdom needs support
> from
> > saati and samadhi. But this samadhi arises together with
> > sammaditthi and other factors of the eightfactored path. In
> the
> > case of the sukkhavipassaka the sammasamadhi is sometimes
> > referred to as khanika-samadhi (momentary samadhi) as it
> only
> > lasts during the moments of insight into whatever paramattha
> > dhammas are being insighted. 
> 
> Hi Robert, thank you again very much for your insights. As I
> was 
> rooting around for more on this I found this great description
> of it 
> from Mahasi Sayadaw, in his commentary to the
> Dhammachakkapavattana 
> Sutta. Look for item #66 "Explanation on Insight Momentary 
> Concentration." Also very interesting stuff on "The Path of
> Right 
> Concentration."
> 
> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism//dhamack3.htm
> 
> Mahasi Sayadaw mentions "This access concentration, as
> explained in 
> the Great Subcommentary of Visuddhi Magga, is not in the 
> neighbourhood of any appana samadhi (absorption concentration)
> and, 
> as such, is not a true Access concentration. Nevertheless,
> since it 
> is akin to access concentration in its capacity in overcoming
> the 
> hindrances and producing tranquillity, it assumes the name of
> access 
> concentration by virtue of identity in capacities."
> 
> So it appears that this "vipassanakhanika samadhi" is quite a 
> different animal from the sort of samadhi arising in jhana.
> This is 
> exactly one of this things that had tripped me up in
> discussions of 
> vipassana-yanika practice. So what this is saying to me is
> this is a 
> technically different type of "samadhi" that performs the same
> 
> function as samadhi arising in jhana, even though it isn't the
> same 
> thing. Does this make sense to your understanding?
> 



 
4082 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 10:20am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  Dan

Very nice to have you back, with your eloquent and
forthright posts.

I am way behind on replies and comments of my own on
this thread, but have been enjoying reading the lively
exchanges very much.

May I just come in on the point about the different
'vehicles' of insight.

1.  It's not a question of choosing one vehicle or the
other.  Noone can ever know (a) whether they will
achieve enlightenmet, (b) if they do, when it will be
achieved, or (c) whether jhana will be a basis for the
moment of insight.  The vehicle thing is an ex post
facto analysis.

2.  I can assure you that giving priority in this
lifetime to learing about and developing panna at the
level of satipatthana does not connote any lack of
interest in developing panna at the level of samatha
and all the other levels of kusala.  On the contrary,
the understanding of the essence of the teaching gives
greater insight into the means and the benefits of
developing all the other levels of kusala.

Jon

> Have no doubts about the legitimacy of "dry insight"
> as truly 
> sufficient for liberation. First, the idea of it
> makes sense: 
> Liberation comes when insight into dhammas is keen
> enough. 
> Second, sukkhavipassaka arahants make their
> appearance in the suttas 
> and commentaries. And third, the viability of
> sukkhavipassaka is 
> clearly suggested in the Abhidhamma. So it is a
> legitimate 
> vehicle. The question is how much that matters. 
> 
> Contrary to how it appears at first glance (e.g. as
> expounded in 
> Mahasi's approach), the dry insight vehicle is
> incredibly difficult to 
> drive, and I would suspect that it is appropriate
> only for those with 
> unusually solid accumulations of merit. That
> excludes me. 
> 
> One danger of trying to drive the vehicle is that it
> is easy to get 
> all wrapped up in the idea of "progress of insight"
> before that 
> insight starts to take hold. At some point, one
> learns to recognize 
> what is and what is not insight. The mind starts to
> imagine: "Oh what 
> a wonderful thing this insight is. How liberating it
> can be! All 
> that is truly necessary can be accomplished by
> wondrous insight." This 
> is all very true, but the unconcentrated and
> unrestrained mind doesn't 
> stop there: "Only insight matters. Cultivating
> samadhi is not 
> important. Cultivating sila is not important. When
> insight is strong 
> enough, sila and samadhi of necessity will be
> perfected. Those people 
> who cultivate sila and samadhi and TRY to cultivate
> pañña are 
> deluded. They sit like statues; they try to keep the
> precepts; they 
> try to cultivate calm. They don't realize that only
> insight matters. 
> Merit is only an obstacle to the true practice
> because liberation 
> involves transcending both the wholesome and
> unwholesome." This skit 
> is of course hyperbole, but aversion to merit is
> most certainly a 
> danger to a dry-insight worker. There's a wonderful
> sutta where Buddha 
> exhorts bhikkhus not to fear merit. I wish I could
> find it again...




 
4083 From: Amara   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 10:34am
Subject: Re: Hello

 
  > I have a 
> couple of comments:
> 
> > When I said nibbnana was not something I would experience in this 
> life 
> > I was being pessimistic, I suppose, since according to the 
> > commentaries in the third millenium of the sasana enlightenment is 
> > possible up to the stage of the anagami.  
> 
> A couple of question here. What teachings in Lord Buddha's Dhamma 
> suggests this sort of pessimism is beneficial and connected with the 
> Goal? Is this type of pessimism in accord with the first indriya and 
> bala, for example?


Dear Erik,

Now you have me wondering!  How did you manage to read 

'this sort of pessimism is beneficial and connected with the Goal? Is 
this type of pessimism in accord with the first indriya and bala, for 
example?'

into my 'When I said nibbnana was not something I would experience in 
this life I was being pessimistic, I suppose'

Is this one of your debating skills?  I call it twisting people's 
words to fit your own understandings, and it doesn't condone to 
understanding what others are saying, just projecting your own words 
any which way you please.  What could you possibly learn from this 
line of 'debate'?


> > Nibbana 
> > needs very specific conditions , especially panna of power to 
> arise, 
> > it is clearly not for me in this lifetime, I don't think.  But at 
> > least I am accumulating the right conditions for it to happen 
> sometime 
> > in the future, according to the Tipitaka.
> 
> Another few questions. Did Lord Buddha teach accumulating merit for 
> the sake of our next lives, or for release here & now? Is it the 
> purpose of the Dhamma to create favorable conditions for the next 
> life if we are able to study and practice the Dhamma with the aim of 
> release in this life? (and forget what is said about arahat being 
> impossible today: none of us can possibly know, and in absence of 
> clear proof I see no reason to believe we can't). Can you even be 
> certain that you will have all the conditions in your next life to 
> practice the Dhamma? Also, what better opportunity could you imagine 
> than right here and now? What better teachers can you hope to find 
> than the ones you have right now?


You think you can find a better one than the Buddha then you're 
welcome to stop calling yourself a 'Buddhist'.  What's in a title any 
way, why not be frank and call your teachers by their names?  
 
> If we still have hopes for anything in this or a next life, then my 
> teachers have said we need to cultivate renunciation. As Dan noted 

in 
> another post, this isn't as much fun as other things, like talking 
> about paramattha dhammas and the like. But it is much more central; 
> it is a prerequisite to effective practice of Dhamma. I see no way 

to 
> practice Dhamma without a foundation in the renunciation that 

refuses 
> to work for a next life, but endeavours to work for release in this 
> life.

Then you should study the Tipitaka more, you will see that 
'renunciation' comes automatically with attainments and it is no use 
to convince yourself that that is an easy task.  The Buddha taught 
that it is something extremely difficult with all the eons of 
accumulated akusala behind us; even he had to accumulate an eternity 
of panna to become enlightened.  Is it reasonable to think that your 
teachers are greater teachers than the Buddha?  He already showed us 
the way out and you are saying you see no other way out but your 
teachers'?  Do you people still call yourselves Buddhist?  Apparently 
not since you don't study the Tipitaka, but prefer other texts.

> Without renunciation it is very hard to do practice any Dhamma 
> instruction, because the motivation is not there to practice.  
> Without renunciation viriya has few conditions to arise. Why bother 
> if samsara doen't seem like all that bad of a place, or that samsara 
> is a place we might like to hang out in for awhile? 
> 
> My teachers have instructed me that our Dhamma practice should be 
> done as if we are in a burning building with only one thought: to 

get 
> out as quickly as possible. To do this we must have total confidence 
> (saddha) that we can escape this burning building here and now. If 

we 
> don't, then we will never apply the appropriate effort to the 
> problem, and die in agony. It is really this black and white, Amara. 
> We must have total confidence that the word of the Buddha can 
> liberate us here & now if we resolutely work toward it by learning 
> the inner meaning of his instructions. 
> 
> I suggest that thinking about paramattha dhammas and the like is no 
> help at all unless there is already the burning inner resolve to 
> escape the torments of samasara. And also, to know that as in the 
> simile of the sea-turtle and wooden ring, if we allow ourselve to 
>
"go 
> with the flow" of the kilesas and work for an imaginary "future 
> life," or give in to hindrances like vicikicca about the Buddha, 
> Dhamma, Sangha, we may have to experience aeons of suffering before 
> ever finding the Dhamma again. In terms of the indriyas and balas, 

we 
> must have both saddha and viriya as the condition for the arising of 
> sati, samadhi, and panna. And Viriya cannot come without very strong 
> renunciation and saddha.

Well, good luck, and I hope you send us news when you have attained 
nibbana!  It seems that you have found a path that fits you like a 
glove; I wonder why you wanted to study the abhidhamma in the first 
place? Was it to convert everyone else by trying to teach instead of 
to study?  In which case I am not interested in something so verbose 
and without solid foundation that I can prove now.  Can you teach me 
about what I see now?  Can your methods tell me what panna knows at 
the present instant instead of all that abstract verbiage?

 
4084 From: Howard 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 6:34am
Subject: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  Hi, all -

       I have read the Interview on the web site, and I'm a bit perplexed. In 
this interview she speaks against formal meditation whether for the purpose 
of inducing calm or for the cultivation of insight. This seems to be at 
variance with the Buddha's teaching of anapanasati, a formal meditation 
technique, as a vehicle for working on the four foundations of mindfulness, 
and which can take one all the way to the end of the path. It has been 
commented on by many, many Theravadin monks and meditation teachers. This 
formal meditative practice is presented in the Anapanasati Sutta in the 
Majjhima Nikaya. It can be found on Access to Insight at the address 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html. Does anyone have 
any comments on this?

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4085 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 0:19pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  Dear Howard,
A one page interview can't properly represent anyones thinking.
Especially on Dhamma. If you read more of her writings you will
see she doesn't discount the possibilty of anyone developing
anapanasati. However in accordance with the ancients she notes
that it is a sublime object and can be misunderstood. One may be
focus on breath but it may be with very subtle attachment and
one might not realise this. The feeling will be calm but not
necessarily of kusala. Even if it is developed correctly it is
not neccesarily a faster way to develop the eightfold path. 
It is complex. What is the difference between breath as an
object for samattha or for vipassana for instance?
Here is a passage from the Visuddhimagga Viii 
211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is
successful 
only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation 
subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on
giving it 
his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult, 
difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of
Buddhas, 
paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial
matter, 
nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." 

One needs to look into it very carefully.  If one sincerely
feels that this is the object that they want to use to develop
samattha then of course they will do so. However, I think it is
not wrong  of anyone to point out the difficulties. Also it
takes special circumstances to develop it. Seclusion, silence
and long application among them.  
rob 
 
--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, all -
> 
>        I have read the Interview on the web site, and I'm a
> bit perplexed. In 
> this interview she speaks against formal meditation whether
> for the purpose 
> of inducing calm or for the cultivation of insight. This seems
> to be at 
> variance with the Buddha's teaching of anapanasati, a formal
> meditation 
> technique, as a vehicle for working on the four foundations of
> mindfulness, 
> and which can take one all the way to the end of the path. It
> has been 
> commented on by many, many Theravadin monks and meditation
> teachers. This 
> formal meditative practice is presented in the Anapanasati
> Sutta in the 
> Majjhima Nikaya. It can be found on Access to Insight at the
> address 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html. Does
> anyone have 
> any comments on this?
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 
> /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at
> dawn, a bubble 
> in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a
> flickering lamp, a 
> phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)    
>                
>             
>                                          



 
 
4086 From: Howard 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:36am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  Hi, Robert -

       Thank you for the following clear explanation. It happens that 
anapanasati is my main formal meditation practice, and I have found it a 
fruitful one both for samatha and vipassana bhavana, but I agree that it is a 
subtle practice, one which I had great difficulty with for quite a while. As 
you point out below, quoting from the Visuddhimagga, it is rather different 
from other meditation subjects because, with the onset of calm, the breath 
becomes more subtle, and, accordingly, more difficult to follow clearly. But 
this can be an advantage, because to maintain clarity, one must then 
intensify ones concentration, mindfulness, and energy. It is demanding, but 
can also be rewarding.
       

In a message dated 3/16/01 11:20:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Robert Kirkpatrick writes:


> Dear Howard,
> A one page interview can't properly represent anyones thinking.
> Especially on Dhamma. If you read more of her writings you will
> see she doesn't discount the possibilty of anyone developing
> anapanasati. However in accordance with the ancients she notes
> that it is a sublime object and can be misunderstood. One may be
> focus on breath but it may be with very subtle attachment and
> one might not realise this. The feeling will be calm but not
> necessarily of kusala. Even if it is developed correctly it is
> not neccesarily a faster way to develop the eightfold path. 
> It is complex. What is the difference between breath as an
> object for samattha or for vipassana for instance?
> Here is a passage from the Visuddhimagga Viii 
> 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is
> successful 
> only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation 
> subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on
> giving it 
> his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult, 
> difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of
> Buddhas, 
> paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial
> matter, 
> nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." 
> 
> One needs to look into it very carefully.  If one sincerely
> feels that this is the object that they want to use to develop
> samattha then of course they will do so. However, I think it is
> not wrong  of anyone to point out the difficulties. Also it
> takes special circumstances to develop it. Seclusion, silence
> and long application among them.  
> rob 
> 
==================================
Thanks again, Robert, for your very to-the-point reply.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4087 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 4:29pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  Hi, Howard,
I comment below:
--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Robert -
> 
>        Thank you for the following clear explanation. It
> happens that 
> anapanasati is my main formal meditation practice, and I have
> found it a 
> fruitful one both for samatha and vipassana bhavana, but I
> agree that it is a 
> subtle practice, one which I had great difficulty with for
> quite a while. As 
> you point out below, quoting from the Visuddhimagga, it is
> rather different 
> from other meditation subjects because, with the onset of
> calm, the breath 
> becomes more subtle, and, accordingly, more difficult to
> follow clearly. But 
> this can be an advantage, because to maintain clarity, one
> must then 
> intensify ones concentration, mindfulness, and energy. It is
> demanding, but 
> can also be rewarding.
_________________

It may be that it is a suitable one for you Howard. If this is
so it might be because you had developed it in past lives.
Samattha is so profound: it takes the object clearly but at the
same time is detached from the object. Sometimes people  are
developing a concentration that is actually attached to the
breath . Obviously it can be done correctly but is so useful to
learn from what the ancients had to say. 
As you  noted almost all teacher in all schools teach it as
practice for beginners these days. Partly this is because - as
the visuddhimagga- notes it is suitable for all types (that is
all types who have the accumulations for this subject) unlike
say the cemetery meditations which cause fear and dosa in some.
However, I think it is valuable that there are a few like nina
who are prepared to stand up and say "just a minute- be a little
careful on this matter- it is not as easy as it seems". Nina
explains in detail about other types of samattha  that are
considered not as sublime or difficult as anapanasati. I apply
myself to these as conditions allow.
I met a western monk some years back who had over 20rains. He
knows Ninas writing very well and agrees with her on the
difficulty of anapanasati .He told me this is well documented in
the Tipitaka. He spent so many years in the forest and his main
object was anapanasati. He eventually decided that it wasn't
suitable for him - even though in his early years it seemed to
fit. He wasn't critising the practice of it and in fact
sometimes  taught it to laypeople because of its broad appeal. 
robert



>        
> 
> In a message dated 3/16/01 11:20:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> Robert Kirkpatrick writes:
> 
> 
> > Dear Howard,
> > A one page interview can't properly represent anyones
> thinking.
> > Especially on Dhamma. If you read more of her writings you
> will
> > see she doesn't discount the possibilty of anyone developing
> > anapanasati. However in accordance with the ancients she
> notes
> > that it is a sublime object and can be misunderstood. One
> may be
> > focus on breath but it may be with very subtle attachment
> and
> > one might not realise this. The feeling will be calm but not
> > necessarily of kusala. Even if it is developed correctly it
> is
> > not neccesarily a faster way to develop the eightfold path. 
> > It is complex. What is the difference between breath as an
> > object for samattha or for vipassana for instance?
> > Here is a passage from the Visuddhimagga Viii 
> > 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is
> > successful 
> > only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any
> meditation 
> > subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on
> > giving it 
> > his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is
> difficult, 
> > difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of
> > Buddhas, 
> > paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no
> trivial
> > matter, 
> > nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." 
> > 
> > One needs to look into it very carefully.  If one sincerely
> > feels that this is the object that they want to use to
> develop
> > samattha then of course they will do so. However, I think it
> is
> > not wrong  of anyone to point out the difficulties. Also it
> > takes special circumstances to develop it. Seclusion,
> silence
> > and long application among them.  
> > rob 
> > 
> ==================================
> Thanks again, Robert, for your very to-the-point reply.
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 
> 
> /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at
> dawn, a bubble 
> in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a
> flickering lamp, a 
> phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)    
>                
>             



 
4088 From: cybele chiodi   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:58pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello <Rikpa on the burning bldg.>

 
  Dear Jina

sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu!

Love and respect
Cybele


>From: jinavamsa
>Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello <Rikpa on the burning bldg.>
>Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:51:24 -0000
>
>hello Rikpa and all,
>Ah, yes, the building is burning, indeed. This may not be the
>time, then, to develop the patience of an ox (to stay dumbly
>in a situation that calls for a movement elsewhere), as one
>Thai teacher put it.
>The stress on putting this great energy into the task here
>for some reason reminds me of the story of the middle way,
>neither too tense that the string breaks, nor so relaxed that
>the string does not vibrate at all. (The metaphor is of a
>vînâ or stringed instrument on the `ud/viola/guitar model.)
>play away then! (seriously, please).
>jinavamsa
>
>
>
>--- Erik wrote:
> >
> > A really great post, Amara, and very instructive to me, and I have a
> > couple of comments:
> >
> > > When I said nibbnana was not something I would experience in this
> > life
> > > I was being pessimistic, I suppose, since according to the
> > > commentaries in the third millenium of the sasana enlightenment is
> > > possible up to the stage of the anagami.
> >
> > A couple of question here. What teachings in Lord Buddha's Dhamma
> > suggests this sort of pessimism is beneficial and connected with the
> > Goal? Is this type of pessimism in accord with the first indriya and
> > bala, for example?
> >
> > > Nibbana
> > > needs very specific conditions , especially panna of power to
> > arise,
> > > it is clearly not for me in this lifetime, I don't think.  But at
> > > least I am accumulating the right conditions for it to happen
> > sometime
> > > in the future, according to the Tipitaka.
> >
> > Another few questions. Did Lord Buddha teach accumulating merit for
> > the sake of our next lives, or for release here & now? Is it the
> > purpose of the Dhamma to create favorable conditions for the next
> > life if we are able to study and practice the Dhamma with the aim of
> > release in this life? (and forget what is said about arahat being
> > impossible today: none of us can possibly know, and in absence of
> > clear proof I see no reason to believe we can't). Can you even be
> > certain that you will have all the conditions in your next life to
> > practice the Dhamma? Also, what better opportunity could you imagine
> > than right here and now? What better teachers can you hope to find
> > than the ones you have right now?
> >
> > If we still have hopes for anything in this or a next life, then my
> > teachers have said we need to cultivate renunciation. As Dan noted
>in
> > another post, this isn't as much fun as other things, like talking
> > about paramattha dhammas and the like. But it is much more central;
> > it is a prerequisite to effective practice of Dhamma. I see no way
>to
> > practice Dhamma without a foundation in the renunciation that
>refuses
> > to work for a next life, but endeavours to work for release in this
> > life.
> >
> > Without renunciation it is very hard to do practice any Dhamma
> > instruction, because the motivation is not there to practice.
> > Without renunciation viriya has few conditions to arise. Why bother
> > if samsara doen't seem like all that bad of a place, or that samsara
> > is a place we might like to hang out in for awhile?
> >
> > My teachers have instructed me that our Dhamma practice should be
> > done as if we are in a burning building with only one thought: to
>get
> > out as quickly as possible. To do this we must have total confidence
> > (saddha) that we can escape this burning building here and now. If
>we
> > don't, then we will never apply the appropriate effort to the
> > problem, and die in agony. It is really this black and white, Amara.
> > We must have total confidence that the word of the Buddha can
> > liberate us here & now if we resolutely work toward it by learning
> > the inner meaning of his instructions.
> >
> > I suggest that thinking about paramattha dhammas and the like is no
> > help at all unless there is already the burning inner resolve to
> > escape the torments of samasara. And also, to know that as in the
> > simile of the sea-turtle and wooden ring, if we allow ourselve to
>"go
> > with the flow" of the kilesas and work for an imaginary "future
> > life," or give in to hindrances like vicikicca about the Buddha,
> > Dhamma, Sangha, we may have to experience aeons of suffering before
> > ever finding the Dhamma again. In terms of the indriyas and balas,
>we
> > must have both saddha and viriya as the condition for the arising of
> > sati, samadhi, and panna. And Viriya cannot come without very strong
> > renunciation and saddha.
>


 
4089 From: Amara   
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 11:11pm
Subject: Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  > It can be found on Access to Insight at the address 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html. 


Dear Howard

Just a minor detail, the link you gave doesn't seem to work, or 
perhaps it's my browser again?

Amara

 
4090 From: Howard 
Date: Sat Mar 17, 2001 7:36pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  Hi, Amara -

In a message dated 3/17/01 10:12:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Amara writes:

> Dear Howard
> 
> Just a minor detail, the link you gave doesn't seem to work, or 
> perhaps it's my browser again?
> 
> Amara
> 
===================================
       I just copied and pasted the link that you just sent, and it *does* 
work. Perhaps it is your browser. If you also copied and pasted, you didn't 
include the period at the end of my sentence as part of the url, did you? If 
you did, that might have messed it up.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4091 From: Amara   
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2001 0:59am
Subject: Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  >        I just copied and pasted the link that you just sent, and it 
*does* 
> work. 

Thank you, Howard,

Found it, appreciated, especially the kaya- vedana- citta- and 
dhamma-nupassana towards the end.

Signing off for now,

Amara

 
4092 From: azita gill   
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2001 1:56pm
Subject: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/4092?expand=1

 
  hi, dhamma friends, I have been reading a lot of the
questions and answers on insight, as meditation
subject and as subject for everyday use(so to speak).
I know very little about mediation in fact, so I
cannot comment with any degree of experience, but the
common-old-garden-variety Sati i have been learning
about for a long time.  I remember Khun Sujin's
regular comment to us in our discussion groups
was"what is your reality now?  Is it seeing, hearing,
tasting, touching, smelling or thinking?"  those
words, along with many others, have helped me thro.
lots of situations.  This is a very practical life
skill for me.  I am happy to have connected with
dhamma friends again,          Metta,  Azita  


 
4093 From: Num 
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:08am
Subject: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/4093?expand=1

 
  Hi Azita,

My name is Num. Nice to hear that studying dhamma has been very helpful to 
you.  Me too, I really appreciate and admire the Buddha teaching and his 
wisdom.

Are you from the land down under?

Welcome to dsg.

Num

 
4094 From: Amara   
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2001 4:30pm
Subject: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/4094?expand=1

 
  > hi, dhamma friends, I have been reading a lot of the
> questions and answers on insight, as meditation
> subject and as subject for everyday use(so to speak).
> I know very little about mediation in fact, so I
> cannot comment with any degree of experience, but the
> common-old-garden-variety Sati i have been learning
> about for a long time.  I remember Khun Sujin's
> regular comment to us in our discussion groups
> was"what is your reality now?  Is it seeing, hearing,
> tasting, touching, smelling or thinking?"  those
> words, along with many others, have helped me thro.
> lots of situations.  This is a very practical life
> skill for me.  I am happy to have connected with
> dhamma friends again,          Metta,  Azita  
> 
> 
Hi, Azita!

So glad to have another non-meditation-literate friend in the group!  
Looking forward to your contributions very much indeed,

Amara 


 
4095 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2001 7:19pm
Subject: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/4095?expand=1

 
  Azita,

I'm really thrilled to see that you've joined us and
look forward to hearing more from you.

All- Azita was one of the original dsg (then Helen
Gill in case Azita doesn't ring a bell w/ the oldies)
and I first met her (along w/her baby Zoe) at the same
time I first met Jon & Amara (in Sri Lanka in the late
70s).

Azita, I haven't seen you for 20yrs and it's good to
resume (dhamma) contact.

This short message has jumped the queue of all the
others I'm hoping to reply to... (Actually Sun eve is
Jon's turn on the computer, so I must sign off now!)

metta and lobha hugs,
Sarah

p.s. If you're in touch w/the other oldies from Down
Under, please encourage them to join us too!




 
4096 From: Dan Dalthorp   
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2001 7:57pm
Subject: Re: On Right View (Jon)

 
  Hi Jon,
About the 'vehicles' you wrote:
> 1.  It's not a question of choosing one vehicle or the
> other.  Noone can ever know (a) whether they will
> achieve enlightenmet, (b) if they do, when it will be
> achieved, or (c) whether jhana will be a basis for the
> moment of insight.  The vehicle thing is an ex post
> facto analysis.
Granted. But direct cultivation of samadhi and sila is very helpful, 
not only in a mundane kusala sort of way (this, not to be 
underestimated), but also in supporting development of insight. 

As Lord Buddha said: "Without overcoming [the five nivarana], it is 
impossible for a monk whose insight thus lacks strength and power, to 
know his own true good, the good of others, and the good of both; nor 
will he be capable of realizing that superhuman state of disticntive 
achievement, the knowledge and vision enabling the attainment of 
sanctity. But if a monk has overcome these five impediments and 
hindrances, these overgrowths of the mind that stultify insight, then 
it is possible that, with his strong insight, he can know his own true 
good, the good of others..." (AN 5:51).

Direct cultivation of samadhi and sila via formal practice help to 
overcome nivarana, which is essential for insight to arise. This 
certainly does not mean that insight can only arise while sitting, but  
that we must constantly be on guard against allowing disdain for 
samadhi and sila take hold because we believe in the ultimate efficacy 
of insight.

You also write:
> 2.  I can assure you that giving priority in this
> lifetime to learing about and developing panna at the
> level of satipatthana does not connote any lack of
> interest in developing panna at the level of samatha
> and all the other levels of kusala.  On the contrary,
> the understanding of the essence of the teaching gives
> greater insight into the means and the benefits of
> developing all the other levels of kusala.

Thanks for the assurances. I'm confused, though. What does "at the 
level of" mean? I usually think of "level" in terms of depth, but that 
doesn't seem to make any sense here. Also, I'm not sure what you mean 
by "understanding of the essence of the teaching". 

The anusaya are not easy to see.

 
4097 From: Erik 
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 0:07am
Subject: To Amara, et. al.

 
  Amara, I'm not sure how a bit of encouragement to abandon one of the 
hindrances from fellow sangha-member could be the cause for a reply 
that denigrates an entire tradition of the Buddha's Dharma. I was 
surprised to see the things you wrote, actually, because I can assure 
you my words were spoken without the slightest degree of ill-will. 
Quite the contrary. It appears you are unwilling to listen to 
anything from someone who you've made very plain is studying in a 
system you believe (completely absent any evidence, I should add) is 
anariyan-dhamma, even though everything I said you can find in the 
Tipitaka. Here's something regarding effort you may accept, though:

http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/manual6c.htm

You also suggested I may have a hidden agenda to "convert" people 
here. Let me just point out how silly this idea is. First of all, I 
have been clear I accept the Tipitaka as the word of the Buddha. In 
fact, on this point I have no doubts whatsoever. I also know, and 
have made plain, that everyone has vastly different accumulations, 
and as such, we each need practices most suited to our own 
inclinations and abilities. Knowing these two things, Amara, why 
would you say I'm here to "convert" anyone? First of all, what would 
I "convert" someone to? The Buddhadharma? Second, why would I 
knowingly interfere with another's karma to have connected with the 
teachings of the Tipitaka? That would betray a really poor 
understanding of how this stuff works, wouldn't it?

That you suggest this is even more absurd in light of the fact I 
didn't seek this list out in the first place. As I recall, I sent an 
email to you and I described who I was, my background, and that I was 
looking to be put in touch with Khun Sujim, who I had been directed 
to by the monks at Wat Mahatat, quite independent of anyone here. It 
was your suggestion I participate here, not mine, and I did so with 
reservations because in your "invitation" letter you made it quite 
plain you did not respect anything other than the letter of Tipitaka 
(similar mention of the meaning of the Dharma itself was absent from 
this). My initial reservations were confirmed by the entirely 
unfounded and sectarian nature of the discussions relating to the 
Tibetan Buddhist Dharma elsewhere, as well as your first few posts.

Amara, you're perfectly entitled to your beliefs about what 
constitutes Dharma and adharma. But, I will say, I know of nothing 
that suggests it is appropriate to publicly denigrate something you 
lack a basis to judge, and you do, since you lack, by your own 
admission, both insight into the Dharma and knowledge of that system 
(Vajrayana) as it's intended to be learned. This type of sectarianism 
has no place among those serious about studying the Buddha's Dharma, 
who are truly intent on getting out of samsara. I am explicitly here 
to learn the Buddha's Dharma from the Tipitaka's perspective, as I 
have said. My wish is to study it as dispassionately as possible, 
because I'm here to uncover its inner meaning. That will, however, 
require I be able to discuss my understanding with others without the 
presence of harsh or divisive speech from any of the participants 
here. I have to ask myself again if my presence will increase net 
kusala or net akusala. At the moment, for a few members here I 
imagine it increasing akusala, though I have been extremely 
encouraged by the truly wise, insightful, enlightening, and non-
dogmatic responses of those who seem more concerned about the actual 
meaning of the Dharma rather than the presentation of same.

Seriously, I am quite disappointed that some senior students of the 
Tipitaka could be so easily intimidated by a little pissant Vajrayani 
(and beginner in Abhidhamma to boot) who hasn't even clocked ten 
years of Buddhist studies! Seriously, is all this knowledge about the 
Abhidhamma insufficient to point out where I might have a mistaken 
view? Of course not. And if the good folks here can't show me where I 
might have mistaken understanding, then no one in this world can. And 
I am 100% open to being SHOWN via scripture and reasoning (recall I 
accept the Tipitaka as 100% Lord Buddha's word, so this should be 
very easy for you) where I might hold a wrong view about something. 
Can you imagine a better opportunity than the one you presently have 
to straighten what is crooked (if it is fact bent in the first 
place)? The question is, can you handle this without losing your cool 
and denigrating that which doesn't conform to your prejudices? If you 
say yes, then if you have a disagreement with anything I say from 
here out, that you point out doctrinal specifics and we can discuss 
them, in detail, if necessary. With the spirit of open-mindedness and 
metta all the way. That, I think, would do more to reveal the meaning 
of the Dharma and help us ALL get out of samsara far quicker than any 
kind of divisive or uncharitable speech. 

I would prefer to stick around an benefit from the wisdom of the 
Theras present here. But, I do not feel comfortable doing so in the 
presence of unconcealed disdain or even outright hostility. You are 
welcome to email me privately to discuss any issues. I posted this 
publicly becaue there are others who have expressed views similar to 
your own.

Your true friend in the Dhamma,
Erik

 
4098 From: Num 
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2001 11:05pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Amara, et. al.

 
  Hi Erik,

I don't think I have enough time to respond to the issue, I have to go 
playing tennis.  I just like to share some of my opinion, I will write more 
regarding the issues, which you brought up.

First of all, it's very nice of you Erik, that you share with the group your 
feeling, your thought and your opinion, esp in your last mail to K.Amara. I 
always say that there is no secret between friend, esp Kalayanamitta.  Let me 
say that opinion is opinion.  At this point I can say only that communication 
is esp writing is always an easy subject for miscommunication.    I have to 
go, but if I may encourage you to stay with dsg and hang in here.  Be 
patient.  I am pretty optimistic as well as realistic, and I am certain that 
you have learned sth from the discussion.  

If I may ask all the group members, K.Amara and you, Erik, to keep the 
discussion regarding this matter public.   I hope that open discussion, 
different opinions from different perspective will give us the least 
miscommunication.   


Good to have you on board with us, Erik.  Hang in there, we will all learn 
sth together.


Have to go.


Num

 
4099 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 7:22am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Amara, et. al.

 
  Dear Erik,

I agree with Num...We all appreciate having your
excellent contributions, comments and questions. The
list has been so active that there are bound to be
times when we all get rather impatient and write
comments that are not very appropriate. We all
(including me) need to learn more about respect for
others' views and patience with others.

Actually, Erik, we're all beginners on this path. What
are 20 or 30 yers in samsara? How many lifetimes have
we been accumulating wrong view? Don't expect too much
of us and I hope we can all continue helping each
other.

Actually, for my part, I've appreciated understanding
more about the Tibetan teachings and your way of
seeing the Tipitaka too.

Hang in there and have a go as Num says and don't get
too caught up with the odd comment that is
disappointing to you. We're all doing our best, given
our limitations of ignorance and other kilesa!

Have to go too!

Sarah

p.s. hoping to hear back from you on my last post on
right view and 'the all'...(when you have time of
course!)




 
4100 From: Herman Hofman   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:44am
Subject: Self / Not self

 
  Hi all,

I must admit to major confusion. I confess I have not read through the
entire database and found all the relevant allusions to the problem I have.
Forbearance, please. My problem are these:

If there is no self, and there is belief in no-self, why is just about every
post here and elsewhere phrased in the language of self? (meaning I , me ,
you, them etc). What is meant when an email announces " I this....." "You
that"?

Taking it further, is there not a positive definition of not-self that can
be used? How is it that a not-characteristic is considered a pervasive
characteristic of all realities?

Nobody says "this is not-fish" or "that is not-green". Why do we say
not-self? What is the opposite or the compliment of not-self ?



Regards


Herman

 
 
4101 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:50am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight

 
  Erik

Thanks for the reference from Mahasi Sayadaw on this
topic (yr messge below).  You might also be interestd
in a reference from the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (in
translation as 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma',
BPS) a text which, as i am sure you would know, is of
very long standing and which is regarded as highly
authorative in the Pali tradition.  (This is copied
from an earlier message of mine, but I think bears
repeating - apologies to others if the repetition is
not appreciated).

The passage that follows is directly from CMA Ch. I,
Guide to ##30-31).  The numbers in square brackets are
markers to comments of mu own at the end.

===============================
All meditators reach the supramundane paths and fruits
through the development of wisdom (panna) – insight
into the three characteristics of impermanence,
suffering, and non-self. [1] 

However, they differ among themselves in the degree of
their development of concentration (samadhi).  Those
who develop insight without a basis of jhana are
called practitioners of bare insight
(sukkhavipassaka). [2]  When they reach the path and
fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level
corresponding to the first jhana. [3]

Those who develop insight on the basis of jhana attain
a path and fruit which corresponds to the level of
jhana they had attained before reaching the path. ...

For bare insight meditator and jhana meditator alike,
all path and fruition cittas are considered types of
jhana consciousness.  They are so considered because
they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their
object with full absorption, like the mundane jhanas,
and because they possess the jhana factors with an
intensity corresponding to their counterparts in the
mundane jhanas. [4]  

The supramundane jhanas of the paths and fruits differ
from the mundane jhanas in several important respects.
[5]  

First, whereas the mundane jhanas take as their object
some concept, such as the sign of the kasina, the
supramundane jhanas take as their object Nibbana, the
unconditioned reality. [5.1]  
Second, whereas the mundane jhanas merely suppress the
defilements while leaving their underlying seeds
intact, the supramundane jhanas of the path eradicate
defilements so that they can never again arise. [5.2]
Third, while the mundane jhanas lead to rebirth in the
fine material world and thus sustain existence in the
round of rebirths, the jhanas of the path cut off the
fetters binding one to the cycle and thus issue in
liberation from the round of birth and death. [5.3] 
Finally, whereas the role of wisdom in the mundane
jhanas is subordinate to that of concentration, in the
supramundane jhanas wisdom and concentration are well
balanced, with concentration fixing the mind on the
unconditioned element and wisdom fathoming the deep
significance of the Four Noble Truths. [5.4]
===================================

Notes:
1.  It is the development of understanding of the
characteristics of reality that leads to the
attainment of the path/enlightenment/8-fold path citta
(magga citta).
2.  Development of concentration to the level of jhana
is not necessary for attaining magga citta.
3.  However, even for the sukkhavipassaka the
concentration accompanying the moment of path citta
‘corresponds to’ the first level of jhana.
4.  The concentration accompanying magga citta is said
to ‘correspond to’ jhana because the magga citta
experiences its object with same full absorption and
intensity of other factors as the jhana citta.
5.  There are, however, 4 important differences
between jhana citta and the path citta –
5.1.   The object of jhana citta is a concept , while
the object of the moment of path citta is Nibbana.
5.2.   Jhana cittas merely suppress kilesa, while
magga citta eradicates kilesa.
5.3.   Jhana cittas are a condition for future
rebirth, whereas magga cittas result in liberation
from the cycle of birth and death.
5.4.   The primary attribute of a moment of jhana
citta is the degree of concentration on the object at
that moment, whereas the attribute of a moment of
magga citta is the wisdom that pierces the Truths.

Jon

> Hi Robert, thank you again very much for your
> insights. As I was 
> rooting around for more on this I found this great
> description of it 
> from Mahasi Sayadaw, in his commentary to the
> Dhammachakkapavattana 
> Sutta. Look for item #66 "Explanation on Insight
> Momentary 
> Concentration." Also very interesting stuff on "The
> Path of Right 
> Concentration."
> 
> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism//dhamack3.htm
> 
> Mahasi Sayadaw mentions "This access concentration,
> as explained in 
> the Great Subcommentary of Visuddhi Magga, is not in
> the 
> neighbourhood of any appana samadhi (absorption
> concentration) and, 
> as such, is not a true Access concentration.
> Nevertheless, since it 
> is akin to access concentration in its capacity in
> overcoming the 
> hindrances and producing tranquillity, it assumes
> the name of access 
> concentration by virtue of identity in capacities."
> 
> So it appears that this "vipassanakhanika samadhi"
> is quite a 
> different animal from the sort of samadhi arising in
> jhana. This is 
> exactly one of this things that had tripped me up in
> discussions of 
> vipassana-yanika practice. So what this is saying to
> me is this is a 
> technically different type of "samadhi" that
> performs the same 
> function as samadhi arising in jhana, even though it
> isn't the same 
> thing. Does this make sense to your understanding?




 
4102 From: Amara   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 11:19am
Subject: Re: To Amara, et. al.

 
  > Amara, I'm not sure how a bit of encouragement to abandon one of the 
> hindrances from fellow sangha-member

Dear Erik,

Are you a member of the sangha?  I certainly am not, did you know the 
word at first intended the ariya-puggala and later extended to those 
ordained.  But you tend to throw terms like this, and even 'thera' 
about quite blissfully and then be surprised when people react to 
them.  Why don't you learn the true meaning of things first?  This and 
twisting things around to serve your purposes.

> could be the cause for a reply 
> that denigrates an entire tradition of the Buddha's Dharma. 

This is another example:  Where is the evidence that I wrote anything 
like this?

>I was 
> surprised to see the things you wrote, actually, because I can 
> assure 
> you my words were spoken without the slightest degree of ill-will. 
> Quite the contrary. It appears you are unwilling to listen to 
> anything from someone who you've made very plain is studying in a 
> system you believe (completely absent any evidence, I should add) is 
> anariyan-dhamma, even though everything I said you can find in the 
> Tipitaka. 

I did not see your reference to anything but 'your teachers', and that 
'I suggest that thinking about paramattha dhamma and the like is no 
help at all unless there is already the burning inner resolve to 
escape the torments of samasara.'  The dhamma is not only for those 
who want to escape samsara, though the ultimate aim is such.  The 
Tipitaka is not so narrow.  You may have seen me saying that there is 
fire burning on our heads but it does not mean that the Tipitaka 
teaches everyone to become a bhikkhu or to live as ascetic's life, 
Erik.  The Buddha knew that people have different accumulations and 
taught them to know themselves and not to emulate others, no matter 
how admirable and enviable.  He never oversimplified things by saying 
everyone should follow him or try to become an arahanta, except for 
those with the right accumulations and he knew what each of them 
needed.  On several occasions he told people it was not necessary to 
become ordained.  There are teachings for all situations in life and 
even those he taught to thieves and people of that level, so when you 
say in your post 4062 :

'My teachers have instructed me that our Dhamma practice should be 
done as if we are in a burning building with only one thought: to get 
out as quickly as possible. To do this we must have total confidence 
(saddha) that we can escape this burning building here and now. If we 
don't, then we will never apply the appropriate effort to the problem, 
and die in agony. It is really this black and white, Amara.  We must 
have total confidence that the word of the Buddha can liberate us here 
& now if we resolutely work toward it by learning the inner meaning of 
his instructions. '

This misrepresents the nature of the dhamma that is beneficent to all, 
even those without the panna to become enlightened within this 
lifetime, saddha was never one of the required magga although it 
certainly helps one find the right teachings, preparing the way for 
sati and panna and therefore the magga.  But the magga themselves do 
not include saddha, but the five magga of satipatthana, namely samma 
ditthi (panna), sankappa (vitaka), vayama (viriya) sati (sati), and 
samadhi (ekaggata), plus the three virati that arise together only at 
each of the levels of the magga citta attainments, permanently 
eradicating kilesa of that respective level.  Don't think that saddha 
alone can take you give you panna, it is not that simple, especially 
saddha for the wrong reasons (avidity or lobha for results, for 
example) or saddha and viriya without developing panna of things as 
they really are.  Panna has to be about whatever appears at that 
instant through the six dvara, without picking and choosing, but 
thorough knowledge of all things as non self, ever changing, 
impermanent and uncontrollable.  


> Here's something regarding effort you may accept, though:
> http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/manual6c.htm

You are welcome to try to emulate the Buddha on the night of his 
enlightenment, but do note that he never taught anyone to afterwards, 
he knew his own accumulations as well as everyone else's

> 
> You also suggested I may have a hidden agenda to "convert" people 
> here. Let me just point out how silly this idea is.

Agreed, but when you said, 'Also, what better opportunity could you 
imagine than right here and now? What better teachers can you hope to 
find than the ones you have right now? If we still have hopes for 
anything in this or a next life, then my teachers have said we need to 
cultivate renunciation.'  It sounded a lot like trying to preach or 
convert people to me.  I am very thankful that the list has an archive 
so that we can go back to see what has actually been said, by the way. 
 

> First of all, I 
> have been clear I accept the Tipitaka as the word of the Buddha. In 
> fact, on this point I have no doubts whatsoever. 
> I also know, and 
> have made plain, that everyone has vastly different accumulations, 
> and as such, we each need practices most suited to our own 
> inclinations and abilities. Knowing these two things, Amara, why 
> would you say I'm here to "convert" anyone? First of all, what would 
> I "convert" someone to? The Buddhadharma? Second, why would I 
> knowingly interfere with another's karma to have connected with the 
> teachings of the Tipitaka? That would betray a really poor 
> understanding of how this stuff works, wouldn't it?

Indeed it does.  Which is why I encouraged you to study more.  But 
your writings are improving, at least compared to your last post.  I 
suppose this is the method by which you intend to get your 'stuff', 
and will follow your progress with interest, I have never seen this 
airing of changing opinions before.  My own accumulations was to ask 
questions and try to understand, not argue and then saying others 
misunderstood your former statements.  It seems to be a form of 
musavada to me, but so long as your understanding grows.  

Still the right things would bring kusala vipaka and the wrong ones 
accordingly, so one should be careful even to the means by which one 
acquires knowledge, I think.  It also gets boring to see things 
twisted around and to have to refer to earlier statements, besides 
making it unnecessarily long and uninteresting to write, therefore for 
others to read, I should think.  

False accusations must be akusala, that is certain in any case.  I 
would suggest you not to do so just for the sake of provoking a 
reaction or even lead to an argument.  Kusala discussions are much 
more profitable for all concerned.  This is sila in daily life, and 
sati would never arise with musavada, though miccha samadhi would be 
there as ekaggata cetasika.  Panna can only arise with kusala citta, 
so examine your citta well as you write, or it might hinder panna from 
arising at that moment. Do not let written samphabalapa vaca keep you 
from panna, it is unnecessary accumulation of musavada and akusala 
citta for the future.  I am glad you wish to continue to study but I 
would suggest you use a more harmless method.  I tend to say too much 
myself, (but never musavada with false accusations or twisting of 
words, I don't think,) which is why I will try to keep this one from 
becoming another verbal flood and end here.

Anumodana to all those who study all the same, 

Amara


> That you suggest this is even more absurd in light of the fact I 
> didn't seek this list out in the first place. As I recall, I sent an 
> email to you and I described who I was, my background, and that I 
was 
> looking to be put in touch with Khun Sujim, who I had been directed 
> to by the monks at Wat Mahatat, quite independent of anyone here. It 
> was your suggestion I participate here, not mine, and I did so with 
> reservations because in your "invitation" letter you made it quite 
> plain you did not respect anything other than the letter of Tipitaka 
> (similar mention of the meaning of the Dharma itself was absent from 
> this). My initial reservations were confirmed by the entirely 
> unfounded and sectarian nature of the discussions relating to the 
> Tibetan Buddhist Dharma elsewhere, as well as your first few posts.
> 
> Amara, you're perfectly entitled to your beliefs about what 
> constitutes Dharma and adharma. But, I will say, I know of nothing 
> that suggests it is appropriate to publicly denigrate something you 
> lack a basis to judge, and you do, since you lack, by your own 
> admission, both insight into the Dharma and knowledge of that system 
> (Vajrayana) as it's intended to be learned. This type of 
sectarianism 
> has no place among those serious about studying the Buddha's Dharma, 
> who are truly intent on getting out of samsara. I am explicitly here 
> to learn the Buddha's Dharma from the Tipitaka's perspective, as I 
> have said. My wish is to study it as dispassionately as possible, 
> because I'm here to uncover its inner meaning. That will, however, 
> require I be able to discuss my understanding with others without 
the 
> presence of harsh or divisive speech from any of the participants 
> here. I have to ask myself again if my presence will increase net 
> kusala or net akusala. At the moment, for a few members here I 
> imagine it increasing akusala, though I have been extremely 
> encouraged by the truly wise, insightful, enlightening, and non-
> dogmatic responses of those who seem more concerned about the actual 
> meaning of the Dharma rather than the presentation of same.
> 
> Seriously, I am quite disappointed that some senior students of the 
> Tipitaka could be so easily intimidated by a little pissant 
Vajrayani 
> (and beginner in Abhidhamma to boot) who hasn't even clocked ten 
> years of Buddhist studies! Seriously, is all this knowledge about 
the 
> Abhidhamma insufficient to point out where I might have a mistaken 
> view? Of course not. And if the good folks here can't show me where 
I 
> might have mistaken understanding, then no one in this world can. 
And 
> I am 100% open to being SHOWN via scripture and reasoning (recall I 
> accept the Tipitaka as 100% Lord Buddha's word, so this should be 
> very easy for you) where I might hold a wrong view about something. 
> Can you imagine a better opportunity than the one you presently have 
> to straighten what is crooked (if it is fact bent in the first 
> place)? The question is, can you handle this without losing your 
cool 
> and denigrating that which doesn't conform to your prejudices? If 
you 
> say yes, then if you have a disagreement with anything I say from 
> here out, that you point out doctrinal specifics and we can discuss 
> them, in detail, if necessary. With the spirit of open-mindedness 
and 
> metta all the way. That, I think, would do more to reveal the 
meaning 
> of the Dharma and help us ALL get out of samsara far quicker than 
any 
> kind of divisive or uncharitable speech. 
> 
> I would prefer to stick around an benefit from the wisdom of the 
> Theras present here. But, I do not feel comfortable doing so in the 
> presence of unconcealed disdain or even outright hostility. You are 
> welcome to email me privately to discuss any issues. I posted this 
> publicly becaue there are others who have expressed views similar to 
> your own.
> 
> Your true friend in the Dhamma,
> Erik

 
4103 From: Amara   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 0:48pm
Subject: Re: Self / Not self

 
  > I must admit to major confusion. I confess I have not read through 
the
> entire database and found all the relevant allusions to the problem 
I have.
> Forbearance, please. My problem are these:
> 
> If there is no self, and there is belief in no-self, why is just 
about every
> post here and elsewhere phrased in the language of self? (meaning I 
, me ,
> you, them etc). What is meant when an email announces " I this....." 
"You
> that"?
> 
> Taking it further, is there not a positive definition of not-self 
that can
> be used? How is it that a not-characteristic is considered a 
pervasive
> characteristic of all realities?
> 
> Nobody says "this is not-fish" or "that is not-green". Why do we say
> not-self? What is the opposite or the compliment of not-self ?

Dear Herman,

I think the Buddhist regard language as a means of communication, with 
which to refer to the truth.  For practical purposes, conventional 
terms are used with the reserve that other meanings and understandings 
might be added to is as right understanding begins and then develops. 
 Before right understanding came with the study of the dhamma, there 
was no concept of not self or non self, but the person as a whole, 
complete with a soul that started at birth and continues as the body 
develops and then declines.  I think the Buddha used the questions 
people ask him, according to their understandings, in order to 
redefine the conventional terms with dhamma meanings in several cases. 
 I wonder what our linguistic experts think about this.

Your questions reminds me of the study that Venerable Dhammapiyo is 
undertaking to define the word the Buddha used to refer to himself: 
'Tathagata', which Jim tells us means 'Thus Gone'.  When I first heard 
the meaning long ago I had thought it rather odd, until I learnt that 
it suggested the path taken by all the Buddha before him, and the path 
he is leading us towards.  Now your question has added a new dimension 
to his immense and infinite wisdom, he did not refer to the self, did 
he?  But I would still question the sanity of those who still live in 
the conventional world who is not a Buddha to emulate this and start 
calling themselves 'on the way' or 'still here' or whatever! 

Hope this helps,

Amara

 
4104 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 2:20pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (Mike--illusion of 'I am')

 
  Dear Dan, Howard and Erik,

I'd like to try another response on the samma samadhi
issue, but I'm not sure how I'll get on. Let's see!

--- Dan Dalthorp  wrote:
>.. but the unconcentrated and
> unrestrained mind doesn't 
> stop there: "Only insight matters. Cultivating
> samadhi is not 
> important. Cultivating sila is not important. When
> insight is strong 
> enough, sila and samadhi of necessity will be
> perfected. Those people 
> who cultivate sila and samadhi and TRY to cultivate
> pañña are 
> deluded.

I like the style Dan in your posts and in the statue
skit that followed which I'll leave just for now. I
think that we all agree on the importance of all kinds
of kusala (wholesome states) and the danger of akusala
(unwholesome states). 

Perhaps we can even go further and say that the more
knowlege there is of all kind of kusala, the more
likely it is that it will be correctly recognized,
appreciated and developed? In the same way, the more
knowledge there is of akusala, the more the danger
will be recognized and the more conditions there will
be for its (very) gradual decline. If there isn't any
precise knowledge of kusala or akusala moments, how
else can they possibly be recognized? 

So in order to recognize, say, the difference between
a moment of metta and a moment of attachment, we need
to hear and consider a lot about what metta is, what
attachment is. In the same way, to recognize the
difference between a moment of samma samadhi and
miccha samadhi, there has to be understanding of their
characteristics.

Now this understanding does not have to be at the
level of satipatthana. As we've all discussed, even
before the Buddha's time, people developed samatha
practices and understood clearly the difference
between moments of kusala and akusala which is no mean
feat. In this way sila, dana and samatha could be and
were developed.  

For the development of satipatthana, in adition to
this understanding, there has to also be the knowledge
that these same moments of kusala and akusala are
anatta. The kusala developed (whether dana, sila or
bhavana) will then be even finer with no illlusion of
self(eventually) that is developing them.

So understanding the practice in this way does not
mean that other kinds of kusala are neglected; quite
the contrary as Jon wrote recently. If right
understanding learns more and more precisely about all
kinds of realities appearing, it will see the
importance all the more of all kinds of kusala.

The following quote is from Maj Nik, 117
Mahacattarisaka Sutta, which is the one before the
Anapana Sutta:

'  "....What bhikkhus, is noble right concentration
with its supports and its requisites, that is, right
view, right intention, right speech, right action,
right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness?
Unification of mind equipped with these seven factors
is called noble right concentration with its supports
and its requisites.
Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first* And how
does right view come first?  One understands wrong
view as wrong view and right view as right view: this
is one's right view.**" '

* Pubbangama, lit. 'the forerunner'. MA says that two
kind of right view are forerunners: the right view of
insight, which investigates formations as impermanent,
suffering, and non-self; and the right view of the
path, which arises as a consequence of insight and
efffects the radical destruction of defilements.

**This statement suggests that in order to acquire
right view about the nature of reality, one must first
be able to distinguish between wrong and right
teachings on the nature of reality.  MA says that this
is the right view of insight which understands wrong
view as an object by penetrating its characteristics
of impermanence, etc., and which understands right
view by exercising the function of comprehension and
by clearing away confusion. (B.Bodhi translation)

Dan, I just want to paste in another extract from
another post of yours if I may:

> The cultivation means such unpopular things 
>as renunciation, restraint of senses, seeing danger
in >the slightest 
>fault, and meditation. One particularly pernicious
and >venomous view 
>is that practicing these things is not helpful
because >there is no 
>"who" to direct the practice or work toward active,
>conscious 
>purification of virtue, concentration, and insight.

Can we consider or understand renunciation, restraint
of senses and seing danger in the slightest fault at
this moment? At the moment of understanding seeing or
visible object or right or wrong concentration, there
is renunciation of akusala for a moment and the citta
is calm. 

This is the the beginning of bhavana(meditation) at
the level of vipassana. It can be proved at this
moment that there truly is no 'who' to direct the
awareness of these realities. This doesn't mean that
there should be any forgetfulness about the urgency of
the practice or the great value of developing whatever
kusala there is an opportunity for at this moment. It
is not easy to unmask the magician and only the
sotapanna finally does so. We can begin to start
unmaksing and understanding the tricks, a little at a
time, however.*

There were many more points I had planned to address,
but they will have to wait! 

Best regards to you all,
Sarah

* The sotapanna unmasks the the magician and has no
more illusion. He still has attachment to the tricks
(read self) even though he understands the tricks.
This is why there are still conditons for attachment
and mana, for example. The arahat has no more
attachment to the tricks at all. Thanks for the analogy!


 
4105 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 3:19pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  Howard,

Anapanasati calls for a separate post. this is a very
difficult subject and I don't pretend to be an expert
or even a beginner here! I'm not sure if I'll be add
to the comments Robert and you have made, but again,
we'll see!

As we know, this is a 'meditation' subject for 'all
Buddhas, (some) Paccekebuddhas, and (some) Buddha's
disciples...'. It is not easy and I don't recall any
lay people ever being recommended to follow it.

As I said in the last post, a clear discrimination of
the cittas (consciousness) is necessary for the
development of samatha. For example, if we take
uppekha (indiferent feeling), it can arise with kusala
cittas (wholesome consciousness), it can arise with
lobha(attachment) and it always aises with moha
(ignorance). In the same way, it is very easy to
confuse calm with attachment and skilful concentration
with unskilful concentration and yet there cannot be
any development of samatha unless the different
moments are known clearly.

When there is right understanding of the object of
samatha and how it calms the citta, there are more
conditions for calm and higher levels of concentration
without trying. If samatha is developed it is due to
conditions, not due to a self trying. 

With understanding, there can be moments of samatha in
daily life such as when we reflect on the Buddha's
virtues or on death with kusala cittas.

When it comes to breath, again there has to be right
understanding of it in order for citta to be calm. For
example, at this moment, we can reflect on how our
life, all our worldly possessions and all those we
hold dear, depend on this breath. This can be a
condition for calmness for a moment. In order to be
developed to high levels, the subject has to be
developed with clear understanding of the subject and
kusala and akusala, otherwise it will be attachment to
breath that is developed.

Howard, for myself, I find it more helpful to read and
consider about many different samatha objects as a
condition for moments of samatha now. In the course of
my day, I meet many, many people; students, parents,
gym staff, shop-keepers, telephone callers, friends on
dsg. There are many, many opportunities for moments of
metta when one understands the value of friendliness
and kindness to others. I don't need to go looking for
a corpse or to TRY to develop samatha with breath as
the object. When there is selection, again it shows
that clinging to self, clinging to samatha which is
not a part of any bhavana.

Of course, the realities and the practice are
different for us all. I also had amazing experiences
and 'insights' during and after retreats with my
Mahasi Sayadaw-style teacher and Goenka. It was very,
very difficult to give up the attachment to what I
perceived to be (and was told were) higher levels of
wisdom and samma samadhi....In the end only a moment
of right understanding now can recognize what the true
reality really is. 

I know this is controverisal and will call for another
Dan skit (!!). I certainly don't mean to say 'I'm
right and you're wrong', but merely to express how I
look at anapanasati with limited understanding of this
subject. I know I'll hear more from you!

Sarah

  --- Howard wrote: > Hi, all -
> 
>        I have read the Interview on the web site,
> and I'm a bit perplexed. In 
> this interview she speaks against formal meditation
> whether for the purpose 
> of inducing calm or for the cultivation of insight.
> This seems to be at 
> variance with the Buddha's teaching of anapanasati,
> a formal meditation 
> technique, as a vehicle for working on the four
> foundations of mindfulness, 
> and which can take one all the way to the end of the
> path. It has been 
> commented on by many, many Theravadin monks and
> meditation teachers. This 
> formal meditative practice is presented in the
> Anapanasati Sutta in the 
> Majjhima Nikaya. It can be found on Access to
> Insight at the address 
>
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html.
> Does anyone have 
> any comments on this?
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 
> /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A
> star at dawn, a bubble 
> in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
> a flickering lamp, a 
> phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond
> Sutra)                    
>             
>                                          



 
4106 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:22am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Self / Not self

 
  Hi, Herman -

In a message dated 3/18/01 7:49:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Herman H writes:


> Hi all,
> 
> I must admit to major confusion. I confess I have not read through the
> entire database and found all the relevant allusions to the problem I have.
> Forbearance, please. My problem are these:
> 
> If there is no self, and there is belief in no-self, why is just about every
> post here and elsewhere phrased in the language of self? (meaning I , me ,
> you, them etc). What is meant when an email announces " I this....." "You
> that"?
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       That is easily answered. This is just a matter of conventional speech. 
We use speech conventions all the time as a matter of convenience - kind of a 
shorthand. If we didn't allow such conventional speech, we'd take forever to 
say the simplest things! For that matter, even when we are not talking about 
"me" or "you" , and so forth, we use speech conventions - for example when we 
speak of "the tree in the garden". That phrase is packed with conventional 
shorthand, the unwinding of which would fill volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------

> Taking it further, is there not a positive definition of not-self that can
> be used? How is it that a not-characteristic is considered a pervasive
> characteristic of all realities?
> 
> Nobody says "this is not-fish" or "that is not-green". Why do we say
> not-self? What is the opposite or the compliment of not-self ?
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I don't personally like the term 'not-self'. I think it is awkward and 
uninformative. I much prefer 'impersonal' as translation for 'anatta', and 
'impersonality' for 'anattata'.
---------------------------------------------------------------


> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Herman
> 
==================================
With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4107 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 3:36pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View

 
  Derick,

--- Winkworth Derick SrA USAFE CSS/SCIE
 wrote: > All:
> 
>     I am completely blown away by this e-mail list. 
> You guys are really
> into the dhamma here, hardcore!  Lots of Pali terms
> and scriptural
> references.  I'm completely amazed.

I really enjoyed this post a lot!! 'Hardcore Dhamma'!
Cybele, there's another option!!

Amara and Rob replied with helpful (I thought so
anyway) long posts, so I'll wait til I hear more. As
Num would say 'hang in' and 'give it a go'. You've
joined the list at a very busy time and the fine
distinction between understanding realities as not
self and developing awareness, right effort, right
intention and the rest is not easy at all...

I hope to hear more when you've had a chance to
consider the other posts and more recent ones to
others.

Please be a little patient with the use of Pali and
terminology. For some members it's as hard to remember
the English word as it is for others to understand the
Pali. Please let us know how we can help and feel free
to disagree with any of us.... I have to prepare for
my students now, so must dash, but thanks for your
great post!

Sarah


 
4108 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:45am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  Hi, Sarah -

       Thank you for this reply. At the end, you say you know you'll hear 
more from me. But actually I can't think of anything much to add on this 
topic. I do find meditation, particularly anapanasati, to be very useful, 
but, of course, not a trivial matter or one which can be done in any old way. 
I also think that maintaining mindfulness "in the moment" during day-to-day 
activities (and guarding the senses) to be an extremely important complement 
to formal meditation practice. I really have nothing much else of interest to 
add. Thanks again, very much, for your kind reply.

Wity metta,
Howard

In a message dated 3/19/01 2:20:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Sarah writes:


> Howard,
> 
> Anapanasati calls for a separate post. this is a very
> difficult subject and I don't pretend to be an expert
> or even a beginner here! I'm not sure if I'll be add
> to the comments Robert and you have made, but again,
> we'll see!
> 
> As we know, this is a 'meditation' subject for 'all
> Buddhas, (some) Paccekebuddhas, and (some) Buddha's
> disciples...'. It is not easy and I don't recall any
> lay people ever being recommended to follow it.
> 
> As I said in the last post, a clear discrimination of
> the cittas (consciousness) is necessary for the
> development of samatha. For example, if we take
> uppekha (indiferent feeling), it can arise with kusala
> cittas (wholesome consciousness), it can arise with
> lobha(attachment) and it always aises with moha
> (ignorance). In the same way, it is very easy to
> confuse calm with attachment and skilful concentration
> with unskilful concentration and yet there cannot be
> any development of samatha unless the different
> moments are known clearly.
> 
> When there is right understanding of the object of
> samatha and how it calms the citta, there are more
> conditions for calm and higher levels of concentration
> without trying. If samatha is developed it is due to
> conditions, not due to a self trying. 
> 
> With understanding, there can be moments of samatha in
> daily life such as when we reflect on the Buddha's
> virtues or on death with kusala cittas.
> 
> When it comes to breath, again there has to be right
> understanding of it in order for citta to be calm. For
> example, at this moment, we can reflect on how our
> life, all our worldly possessions and all those we
> hold dear, depend on this breath. This can be a
> condition for calmness for a moment. In order to be
> developed to high levels, the subject has to be
> developed with clear understanding of the subject and
> kusala and akusala, otherwise it will be attachment to
> breath that is developed.
> 
> Howard, for myself, I find it more helpful to read and
> consider about many different samatha objects as a
> condition for moments of samatha now. In the course of
> my day, I meet many, many people; students, parents,
> gym staff, shop-keepers, telephone callers, friends on
> dsg. There are many, many opportunities for moments of
> metta when one understands the value of friendliness
> and kindness to others. I don't need to go looking for
> a corpse or to TRY to develop samatha with breath as
> the object. When there is selection, again it shows
> that clinging to self, clinging to samatha which is
> not a part of any bhavana.
> 
> Of course, the realities and the practice are
> different for us all. I also had amazing experiences
> and 'insights' during and after retreats with my
> Mahasi Sayadaw-style teacher and Goenka. It was very,
> very difficult to give up the attachment to what I
> perceived to be (and was told were) higher levels of
> wisdom and samma samadhi....In the end only a moment
> of right understanding now can recognize what the true
> reality really is. 
> 
> I know this is controverisal and will call for another
> Dan skit (!!). I certainly don't mean to say 'I'm
> right and you're wrong', but merely to express how I
> look at anapanasati with limited understanding of this
> subject. I know I'll hear more from you!
> 
> Sarah
> 



/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4109 From: Amara   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:04pm
Subject: Revised Paccaya

 
  Dear all,

Just to tell you Varee has corrected all the (massive) Pali mistakes 
in 'Summary of the 24 Paccaya' in the advanced section of  
<http://www.dhammastudy.com/ > .  The new and improved version up this 
morning,

Amara.

 
4110 From: Desmond Chiong   
Date: Sun Mar 18, 2001 8:52am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  When you read at this anapana sutta carefully, you will notice that through 
the proper practice of anapana meditation:
one begins to notice the [1]body, [3]mind and the cetasika [3]feeling and 
[4] metal formations.
But the noticing of them will be of no avail until one can "see" the mind, 
body and cetasikas with [7] equanimity.
Therefore if one practices anapana meditation to the higher level of 
concentration and reaches the point of equanimity in [samatha] or 
[appetizer], one can then automatically acheive the [vipassana] or [main 
entree] and "see" the mind, body and cetasika.
Proper insight is after all not that difficult to understand but can be 
acheived only through hard practice.

with metta,
des


>From: "Amara" 
>Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom
>Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:11:16 -0000
>
>
>
>
> > It can be found on Access to Insight at the address
> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html.
>
>
>Dear Howard
>
>Just a minor detail, the link you gave doesn't seem to work, or
>perhaps it's my browser again?
>
>Amara


 
4111 From: Amara   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:48pm
Subject: Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  --- "Desmond Chiong"  
wrote:
> When you read at this anapana sutta carefully, you will notice that 
through 
> the proper practice of anapana meditation:
> one begins to notice the [1]body, [3]mind and the cetasika 
[3]feeling and 
> [4] metal formations.
> But the noticing of them will be of no avail until one can "see" the 
mind, 
> body and cetasikas with [7] equanimity.

Dear Des,

May I ask what you mean by equanimity here?  In the Tipitaka, samatha 
is peacefulness from lobha, dosa and moha, therefore any instant the 
citta evolves with dana, sila or bhavana.  Vipassana at each moment 
that sati arises in daily life is also bhavana, the development of 
panna that knows things as they really are.  As in several of Jon's 
post, it is one of the five components of the eightfold magga citta 
that is being developed each time sati arises to be aware of things as 
they really are right now, as when we read this message.  Realities 
are appearing and we do not know that the body is in contact with the 
chair or the keyboard, that hardness appears, that motion and tension 
is being experienced through the body sense as you type and move the 
mouse. That through the eyes realities appear and fall away, all the 
panna that could be accumulated through instants of sati right now.  
And the peace from all kilesa at the tiny instants of sati, when the 
self is not there and panna accumulates right understanding further.  
It is true that the right samadhi could lead to panna, but not without 
the studies of realities, even based on a higher peace of the jhana.  
But most people who have lost the skills of samadhi do not need this 
round abouts route to sati, they could study as most did in the times 
of the Buddha, where those with Sukkhavipassaka were more numerous 
even among the bhikkhus.  This is not to mention all the millions of 
lay people who also attained different levels without becoming 
ordained, although those who became the arahanta would not remain a 
layperson any more.

Amara


> Therefore if one practices anapana meditation to the higher level of 
> concentration and reaches the point of equanimity in [samatha] or 
> [appetizer], one can then automatically acheive the [vipassana] or 
[main 
> entree] and "see" the mind, body and cetasika.
> Proper insight is after all not that difficult to understand but can 
be 
> acheived only through hard practice.
> 
> with metta,
> des
> 
> 

 
4112 From: teng kee ong   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 7:44pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight

 
  -----Original Message-----
From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:50:22 +0800 (CST)
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight

Dear Jon,
This is just mahasi sayadaw's view but surely not the comment by commentators.To be a sukkhavipassaka,you must be a viewing type but craving type for samathayanika(see satipatthana sutta com).We have 2 samathayanika doing kaya and vedana while sukkhavipassaka doing citta and dhamma anupassana.I have to mention sukkhavipassaka will have lokiya jhana after insight (khanika samadhi follow by vikhamabhana samadhi)before that citta vithi for lokuttara magga citta.See patisambhida com.It is  only a thera view for sukkhavipasaka having first jhana factors but the other two think they will have higher jhana(see visuddhimagga)
If you think mahasi sayadaw is better than buddhaghosa and dhammapala,I don't mind at all.
from Teng Kee


> Erik
> 
> Thanks for the reference from Mahasi Sayadaw on this
> topic (yr messge below).  You might also be interestd
> in a reference from the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (in
> translation as 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma',
> BPS) a text which, as i am sure you would know, is of
> very long standing and which is regarded as highly
> authorative in the Pali tradition.  (This is copied
> from an earlier message of mine, but I think bears
> repeating - apologies to others if the repetition is
> not appreciated).
> 
> The passage that follows is directly from CMA Ch. I,
> Guide to ##30-31).  The numbers in square brackets are
> markers to comments of mu own at the end.
> 
> ===============================
> All meditators reach the supramundane paths and fruits
> through the development of wisdom (panna) – insight
> into the three characteristics of impermanence,
> suffering, and non-self. [1] 
> 
> However, they differ among themselves in the degree of
> their development of concentration (samadhi).  Those
> who develop insight without a basis of jhana are
> called practitioners of bare insight
> (sukkhavipassaka). [2]  When they reach the path and
> fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level
> corresponding to the first jhana. [3]
> 
> Those who develop insight on the basis of jhana attain
> a path and fruit which corresponds to the level of
> jhana they had attained before reaching the path. ...
> 
> For bare insight meditator and jhana meditator alike,
> all path and fruition cittas are considered types of
> jhana consciousness.  They are so considered because
> they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their
> object with full absorption, like the mundane jhanas,
> and because they possess the jhana factors with an
> intensity corresponding to their counterparts in the
> mundane jhanas. [4]  
> 
> The supramundane jhanas of the paths and fruits differ
> from the mundane jhanas in several important respects.
> [5]  
> 
> First, whereas the mundane jhanas take as their object
> some concept, such as the sign of the kasina, the
> supramundane jhanas take as their object Nibbana, the
> unconditioned reality. [5.1]  
> Second, whereas the mundane jhanas merely suppress the
> defilements while leaving their underlying seeds
> intact, the supramundane jhanas of the path eradicate
> defilements so that they can never again arise. [5.2]
> Third, while the mundane jhanas lead to rebirth in the
> fine material world and thus sustain existence in the
> round of rebirths, the jhanas of the path cut off the
> fetters binding one to the cycle and thus issue in
> liberation from the round of birth and death. [5.3] 
> Finally, whereas the role of wisdom in the mundane
> jhanas is subordinate to that of concentration, in the
> supramundane jhanas wisdom and concentration are well
> balanced, with concentration fixing the mind on the
> unconditioned element and wisdom fathoming the deep
> significance of the Four Noble Truths. [5.4]
> ===================================
> 
> Notes:
> 1.  It is the development of understanding of the
> characteristics of reality that leads to the
> attainment of the path/enlightenment/8-fold path citta
> (magga citta).
> 2.  Development of concentration to the level of jhana
> is not necessary for attaining magga citta.
> 3.  However, even for the sukkhavipassaka the
> concentration accompanying the moment of path citta
> ‘corresponds to’ the first level of jhana.
> 4.  The concentration accompanying magga citta is said
> to ‘correspond to’ jhana because the magga citta
> experiences its object with same full absorption and
> intensity of other factors as the jhana citta.
> 5.  There are, however, 4 important differences
> between jhana citta and the path citta –
> 5.1.   The object of jhana citta is a concept , while
> the object of the moment of path citta is Nibbana.
> 5.2.   Jhana cittas merely suppress kilesa, while
> magga citta eradicates kilesa.
> 5.3.   Jhana cittas are a condition for future
> rebirth, whereas magga cittas result in liberation
> from the cycle of birth and death.
> 5.4.   The primary attribute of a moment of jhana
> citta is the degree of concentration on the object at
> that moment, whereas the attribute of a moment of
> magga citta is the wisdom that pierces the Truths.
> 
> Jon
> 
> > Hi Robert, thank you again very much for your
> > insights. As I was 
> > rooting around for more on this I found this great
> > description of it 
> > from Mahasi Sayadaw, in his commentary to the
> > Dhammachakkapavattana 
> > Sutta. Look for item #66 "Explanation on Insight
> > Momentary 
> > Concentration." Also very interesting stuff on "The
> > Path of Right 
> > Concentration."
> > 
> > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism//dhamack3.htm
> > 
> > Mahasi Sayadaw mentions "This access concentration,
> > as explained in 
> > the Great Subcommentary of Visuddhi Magga, is not in
> > the 
> > neighbourhood of any appana samadhi (absorption
> > concentration) and, 
> > as such, is not a true Access concentration.
> > Nevertheless, since it 
> > is akin to access concentration in its capacity in
> > overcoming the 
> > hindrances and producing tranquillity, it assumes
> > the name of access 
> > concentration by virtue of identity in capacities."
> > 
> > So it appears that this "vipassanakhanika samadhi"
> > is quite a 
> > different animal from the sort of samadhi arising in
> > jhana. This is 
> > exactly one of this things that had tripped me up in
> > discussions of 
> > vipassana-yanika practice. So what this is saying to
> > me is this is a 
> > technically different type of "samadhi" that
> > performs the same 
> > function as samadhi arising in jhana, even though it
> > isn't the same 
> > thing. Does this make sense to your understanding?
> 
> 

 
4113 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:05pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  Hi, Howard,

We're really finding plenty of agreement these days
which makes for a much easier life! Maybe it just
takes a little getting used to...!!

I'm enjoying all your posts too,

Sarah

--- Howard wrote: > Hi, Sarah -
> 
>        Thank you for this reply. At the end, you say
> you know you'll hear 
> more from me. But actually I can't think of anything
> much to add on this 
> topic. I do find meditation, particularly
> anapanasati, to be very useful, 
> but, of course, not a trivial matter or one which
> can be done in any old way. 
> I also think that maintaining mindfulness "in the
> moment" during day-to-day 
> activities (and guarding the senses) to be an
> extremely important complement 
> to formal meditation practice. I really have nothing
> much else of interest to 
> add. Thanks again, very much, for your kind reply.
> 
> Wity metta,
> Howard
> 



 
4114 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:52pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight

 
  Dear teng,
This is a crucial topic and your input is very helpful. But
could you be even more helpful by giving detailed explanations.
I think I see what you are saying but I want to be sure. 
Is it that the commentaries are saying that sukkhavipassaka only
go by way of citta and dhammanupassana? Dhammanupassana is
comprehensive and includes the 5 khandas that this wouldn't
surprise me. There are several passages where jhayati(spelling?)
are broken into two types: those who develop the 40 objects for
samatha and those who insight the characteristics of the khandas
, dhatus and ayatanas.
robert

--- teng kee ong  wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonothan Abbott
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:50:22 +0800 (CST)
> Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying
> insight
> 
> Dear Jon,
> This is just mahasi sayadaw's view but surely not the comment
> by commentators.To be a sukkhavipassaka,you must be a viewing
> type but craving type for samathayanika(see satipatthana sutta
> com).We have 2 samathayanika doing kaya and vedana while
> sukkhavipassaka doing citta and dhamma anupassana.I have to
> mention sukkhavipassaka will have lokiya jhana after insight
> (khanika samadhi follow by vikhamabhana samadhi)before that
> citta vithi for lokuttara magga citta.See patisambhida com.It
> is  only a thera view for sukkhavipasaka having first jhana
> factors but the other two think they will have higher
> jhana(see visuddhimagga)
> If you think mahasi sayadaw is better than buddhaghosa and
> dhammapala,I don't mind at all.
> from Teng Kee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Erik
> > 
> > Thanks for the reference from Mahasi Sayadaw on this
> > topic (yr messge below).  You might also be interestd
> > in a reference from the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (in
> > translation as 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma',
> > BPS) a text which, as i am sure you would know, is of
> > very long standing and which is regarded as highly
> > authorative in the Pali tradition.  (This is copied
> > from an earlier message of mine, but I think bears
> > repeating - apologies to others if the repetition is
> > not appreciated).
> > 
> > The passage that follows is directly from CMA Ch. I,
> > Guide to ##30-31).  The numbers in square brackets are
> > markers to comments of mu own at the end.
> > 
> > ===============================
> > All meditators reach the supramundane paths and fruits
> > through the development of wisdom (panna) – insight
> > into the three characteristics of impermanence,
> > suffering, and non-self. [1] 
> > 
> > However, they differ among themselves in the degree of
> > their development of concentration (samadhi).  Those
> > who develop insight without a basis of jhana are
> > called practitioners of bare insight
> > (sukkhavipassaka). [2]  When they reach the path and
> > fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level
> > corresponding to the first jhana. [3]
> > 
> > Those who develop insight on the basis of jhana attain
> > a path and fruit which corresponds to the level of
> > jhana they had attained before reaching the path. ...
> > 
> > For bare insight meditator and jhana meditator alike,
> > all path and fruition cittas are considered types of
> > jhana consciousness.  They are so considered because
> > they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their
> > object with full absorption, like the mundane jhanas,
> > and because they possess the jhana factors with an
> > intensity corresponding to their counterparts in the
> > mundane jhanas. [4]  
> > 
> > The supramundane jhanas of the paths and fruits differ
> > from the mundane jhanas in several important respects.
> > [5]  
> > 
> > First, whereas the mundane jhanas take as their object
> > some concept, such as the sign of the kasina, the
> > supramundane jhanas take as their object Nibbana, the
> > unconditioned reality. [5.1]  
> > Second, whereas the mundane jhanas merely suppress the
> > defilements while leaving their underlying seeds
> > intact, the supramundane jhanas of the path eradicate
> > defilements so that they can never again arise. [5.2]
> > Third, while the mundane jhanas lead to rebirth in the
> > fine material world and thus sustain existence in the
> > round of rebirths, the jhanas of the path cut off the
> > fetters binding one to the cycle and thus issue in
> > liberation from the round of birth and death. [5.3] 
> > Finally, whereas the role of wisdom in the mundane
> > jhanas is subordinate to that of concentration, in the
> > supramundane jhanas wisdom and concentration are well
> > balanced, with concentration fixing the mind on the
> > unconditioned element and wisdom fathoming the deep
> > significance of the Four Noble Truths. [5.4]
> > ===================================
> > 
> > Notes:
> > 1.  It is the development of understanding of the
> > characteristics of reality that leads to the
> > attainment of the path/enlightenment/8-fold path citta
> > (magga citta).
> > 2.  Development of concentration to the level of jhana
> > is not necessary for attaining magga citta.
> > 3.  However, even for the sukkhavipassaka the
> > concentration accompanying the moment of path citta
> > ‘corresponds to’ the first level of jhana.
> > 4.  The concentration accompanying magga citta is said
> > to ‘correspond to’ jhana because the magga citta
> > experiences its object with same full absorption and
> > intensity of other factors as the jhana citta.
> > 5.  There are, however, 4 important differences
> > between jhana citta and the path citta –
> > 5.1.   The object of jhana citta is a concept , while
> > the object of the moment of path citta is Nibbana.
> > 5.2.   Jhana cittas merely suppress kilesa, while
> > magga citta eradicates kilesa.
> > 5.3.   Jhana cittas are a condition for future
> > rebirth, whereas magga cittas result in liberation
> > from the cycle of birth and death.
> > 5.4.   The primary attribute of a moment of jhana
> > citta is the degree of concentration on the object at
> > that moment, whereas the attribute of a moment of
> > magga citta is the wisdom that pierces the Truths.
> > 
> > Jon
> > 



 
4115 From: Erik 
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 9:39pm
Subject: Re: Self / Not self

 
  --- "Herman Hofman"  wrote:
> 
> If there is no self, and there is belief in no-self, why is just 
about every
> post here and elsewhere phrased in the language of self? (meaning 
I , me ,
> you, them etc). What is meant when an email announces " I 
this....." "You
> that"?

Herman, no need to worry about conventional labels like personal 
pronouns. The Buddha used them all the time. Understanding no-self 
does not mean abandoning everyday language!

"Self" in the Buddhist sense refers to the specific term "atta" 
or "atman." No-self (anatta/anatman/emptiness) refers to the fact 
that nothing possess a fixed nature, or any "true" entitiness of its 
own. Anatta refers to the fact that among the parts of a collection 
there is truly nothing partaking of a fixed, or permanent "self," 
that what we perceive is nothing but a changing collection of parts. 
There is truly no "there" there when we break it all down, in other 
words. Particles? Do they even have "true" existence? Modern physics 
says no to even this. So we really have nothing substantial anywhere! 
We do have appearances, though, and stragely enough, even though 
nothing possesses a fixed "core" or "essence" things still appear.

For this reason, anatta is the flipside of dependent origination 
(paticca samuppada), and is a characteristic of all things, nibbana 
as well as all sankharas (composed things). It is also  ultimately no 
different from dependent origination if you really understand it.

There are many subtle wrong views about anatta, and it takes a lot to 
get rid of them. Many people think anatta means "nonexistence," for 
example. But this is a major fallacy and a wrong view. Another 
mistaken view is that things have "true existence," perhaps the 
biggest problem most people have. There are many, many meditations to 
help get rid of misunderstandings relating to this. The Middle Way of 
understanding this is to thread the two extremes of nonexistence and 
inherent (non-produced) existence. Practicing vipassana will yield 
insight into this when insight arises in relation to paramattha 
dhammas. If you're a jhana meditator like some here, then in the 
jhanas you'll be able to perform meditations on this specifically. 
Either way will eventually bring about direct insight into the nature 
of this pervasive characteristic of all realities, and 
simultaneously, into the characteristics of impermanence and dukkha, 
and the Four Noble Truths. This is provided all the prerequisites 
have been met in other aspects of practice, such as keeping the 
precepts, dana, sila and removal of the five hindrances.

> Taking it further, is there not a positive definition of not-self 
that can
> be used? How is it that a not-characteristic is considered a 
pervasive
> characteristic of all realities?

The capacity to change a characteristic of things. In this same way, 
emptiness/anatta is a characteristic of (and characterizes) all 
phenomena (even Nibbana), including the collection of parts you 
designate "Herman." "Herman" is merely a label applied to a 
collection of arms, legs, torso, head, born in a specific place, etc. 
There is no real "Howard," though. These are merely mental 
imputations, but, unfortunately, imputations we take for "self" 
or "real." By mistaking these labels of designation for "realities," 
we suffer. Arahats have destroyed this tendency because they have 
eradicated all ignorance in regard to "self."

 
 
4116 From: Erik 
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:08pm
Subject: Sammaditthi for Sarah

 
  --- Sarah Procter Abbott  
wrote:

> I could continue, but I think you'll understand why
> there is an emphasis on understanding paramattha
> dhammas at all levels of wisdom in the Theravada
> teachings. 

I agree on the paramattha dhammas part. As you know, nibbana is also 
a paramattha dhamma, and is one object of investigation for certain 
types of jhana meditators. For these types of meditators watching the 
arising and passing away of namarupa isn't considered as effective. 

I have to say last week's discussion really clarified for me the 
basic differences in the approaches, as well as differences in 
results. I now know what the real differences are, though I have to 
say I was a bit taken aback to see that anapanasati was listed 
as "more difficult." In my experience, I found the meditation on 
paramattha dhammas in the way you describe "more difficult," whereas 
anapanasati and jhana meditation are very straightforward by 
comparison. Just goes to underscore the differences in the 
accumulations, I suppose, though I have used the paramattha dhammas 
approach to dealing with unfavorable emotions, and it worked wonders 
as a cure for anxiety, so I'm a believer in it. Just not a believer 
in its efficacy in terms of bringing about insight as a primary 
practice for myself.

> Seeing is anatta, not self. 

How is "seeing" anatta? Am curious to hear your explanation of this.

> This is how it is for all the other phenomena that
> make up our lives. Understanding these phenomena as
> they really are is the way to understand that they are
> anatta. There has to be repeated understanding and
> awareness over and over again of the different mental
> and physical phenomena so that gradually the
> impermanent and unsatisfactory nature of these
> realities can become more apparent as higher levels of
> wisdom are developed. These characteristics are not
> concepts to be known through contemplation outside the
> realities appearing now. This is the development of
> vipassana (right understanding) as explained by the
> Buddha. 

Alternatively, one can initially learn using "progressive 
instructions" to eradicate the gross wrong views held about anatta, 
etc., and then in meditation in the jhanas, alternating with 
vipassana, can take a subtler understanding of this and yield the 
same result of the sort of vipassana you're trained in. This is the 
entire point of this exercise. See my post to Herman on one of the 
ways of doing this at the grosser, intellectual level. These 
intellectual meditations are really precursors to understanding 
anatta in meditation.

I'd like to go longer, but really didn't find anything important I 
disagreed with.

Erik

 
4117 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:39pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View (Jon)

 
  Dan

> Granted. But direct cultivation of samadhi and sila
> is very helpful, 
> not only in a mundane kusala sort of way (this, not
> to be 
> underestimated), but also in supporting development
> of insight. 
> 
> As Lord Buddha said: "Without overcoming [the five
> nivarana], it is 
> impossible for a monk whose insight thus lacks
> strength and power, to 
> know his own true good, the good of others, and the
> good of both; nor 
> will he be capable of realizing that superhuman
> state of disticntive 
> achievement, the knowledge and vision enabling the
> attainment of 
> sanctity. But if a monk has overcome these five
> impediments and 
> hindrances, these overgrowths of the mind that
> stultify insight, then 
> it is possible that, with his strong insight, he can
> know his own true 
> good, the good of others..." (AN 5:51).
> 
> Direct cultivation of samadhi and sila via formal
> practice help to 
> overcome nivarana, which is essential for insight to
> arise. This 
> certainly does not mean that insight can only arise
> while sitting, but  
> that we must constantly be on guard against allowing
> disdain for 
> samadhi and sila take hold because we believe in the
> ultimate efficacy 
> of insight.

I am not sure what you personally understand by ‘the
ultimate efficacy of insight’, but it’s a label I
don’t mind being branded with.  It has good support in
the suttas, the commentaries and the works the
authoritative compilers.  Disdain for samadhi and sila
would of course be serious wrong view, but I don’t see
why someone who has confidence in the efficacy of
insight as the highest form of kusala should be
considered susceptible to that particular form of
wrong view.  After all, the development of insight (=
wisdom) is a condition for performing all kinds of
kusala more skilfully.  (You could equally argue that
someone who had confidence in samatha would need to
guard against disdain for dana and sila.) 

Thanks for the quote about the nivarana.  The nivarana
that must be overcome in order to attain jhana should
not be regarded as the same nivarana that need to be
overcome in order to attain enlightenment.  The
attainments/goals of the 2 kinds of development are
quite different, and so the conditions for that
development and the obstacles to it are also quiet
different.  The overcoming of the nivarana in the
attainment of jhana is not necessarily a condition for
their being overcome in the context of insight.

This leads us to another interesting point in your
post.  It is of course not wrong to say that sila and
samatha support the development of insight.  But it is
important to understand exactly *in what way* they do
so.  It is the good deeds (sila and samatha) done in
the past, ie in a previous lifetime, that are a
support for the development of insight now, because
they are a very important condition for us meeting the
dhamma and the right person in this life.  But they
are not a condition in the sense that the more that
sila and samatha are practised today, the better the
conditions today or tomorrow, or perhaps even in this
lifetime, for the development of insight.  (And no,
I’m not disdaining sila and samatha here, I assure
you!!)

If you are referring to samma-samadhi of the Eightfold
Path, then it is insight that leads to that, rather
than the other way round.

> You also write:
> > 2.  I can assure you that giving priority in this
> > lifetime to learing about and developing panna at
> the
> > level of satipatthana does not connote any lack of
> > interest in developing panna at the level of
> samatha
> > and all the other levels of kusala.  On the
> contrary,
> > the understanding of the essence of the teaching
> gives
> > greater insight into the means and the benefits of
> > developing all the other levels of kusala.
> 
> Thanks for the assurances. I'm confused, though.
> What does "at the 
> level of" mean? I usually think of "level" in terms
> of depth, but that 
> doesn't seem to make any sense here. Also, I'm not
> sure what you mean 
> by "understanding of the essence of the teaching". 
> 
> The anusaya are not easy to see.

The ‘essence of the teaching’ was meant to be a
reference to the development of insight.  The panna
which accompanies a moment of samatha is of a level
(quality, if you like) different to that which
accompanies a moment of insight.  Vipassana bhavana is
a higher level of kusala than is samatha bhavana, and
the accompanying panna is likewise different too.

Dan, I have not been able to include references with
this post, but am happy to discuss further, with
references.

Jon



 
4118 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:51pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight

 
  Teng Kee

Thanks for your comments.

> This is just mahasi sayadaw's view but surely not
> the comment by commentators.

Just to clarify, the quote I gave was taken directly
from the explanatory material that accompanies the
translation of the section of the Abhidhammattha
Sangaha.  It purports to be drawn mainly from 2
commentaries on A-S - one from the late 12th century,
the other from Ledi Sayadaw (late 19th century).  It
is certainly nothing to do with Mahasi Sayadaw, as far
as I know.

To be a
> sukkhavipassaka,you must be a viewing type but
> craving type for samathayanika(see satipatthana
> sutta com).We have 2 samathayanika doing kaya and
> vedana while sukkhavipassaka doing citta and dhamma
> anupassana.I have to mention sukkhavipassaka will
> have lokiya jhana after insight (khanika samadhi
> follow by vikhamabhana samadhi)before that citta
> vithi for lokuttara magga citta.See patisambhida
> com.It is  only a thera view for sukkhavipasaka
> having first jhana factors but the other two think
> they will have higher jhana(see visuddhimagga)
> If you think mahasi sayadaw is better than
> buddhaghosa and dhammapala,I don't mind at all.
> from Teng Kee

I will need to spend time working through this before
I can give any meaningful response.  Are you able to
give  any more exact details of the references you
have in mind?  That would help a lot.

Jon


 
4119 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:52pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sammaditthi for Sarah

 
  Dear Erik,
sarah will probably give a clearer explanation but just some
minor points below.
--- Erik wrote:
> --- Sarah Procter Abbott
>  
> wrote:
> 
> > I could continue, but I think you'll understand why
> > there is an emphasis on understanding paramattha
> > dhammas at all levels of wisdom in the Theravada
> > teachings. 
> 
> I agree on the paramattha dhammas part. As you know, nibbana
> is also 
> a paramattha dhamma, and is one object of investigation for
> certain 
> types of jhana meditators.

Meditation on nibbana as an object of samatha is completely
different from satipatthana- the investigation of nama and rupa.
Although nibbana is classified as a paramattha dhamma it is not
one that arises or falls in the present moment. 
The meditation on nibbana as samatha is a recollection that if
done properly results in a calm. One cannot reach even first
jhana with it - only access(upacara)- and even then only if one
is already at least a sotapanna. This is because only they have
the profound knowledge to really understand its peacefulness.
However, non-ariya can still develop it and generate some level
of calm if they understand something of its nature- that it is
unlike nama or rupa, conditioned phenomena. It can be a very
beneficial type of recollection.
___________________________________________________________
. These 
> intellectual meditations are really precursors to
> understanding 
> anatta in meditation.

I think we are in agreement here. Even the driest of the
dry-insight worker (sukkhavipassaka) still must have some/much
contemplation of anatta at the intellectual level. (How much is
another discussion)
By the way this type of recollection and contemplation can be
classified under the type of samatha that is
Dhammanasati(spelling?). In this sense even the sukkhavipassaka
is engaged very often in samatha bhavana. And as you suggest
Erik it can be a great help or precusor for direct understanding
of paramattha dhammas.
robert






 
4120 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 7:09pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  Hi, Des -

In a message dated 3/19/01 3:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Desmond C writes:


> When you read at this anapana sutta carefully, you will notice that through 
> the proper practice of anapana meditation:
> one begins to notice the [1]body, [3]mind and the cetasika [3]feeling and 
> [4] metal formations.
> But the noticing of them will be of no avail until one can "see" the mind, 
> body and cetasikas with [7] equanimity.
> Therefore if one practices anapana meditation to the higher level of 
> concentration and reaches the point of equanimity in [samatha] or 
> [appetizer], one can then automatically acheive the [vipassana] or [main 
> entree] and "see" the mind, body and cetasika.
> Proper insight is after all not that difficult to understand but can be 
> acheived only through hard practice.
> 
> with metta,
> des
> 
=====================================
       I agree with this. From several sources in the suttas and from many 
modern teachers (for example, Goenka), it is clear, I think, that for insight 
to arise as a consequence of various factors (such as right understanding, 
intention, and mindfulness), there must also be the lack of reactive grasping 
or aversion; that is, there must be a certain degree of equanimity. This is 
why, I believe, the Buddha put so much emphasis, for example, on the 4th 
jhana, characterized by equanimity. I don't mean to imply that the level of 
equanimity attained in the 4th jhana is *necessary*, but only that it would 
be the quintessence of equanimity (in a worldly state).

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4121 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 7:30pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sammaditthi for Sarah

 
  Hi, Erik -

In a message dated 3/19/01 9:12:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Erik writes:


> I agree on the paramattha dhammas part. As you know, nibbana is also 
> a paramattha dhamma, and is one object of investigation for certain 
> types of jhana meditators. For these types of meditators watching the 
> arising and passing away of namarupa isn't considered as effective. 
> 
=============================
       By investigating nibbana, do you mean investigating the 
idea/thought/concept of nibbana? If yes, then this would be a samatha 
meditation (as you say), but nothing more. On the other hand, if you mean 
actually taking nibbana, itself, as the meditation object, then it would seem 
to me that this would be no ordinary meditation; it would be something on the 
order of a signless meditation or even path/fruition consciousness; it would 
be an advanced state, the result of much previous practice, and beyond 
ordinary bhavana.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4122 From: Erik 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:49am
Subject: Re: Sammaditthi for Sarah

 
  --- Howard wrote:

>        By investigating nibbana, do you mean investigating the 
> idea/thought/concept of nibbana? If yes, then this would be a 
samatha 
> meditation (as you say), but nothing more. On the other hand, if 
you mean 
> actually taking nibbana, itself, as the meditation object, then it 
would seem 
> to me that this would be no ordinary meditation; it would be 
something on the 
> order of a signless meditation or even path/fruition consciousness; 
it would 
> be an advanced state, the result of much previous practice, and 
beyond 
> ordinary bhavana.

I did not mean this in relation to cultivating samatha. In my 
ignorance I was unaware of nibbana as an object of meditation in this 
context. I should have said "emptiness" instead of "nibbana" because 
that is more concise, and the point is to "realize emptiness" (same 
object, nibbana) directly through this practice.

Rather than use my own poor explanations, perhaps the words of 
someone fully trained in my tradition will be more clear. Geshe Tapka 
Topgyal: "... we could concentrate on the breath until we realize 
emptiness. But mainly it is more effective to concentrate on 
one's 'I' in an attempt to search the nature of 'I': How it arises, 
how it appears to our mind as an independent self-entity. Then, once 
we reach the understanding that there is no such 'I' that possesses 
independent self-entity, or image, but mere absence of it, we simply 
fix our mind upon that mere absence. When, at the initial stage, we 
meditate in this manner, we reject the idea of 'I'. We are unable to 
hold the concept of "I" when we realize mere absence of self-entity. 
This problem will be naturally solved, as we continue to cultivate 
this same practice on our 'I'."

Hope this clarifies rather than muddling my poor presentation even 
more.

 
4123 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 10:23pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sammaditthi for Sarah

 
  Hi, Erik -

In a message dated 3/19/01 1:50:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Erik writes:


> --- Howard wrote:
> 
> >        By investigating nibbana, do you mean investigating the 
> > idea/thought/concept of nibbana? If yes, then this would be a 
> samatha 
> > meditation (as you say), but nothing more. On the other hand, if 
> you mean 
> > actually taking nibbana, itself, as the meditation object, then it 
> would seem 
> > to me that this would be no ordinary meditation; it would be 
> something on the 
> > order of a signless meditation or even path/fruition consciousness; 
> it would 
> > be an advanced state, the result of much previous practice, and 
> beyond 
> > ordinary bhavana.
> 
> I did not mean this in relation to cultivating samatha. In my 
> ignorance I was unaware of nibbana as an object of meditation in this 
> context. I should have said "emptiness" instead of "nibbana" because 
> that is more concise, and the point is to "realize emptiness" (same 
> object, nibbana) directly through this practice.
> 
> Rather than use my own poor explanations, perhaps the words of 
> someone fully trained in my tradition will be more clear. Geshe Tapka 
> Topgyal: "... we could concentrate on the breath until we realize 
> emptiness. But mainly it is more effective to concentrate on 
> one's 'I' in an attempt to search the nature of 'I': How it arises, 
> how it appears to our mind as an independent self-entity. Then, once 
> we reach the understanding that there is no such 'I' that possesses 
> independent self-entity, or image, but mere absence of it, we simply 
> fix our mind upon that mere absence. When, at the initial stage, we 
> meditate in this manner, we reject the idea of 'I'. We are unable to 
> hold the concept of "I" when we realize mere absence of self-entity. 
> This problem will be naturally solved, as we continue to cultivate 
> this same practice on our 'I'."
> 
> Hope this clarifies rather than muddling my poor presentation even 
> more.
> 
> 
=============================
       Okay! This is good. As I understand this, it involves examining 
dhammas (such as the breath), looking into dhammas in search of self and 
essence ,and seeing *through* them, seeing their transparency, their 
corelessness, and thereby realizing the ultimate nonexistence of self, the 
impersonality of the khandas, and the insubstantiality of dhammas. Of course, 
seeing through dhammas involves seeing their dependent nature and constructed 
nature, which is the heart of the satipatthana method as I understand it

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4124 From: Num 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 3:07am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Amara, et. al. : speech

 
  Hi all,

I am going to make 3 posts rgd good speech, anger, the way and how to examine 
dhamma.    I will pretty much cut and paste the sutta from accesstoinsight.   
Pardon me if you guys have already read all of these.   Dhamma is deep, so 
read it carefully and attentively, OK.  

Good speech:

Every fool who is born
has an axe within his mouth
with which he cuts himself
when he uses wrong speech. 

One should utter only words
which do no harm to oneself
and cause no harm for others:
that is truly beautiful speech. 

Speak kind words, words
rejoiced at and welcomed,
words that bear ill-will to none;
always speak kindly to others. 

The worse of the two is he
who, when abused, retaliates.
One who does not retaliate
wins a battle hard to win. 

The fool thinks he has won a battle
when he bullies with harsh speech,
but knowing how to be forbearing
alone makes one victorious. 

When the recluse speaks much
it is only to speak about the goal.
Knowingly he teaches the Dhamma,
knowingly he speaks much. 

If one addresses those who wish
to learn, without wavering, imparting
understanding, opening up and not
obscuring the teaching. 

Speaking without hesitation nor
getting angry when asked a question,
a monk like this is worthy
to proclaim the teachings. 

If he does not speak up, others know
him not; he is just a wise man mixed
up with fools. But if he speaks about
and teaches the Deathless, others will
know him. So let him light up the Dhamma,
let him lift the sage's banner high. 

The Buddha speaks words that lead
to the winning of security, the ending
of sorrow and the attaining of Nibbana.
Truly, this is the speech supreme. 


I got this from Gemstones of the Good Dhamma (Saddhamma-maniratana), 
Vacavagga.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel342.html#Mit


What do you guys think about it?


Num





 
4125 From: Num 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 3:11am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Amara, et. al. : anger

 
  Hi again,

This part is from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn7-2.html, 
Akkosa Sutta.    How the Buddha teach about insult and anger.  I really like 
it.



I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha 
in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then the brahmin Akkosaka  
("Insulter") Bharadvaja heard that a brahmin of the Bharadvaja clan had gone 
forth from the home life into homelessness in the presence of the Blessed 
One. Angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, 
insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him: "What do you think, brahmin: 
Do friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to you as guests?"

"Yes, Master Gotama, sometimes friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come 
to me as guests."

"And what do you think: Do you serve them with staple & non-staple foods & 
delicacies?"

"Yes, sometimes I serve them with staple & non-staple foods & delicacies."

"And if they don't accept them, to whom do those foods belong?"

"If they don't accept them, Master Gotama, those foods are all mine."

"In the same way, brahmin, that with which you have insulted me, who is not 
insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that 
with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from 
you. It's all yours, brahmin. It's all yours.

"Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is 
taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating 
together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together 
nor sharing your company, brahmin. It's all yours. It's all yours."

"The king together with his court know this of Master Gotama -- 'Gotama the 
contemplative is an arahant' -- and yet still Master Gotama gets angry."[1]

[The Buddha:]
Whence is there anger
for one free from anger,
    tamed,
    living in tune --
one released through right knowing,
    calmed
    & Such.

You make things worse
when you flare up
at someone who's angry.
Whoever doesn't flare up
at someone who's angry
    wins a battle
    hard to win.

You live for the good of both
    -- your own, the other's --
when, knowing the other's provoked,
    you mindfully grow calm.

When you work the cure of both
    -- your own, the other's --
those who think you a fool
know nothing of Dhamma.

When this was said, the brahmin Akkosaka Bharadvaja said to the Blessed One, 
"Magnificent , Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place 
upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to 
one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes 
could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama -- through many lines of 
reasoning -- made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to 
the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. Let me obtain the going forth in 
Master Gotama's presence, let me obtain admission."

Then the brahmin Akkosaka Bharadvaja received the going forth & the admission 
in the Blessed One's presence. And not long after his admission -- dwelling 
alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute -- he in no long time reached & 
remained in the supreme goal of the holy life, for which clansmen rightly go 
forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself in the 
here & now. He knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. 
There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And so Ven. Bharadvaja 
became another one of the Arahants.

Note
1. Akkosaka thinks that the Buddha is cursing him -- and thus angry -- when 
actually the Buddha is simply stating a fact in line with the law of kamma.


Num



 
4126 From: Num 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 3:26am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Amara, et. al.:the way and how to prove what is right

 
  Hi all,

I would like to respond to Erik letter to K.Amara about this quote, "And if 
the good folks here can't show me where I might have mistaken understanding, 
then no one in this world can."

Sorry Erik, I don't know about other but I can say for myself that I cannot 
:-)  I will tell you why.  Appreciate that you give us(not including me) a 
lot of credit.

Let see, this is from Kalama Sutta, 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an3-65.html




...As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, 
"Lord, there are some priests & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They 
expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, 
they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. 
And then other priests & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & 
glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they 
deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They 
leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable priests & 
contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"

"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there 
are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't 
go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical 
conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, 
by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When 
you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these 
qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these 
qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' -- 
then you should abandon them.

"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for 
welfare or for harm?"

"For harm, lord."

"And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, 
kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's 
wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for 
long-term harm & suffering."

"Yes, lord."

"Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When aversion arises in a person, does it 
arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm, lord."

"And this aversive person, overcome by aversion, his mind possessed by 
aversion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another 
person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is 
for long-term harm & suffering."

"Yes, lord."

"Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When delusion arises in a person, does it 
arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm, lord."

"And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by 
delusion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another 
person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is 
for long-term harm & suffering."

"Yes, lord."

"So what do you think, Kalamas: Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?"

"Unskillful, lord."

"Blameworthy or blameless?"

"Blameworthy, lord."

"Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"

"Criticized by the wise, lord."

"When undertaken & carried out, do they lead to harm & to suffering, or not?"

"When undertaken & carried out, they lead to harm & to suffering. That is how 
it appears to us."

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by 
scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement 
through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This 
contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These 
qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities 
are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, 
lead to harm & to suffering" -- then you should abandon them.' Thus was it 
said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, 
by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through 
pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is 
our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are 
skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the 
wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to welfare & to 
happiness' -- then you should enter & remain in them. ...

.......................................................



And then another one, even the Buddha could not help everyone.  I like the 
quote that "the patient needs to work harder than his/her doctor."  When 
something is not right or goes wrong, not blame other, not even yourself.   
Carefully examine, everything has it's multiple causes and conditions. This 
paste is from Ganakamoggallana Sutta, 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn107.html

......
"Brahmin, such is my instruction for those monks who are learners who, 
perfection being not yet attained, dwell longing for the incomparable 
security from the bonds. But as for those monks who are perfected ones, the 
cankers destroyed, who have lived the life, done what was to be done, shed 
the burden, attained to their own goal, the fetters of becoming utterly 
destroyed, and who are freed by perfect profound knowledge -- these things 
conduce both to their abiding in ease here and now as well as to their 
mindfulness and clear consciousness."

When this had been said, the brahmin Ganaka-Moggallana spoke thus to the Lord:

"Now, on being exhorted thus and instructed thus by the good Gotama, do all 
the good Gotama's disciples attain the unchanging goal[8] -- nibbana or do 
some not attain it?"

"Some of my disciples, brahmin, on being exhorted and instructed thus by me, 
attain the unchanging goal -- nibbana; some do not attain it."

"What is the cause, good Gotama, what the reason that; since nibbana does 
exist, since the way leading to nibbana exists, since the good Gotama exists 
as adviser, some of the good Gotama's disciples on being exhorted thus and 
instructed thus by the good Gotama, attain the unchanging goal -- nibbana, 
but some do not attain it?"

"Well then, brahmin, I will question you on this point in reply. As it is 
pleasing to you, so you may answer me. What do you think about this, brahmin? 
Are you skilled in the way leading to Rajagaha?"

"Yes, sir, skilled am I in the way leading to Rajagaha."

"What do you think about this? A man might come along here wanting to go to 
Rajagaha. Having approached you, he might speak thus: 'I want to go to 
Rajagaha, sir; show me the way to this Rajagaha.' You might speak thus to 
him: "Yes, my good man, this road goes to Rajagaha; go along it for a while. 
When you have gone along it for a while you will see a village; go along for 
a while; when you have gone along for a while you will see a market town; go 
for a while. When you have gone along for a while you will see Rajagaha with 
its delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful fields, delightful 
ponds. But although he has been exhorted and instructed thus by you, he might 
take the wrong road and go westwards. Then a second man might come along 
wanting to go to Rajagaha...(as above)... you will see Rajagaha with its 
delightful...ponds.' Exhorted and instructed thus by you he might get to 
Rajagaha safely. What is the cause, brahmin, what the reason that, since 
Rajagaha does exist, since the way leading to Rajagaha exists, since you 
exist as adviser, the one man, although being exhorted and instructed thus by 
you, may take the wrong road and go westwards while the other may get to 
Rajagaha safely?"

"What can I, good Gotama, do in this matter? A shower of the way, good 
Gotama, am I."

"Even so, brahmin, nibbana does exist, the way leading to nibbana exists and 
I exist as adviser. But some of my disciples, on being exhorted and 
instructed thus by me attain the unchanging goal -- nibbana, some do not 
attain it. What can I, brahmin, do in this matter? A shower of the way, 
brahmin, is a Tathagata."

When this had been said, the brahmin Ganaka-Moggallana spoke thus to the Lord:

"Good Gotama, as for those persons who, in want of a way of living, having 
gone forth from home into homelessness without faith, who are crafty, 
fraudulent, deceitful, who are unbalanced and puffed up, who are shifty, 
scurrilous and of loose talk, the doors of whose sense-organs are not 
guarded, who do not know moderation in eating, who are not intent on 
vigilance, indifferent to recluseship, not of keen respect for the training, 
who are ones for abundance, lax, taking the lead in backsliding, shirking the 
burden of seclusion, who are indolent, of feeble energy, of confused 
mindfulness, not clearly conscious, not concentrated but of wandering minds, 
who are weak in wisdom, drivellers -- the good Gotama is not in communion 
with them. But as for those young men of respectable families who have gone 
forth from home into homelessness from faith, who are not crafty, fraudulent 
or deceitful, who are not unbalanced or puffed up, who are not shifty, 
scurrilous or of loose talk, the doors of whose sense-organs are guarded, who 
know moderation in eating, who are intent on vigilance, longing for 
recluseship, of keen respect for the training, who are not ones for 
abundance, not lax, shirking, backsliding, taking the lead in seclusion, who 
are of stirred up energy, self-resolute, with mindfulness aroused, clearly 
conscious, concentrated, their minds one-pointed, who have wisdom, are not 
drivellers -- the good Gotama is in communion with them. As, good Gotama, 
black gum is pointed to as chief of root-scents, as red sandalwood is pointed 
to as chief of the pith-scents, as jasmine is pointed to as chief of the 
flower scents -- even so is the exhortation of the good Gotama highest among 
the teachings of today. Excellent , good Gotama, excellent, good Gotama. As, 
good Gotama, one might set upright what had been upset, or disclose what had 
been covered, or show the way to one who had gone astray, or bring an 
oil-lamp into the darkness so that those with vision might see material 
shapes -- even so in many a figure is dhamma made clear by the good Gotama. I 
am going to the revered Gotama for refuge and to dhamma and to the Order of 
monks May the good Gotama accept me as a lay-follower going for refuge from 
today forth for as long as life lasts."


Hope you have a good jouney.

Anumodhana in your study.

Num



 
4127 From: Alex T 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 8:28am
Subject: Re: To Amara, et. al. : speech

 
  Dear Num,

--- Num wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am going to make 3 posts rgd good speech, anger, the way and how 
to examine 
> dhamma.    I will pretty much cut and paste the sutta from 
accesstoinsight.   
> Pardon me if you guys have already read all of these.   Dhamma is 
deep, so 
> read it carefully and attentively, OK.  

   OK.  Yes, Sir Num.
> 
> Good speech:
> 
> Every fool who is born
> has an axe within his mouth
> with which he cuts himself
> when he uses wrong speech. 


> What do you guys think about it?

   Thank you.  I like it.  I'm sure that I'll like the other two, too.

With appreciation,
Alex Tran

 
4128 From: m. nease   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 8:46am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello <Rikpa on the burning bldg.>

 
  Jina,

--- jinavamsa wrote:

> This may
> not be the 
> time, then, to develop the patience of an ox (to
> stay dumbly
> in a situation that calls for a movement elsewhere),
> as one 
> Thai teacher put it.

Ajahn Chah talked about 'buffalo equanimity'--thanks
for the reminder.

mike


 
4129 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:05am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sammaditthi for Sarah

 
  Erik

If you're looking for doctrinal differences, you need
go no further than the passage from the Geshe's
teaching quoted by you below (assuming it properly
reflects the Tibetan tradition) -

> Rather than use my own poor explanations, perhaps
> the words of 
> someone fully trained in my tradition will be more
> clear. Geshe Tapka 
> Topgyal: "... we could concentrate on the breath
> until we realize 
> emptiness. But mainly it is more effective to
> concentrate on 
> one's 'I' in an attempt to search the nature of 'I':
> How it arises, 
> how it appears to our mind as an independent
> self-entity. Then, once 
> we reach the understanding that there is no such 'I'
> that possesses 
> independent self-entity, or image, but mere absence
> of it, we simply 
> fix our mind upon that mere absence. When, at the
> initial stage, we 
> meditate in this manner, we reject the idea of 'I'.
> We are unable to 
> hold the concept of "I" when we realize mere absence
> of self-entity. 
> This problem will be naturally solved, as we
> continue to cultivate 
> this same practice on our 'I'."

'Concentrating one one's 'I' in an attempt to search
the nature of 'I'' would be anathema to the Pali
tradition, the essence of which is the development of
the understanding of a characteristic of a reality
appearing at the present moment.  I think if we were
to carefully analyse these 2 propositions a number of
inconsistencies would be apparent.  I am confident you
would not be able to find in the Pali literature any
support for the approach you have described.

Jon


 
4130 From: m. nease   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:08am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Masterpiece

 
  Dear Jim,

Sorry to be so long in responding,

--- Jim Anderson  wrote:

> Dear Mike,
> 
> Thank-you for sharing Gayan's notes which I also
> found very interesting,
> especially on the meaning of 'cara.na'. Much
> appreciated! Bhikkhu Bodhi
> translates it as 'Faring on' as if it were the title
> of a specific painting
> which I happen to disagree with. The passage is also
> found in the
> Atthasalini on the meanings of citta (mind,
> consciousness). There are two
> distinct meanings of citta (Skt. citra) that I find
> quite confusing and they
> seem to be mixed together in the translation. One is
> a noun in the sense of
> 'picture, painting' while the other one is an
> adjective in the sense of
> 'variegated, diversified'. In the Atthasalini
> passage just before the
> discussion on the mind regarding its
> picture-creating nature
> (citta-kara.nataa), there is a discussion on mind
> regarding its variegated
> nature (cittataa) according to the translation. The
> latter interpretation is
> one I find puzzling and I wonder why the meaning of
> citta there could not
> also be 'picture' (picture-nature). It doesn't seem
> too difficult to imagine
> the mind as a picture in itself (or in other words a
> theatre, stage-show, or
> movie). So could the mind be seen both as picture
> and picture-creator or
> does this seem contradictory?

Being nearly entirely ignorant of the subject, it's
easy for me to speculate--couldn't this be a
deliberate three-way play on words?  Have you found
other examples of of double- or triple-entendres in
the canon?

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Best Wishes,

mike

p.s.  Thanks for the Sanskrit--it makes Gayan's point
much clearer.



 
 
4131 From: Howard 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 5:45am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sammaditthi for Sarah

 
  Hi, Jon (and Erik) -

In a message dated 3/19/01 9:07:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Jon writes:


> Erik
> 
> If you're looking for doctrinal differences, you need
> go no further than the passage from the Geshe's
> teaching quoted by you below (assuming it properly
> reflects the Tibetan tradition) -
> 
> > Rather than use my own poor explanations, perhaps
> > the words of 
> > someone fully trained in my tradition will be more
> > clear. Geshe Tapka 
> > Topgyal: "... we could concentrate on the breath
> > until we realize 
> > emptiness. But mainly it is more effective to
> > concentrate on 
> > one's 'I' in an attempt to search the nature of 'I':
> > How it arises, 
> > how it appears to our mind as an independent
> > self-entity. Then, once 
> > we reach the understanding that there is no such 'I'
> > that possesses 
> > independent self-entity, or image, but mere absence
> > of it, we simply 
> > fix our mind upon that mere absence. When, at the
> > initial stage, we 
> > meditate in this manner, we reject the idea of 'I'.
> > We are unable to 
> > hold the concept of "I" when we realize mere absence
> > of self-entity. 
> > This problem will be naturally solved, as we
> > continue to cultivate 
> > this same practice on our 'I'."
> 
> 'Concentrating one one's 'I' in an attempt to search
> the nature of 'I'' would be anathema to the Pali
> tradition, the essence of which is the development of
> the understanding of a characteristic of a reality
> appearing at the present moment.  I think if we were
> to carefully analyse these 2 propositions a number of
> inconsistencies would be apparent.  I am confident you
> would not be able to find in the Pali literature any
> support for the approach you have described.
> 
> Jon
> 
=================================
       Hmm. Now I'm not sure whether or not I might have read a Theravadin 
understanding into what Erik wrote that wasn't actually there. Erik, what do 
you think? Did I misinterpret what the Geshe said? How does one see the 
absence of an "I" in, or associated with, the khandas without examining the 
khandas? I assumed that such examination is the basis of the method: looking 
... looking for a self, a core, an essence, and coming up empty-handed, 
seeing only impersonal, dependently arisen, fleeting phenomena which are 
nothing in-and-of-themselves.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4132 From: Herman Hofman   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 11:54am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Thank you kindly for your reply. There is much to digest there. If I could
share some thoughts that arise on reflecting on your post.



>--- "Herman Hofman"  wrote:
>>
>> If there is no self, and there is belief in no-self, why is just
>about every
>> post here and elsewhere phrased in the language of self? (meaning
>I , me ,
>> you, them etc). What is meant when an email announces " I
>this....." "You
>> that"?
>
>Herman, no need to worry about conventional labels like personal
>pronouns. The Buddha used them all the time. Understanding no-self
>does not mean abandoning everyday language!
>

Yes, I agree. No need to seek the truth in "words", they are just labels,
pointers to realities and illusions.


>"Self" in the Buddhist sense refers to the specific term "atta"
>or "atman." No-self (anatta/anatman/emptiness) refers to the fact
>that nothing possess a fixed nature, or any "true" entitiness of its
>own. Anatta refers to the fact that among the parts of a collection
>there is truly nothing partaking of a fixed, or permanent "self,"

Yes, there is no lasting self. But some phenomena last longer than others.
And though the component particles may arise and decay billions of times
each second, they do not arise haphazardly, randomly, they arise according
to conditions. And the conditions do not change randomly or haphazardly. The
only phenomena we know about are the ones that reoccur, according to a
structure (the rest pass to quickly).

>that what we perceive is nothing but a changing collection of parts.
>There is truly no "there" there when we break it all down, in other
>words. Particles? Do they even have "true" existence? Modern physics
>says no to even this. So we really have nothing substantial anywhere!
>We do have appearances, though, and stragely enough, even though
>nothing possesses a fixed "core" or "essence" things still appear.

I am glad you mention physics. Perhaps I can slip biology in here. Our
bodies, though they are impermanent, are structured according to the genes.
The particles that make up the genes arise and decay rapidly, yet the
structure of the genes remains fairly much the same for the lifetime of the
body.

And this structure of the genes determines the structure of the body, the
component particles of which arise and decay billions of times each second.
Yet there is a structure to this body , a sense of self in biological terms.
The body recognises and accepts itself and rejects living matter with
genetic matter foreign to it.

And this body, impermanent as it is, conditions it's inseperable twin, the
mind.

My 3 year old nephew was run over by a car a month ago. His skull had
multiple fractures, and bone fragments became embedded in his brain. He has
lost all sense of smell and taste. The body conditions the mind. The mind
conditions the body. There is seeing, no seer, hearing, no hearer and in
this case neither smelling or smeller, tasting or taster.

>The capacity to change a characteristic of things. In this same way,
>emptiness/anatta is a characteristic of (and characterizes) all
>phenomena (even Nibbana), including the collection of parts you
>designate "Herman." "Herman" is merely a label applied to a
>collection of arms, legs, torso, head, born in a specific place, etc.
>There is no real "Howard," though. These are merely mental
>imputations, but, unfortunately, imputations we take for "self"
>or "real." By mistaking these labels of designation for "realities,"
>we suffer. Arahats have destroyed this tendency because they have
>eradicated all ignorance in regard to "self."
>
There is a chromosomally unchanging Howard, and Herman etc. Not visible to
the naked eye nor apparent after thirty years of introspection. Without the
chromosomes, this discussion forum would not exist.

This too is a reality.


Thank you again


Herman


 
4133 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:38pm
Subject: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/4133?expand=1

 
  Azita

What a pleasant surprise!  Talk about a voice from the
past.  Conditions for a lot of thinking and stories,
mostly without mindfulness, of course.  No change
there in 20+ years.

Looking forward to hearing more from you.  Please feel
free to bring up anything that interests you.

My best to any of the others, if you are still in
contact.

Jon

--- azita gill  wrote: > hi,
dhamma friends, I have been reading a lot of the
> questions and answers on insight, as meditation
> subject and as subject for everyday use(so to
> speak).
> I know very little about mediation in fact, so I
> cannot comment with any degree of experience, but
> the
> common-old-garden-variety Sati i have been learning
> about for a long time.  I remember Khun Sujin's
> regular comment to us in our discussion groups
> was"what is your reality now?  Is it seeing,
> hearing,
> tasting, touching, smelling or thinking?"  those
> words, along with many others, have helped me thro.
> lots of situations.  This is a very practical life
> skill for me.  I am happy to have connected with
> dhamma friends again,          Metta,  Azita  
> 



 
4134 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 3:32pm
Subject: Cybele, the dynamic meditator

 
  Dear Cybele, 

I hope you're getting on well in London. My mother
(who lives in Sussex) tells me she can no longer walk
on the beaches, in the woods or on the country lanes
because they are all closed for the first time
ever;-(! And here I am letting poor England down
further by using appetizers and realizing this and
that with zzzs everywhere! <Amara, I know when I'm
fighting a losing battle..;-(>  

Cybele, back to all your nice posts back to me and
others. Sorry for the delay, but I think we've all
been distracted by Erik's tasty brains. (I hope he
responds to your note to him, btw). If you don't mind,
I'll just pick up a couple of points only.

1. PASSION 
You asked if I find it 'totally incompatible with
appreciation of dhamma?'
Cybele, when we talk about passion, we're usually
referring to (strong) lobha (attachment). Any reality,
including this one, can be the object of understanding
and in this way it is not incompatible at all. What we
can say, is that at the moments of passion themselves,
there is no appreciation of dhamma. So they arise at
different moments. We all have a lot of lobha or
passion. It's good to recognize it rather than try to
suppress it as I know you realize, but we shouldn't
kid ourselves that it's anything other than lobha.

2. CULTIVATION
Let me quote you: '..I mean knowledge, awareness are
also a skill therefore you can develop it, being
always conscious of the ephemeral nature of everything
and therefore you have these little awakenings and you
fall asleep again for sue but it is like planting
seeds without being eager to collect the fruits but we
need 'cultivating' isn't it'.

Cybele, awareness (sati) arises just for a brief
moment to be aware on a reality such as seeing or
passion. When we have the idea of 'being conscious of
the ephemeral nature of everything', isn't this just
thinking? It doesn't mean it's not wise thinking, but
it's not the same as understanding the seeing or the
passion now.  If there isn't this direct understanding
or awareness there will continue to be the idea of
someone who is conscious or watching or observing or
noting realities because the namas (realities which
are experiencing an object) are being taken for a
self.

The moments of awareness and understanding can and
have to be cultivated, but WE can't do it....

Cybele, like you, I appreciate (and am very attached
to) my dhamma friends. Hopefully we'll all be around
for a good long while to help each other. Please let
us know anytime the going gets tough if we can help.
Never mind how 'frugal' the meals. 

Actually, I know this is a very frugal mouthful. When
I went through your delightful posts, there were so
many enjoyable and good comments, that there is little
for me to bite into!

I hope your friends are doing well and Cybele, thank
you for your kind comments too about being 
'warm-hearted', even though 'Anglo-saxon'. Sorry,
about the last bit (Anglo-saxon), maybe that will be
improved in another life! 

With best wishes and respect,
Sarah

p.s. what did you think of 'hard-core dhamma'? No? O.K
let's stick to dynamic meditators...it has a certain
'ring' to it.....


 
4135 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 5:06pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Dear Erik,

Anumoddhana for your answers.  I wonder if I may bother you
to further explain the following paragraph:

For this reason, anatta is the flipside of dependent
origination
(paticca samuppada), and is a characteristic of all things,
nibbana
as well as all sankharas (composed things). It is also
ultimately no
different from dependent origination if you really
understand it.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik 
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 5:39 AM
> Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self
>
>
> --- "Herman Hofman"
>  wrote:
> >
> > If there is no self, and there is belief in
> no-self, why is just
> about every
> > post here and elsewhere phrased in the language
> of self? (meaning
> I , me ,
> > you, them etc). What is meant when an email
> announces " I
> this....." "You
> > that"?
>
> Herman, no need to worry about conventional
> labels like personal
> pronouns. The Buddha used them all the time.
> Understanding no-self
> does not mean abandoning everyday language!
>
> "Self" in the Buddhist sense refers to the
> specific term "atta"
> or "atman." No-self (anatta/anatman/emptiness)
> refers to the fact
> that nothing possess a fixed nature, or any
> "true" entitiness of its
> own. Anatta refers to the fact that among the
> parts of a collection
> there is truly nothing partaking of a fixed, or
> permanent "self,"
> that what we perceive is nothing but a changing
> collection of parts.
> There is truly no "there" there when we break it
> all down, in other
> words. Particles? Do they even have "true"
> existence? Modern physics
> says no to even this. So we really have nothing
> substantial anywhere!
> We do have appearances, though, and stragely
> enough, even though
> nothing possesses a fixed "core" or "essence"
> things still appear.
>
> For this reason, anatta is the flipside of
> dependent origination
> (paticca samuppada), and is a characteristic of
> all things, nibbana
> as well as all sankharas (composed things). It is
> also  ultimately no
> different from dependent origination if you
> really understand it.
>
> There are many subtle wrong views about anatta,
> and it takes a lot to
> get rid of them. Many people think anatta means
> "nonexistence," for
> example. But this is a major fallacy and a wrong
> view. Another
> mistaken view is that things have "true
> existence," perhaps the
> biggest problem most people have. There are many,
> many meditations to
> help get rid of misunderstandings relating to
> this. The Middle Way of
> understanding this is to thread the two extremes
> of nonexistence and
> inherent (non-produced) existence. Practicing
> vipassana will yield
> insight into this when insight arises in relation
> to paramattha
> dhammas. If you're a jhana meditator like some
> here, then in the
> jhanas you'll be able to perform meditations on
> this specifically.
> Either way will eventually bring about direct
> insight into the nature
> of this pervasive characteristic of all realities, and
> simultaneously, into the characteristics of
> impermanence and dukkha,
> and the Four Noble Truths. This is provided all
> the prerequisites
> have been met in other aspects of practice, such
> as keeping the
> precepts, dana, sila and removal of the five hindrances.
>
> > Taking it further, is there not a positive
> definition of not-self
> that can
> > be used? How is it that a not-characteristic is
> considered a
> pervasive
> > characteristic of all realities?
>
> The capacity to change a characteristic of
> things. In this same way,
> emptiness/anatta is a characteristic of (and
> characterizes) all
> phenomena (even Nibbana), including the
> collection of parts you
> designate "Herman." "Herman" is merely a label
> applied to a
> collection of arms, legs, torso, head, born in a
> specific place, etc.
> There is no real "Howard," though. These are
> merely mental
> imputations, but, unfortunately, imputations we
> take for "self"
> or "real." By mistaking these labels of
> designation for "realities,"
> we suffer. Arahats have destroyed this tendency
> because they have
> eradicated all ignorance in regard to "self."
>

 
4136 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 5:10pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sammaditthi for Sarah

 
  Dear Erik,

Yet another question from me.  How do you investigate
Nibbana being a jhana meditator?

kom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik 
> I agree on the paramattha dhammas part. As you
> know, nibbana is also
> a paramattha dhamma, and is one object of
> investigation for certain
> types of jhana meditators. For these types of
> meditators watching the
> arising and passing away of namarupa isn't
> considered as effective.

 
4137 From: teng kee ong   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 7:36pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight

 
  -----Original Message-----
From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:51:53 +0800 (CST)
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight
Dear Jon,
I know where you take your writing.The book  abhidhaamatthasangha pts translation by a myanmar scholar.The view is from mahasi and his followers.That book in pali didn't talk about sukhavipassaka but is only the translator's notes.As for   ledi sayadaw ,he didn't have the same view with mahasi sayadaw because he thinked sukkhavipasaka is a harder method.Only yogi with higher wisdom can do it in contrary to mahasi sayadaw view of it is a easier way and anyone can do it.
I must ask you to read a book call -criticism and replies satipatthana by mahasi friend.They agree it might be a lokiya jhana after insight but not the lokuttara jhana based on patisambhida com.

> Teng Kee
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> > This is just mahasi sayadaw's view but surely not
> > the comment by commentators.
> 
> Just to clarify, the quote I gave was taken directly
> from the explanatory material that accompanies the
> translation of the section of the Abhidhammattha
> Sangaha.  It purports to be drawn mainly from 2
> commentaries on A-S - one from the late 12th century,
> the other from Ledi Sayadaw (late 19th century).  It
> is certainly nothing to do with Mahasi Sayadaw, as far
> as I know.
> 
> To be a
> > sukkhavipassaka,you must be a viewing type but
> > craving type for samathayanika(see satipatthana
> > sutta com).We have 2 samathayanika doing kaya and
> > vedana while sukkhavipassaka doing citta and dhamma
> > anupassana.I have to mention sukkhavipassaka will
> > have lokiya jhana after insight (khanika samadhi
> > follow by vikhamabhana samadhi)before that citta
> > vithi for lokuttara magga citta.See patisambhida
> > com.It is  only a thera view for sukkhavipasaka
> > having first jhana factors but the other two think
> > they will have higher jhana(see visuddhimagga)
> > If you think mahasi sayadaw is better than
> > buddhaghosa and dhammapala,I don't mind at all.
> > from Teng Kee
> 
> I will need to spend time working through this before
> I can give any meaningful response.  Are you able to
> give  any more exact details of the references you
> have in mind?  That would help a lot.
> 
> Jon
> 

 
4138 From: teng kee ong   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 8:05pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight

 
  -----Original Message-----
From: Robert Kirkpatrick 
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 04:52:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight
Dear Robert,
I will do it in pts book but not in here because it have too many things to mention,not just like mahasi method of anyone can be a sukkhavipassaka and his method is mainly kaya anupassana(for samathayanika inferior type only)etc.I have to mention that we can't read the lost anguttara tika (not the one by sariputta )because it was lost.That book might have some helpful comments.Why 2 samathayanika (tanha type-see satipatthana sutta english translation online in www.accesstoinsight.org )have to emerge from jhana ?Maybe is because they are lacking of samadhi and having too much nivarana.Maybe sukkhavipassaka are having not enough insight?I have to read that comment in anguttara purana tika because i can only find it in netti and petakopadesa which is not helpful enough.Maybe the reverse is true -that samathayanika  is lacking of insight etc(see yuganaddha sutta in anugattara nikaya book 2.Petakopadesa and netti even said samathayanika will have dukkhapatipada but sukkhavipassaka will have sukkha patipada.I can 't agree on it because anguttara nikaya com said emerge from jhana will have sukkhapatipada.
The  only sure word i can say is that mahasi sayadaw is surely wrong.Doing insight (without coming out from jhana)with 8 kusala javana(khanika samadhi )will not have jhana factors and the samadhi bala(power).But emerge from jhana for samathayanika will have jhana factors because it will be khanika samadhi with the jhana javana.sukhavipassaka will have the samadhi like this(lokiya jhana)after almost completing his insight.
From Teng Kee




 Dear teng,
> This is a crucial topic and your input is very helpful. But
> could you be even more helpful by giving detailed explanations.
> I think I see what you are saying but I want to be sure. 
> Is it that the commentaries are saying that sukkhavipassaka only
> go by way of citta and dhammanupassana? Dhammanupassana is
> comprehensive and includes the 5 khandas that this wouldn't
> surprise me. There are several passages where jhayati(spelling?)
> are broken into two types: those who develop the 40 objects for
> samatha and those who insight the characteristics of the khandas
> , dhatus and ayatanas.
> robert
> 
> --- teng kee ong  wrote:
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonothan Abbott
> > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:50:22 +0800 (CST)
> > > Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying
> > insight
> > 
> > Dear Jon,
> > This is just mahasi sayadaw's view but surely not the comment
> > by commentators.To be a sukkhavipassaka,you must be a viewing
> > type but craving type for samathayanika(see satipatthana sutta
> > com).We have 2 samathayanika doing kaya and vedana while
> > sukkhavipassaka doing citta and dhamma anupassana.I have to
> > mention sukkhavipassaka will have lokiya jhana after insight
> > (khanika samadhi follow by vikhamabhana samadhi)before that
> > citta vithi for lokuttara magga citta.See patisambhida com.It
> > is  only a thera view for sukkhavipasaka having first jhana
> > factors but the other two think they will have higher
> > jhana(see visuddhimagga)
> > If you think mahasi sayadaw is better than buddhaghosa and
> > dhammapala,I don't mind at all.
> > from Teng Kee
> > 
> > 
> >  Erik

 
4139 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 8:50pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight

 
  Dear teng,
My comments are between yours:
--- teng kee ong  wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> Dear Robert,
> I will do it in pts book but not in here because it have too
> many things to mention,

I will be looking forward to it. If you could send me your notes
beforehand this would be much appreciated.

not just like mahasi method of anyone
> can be a sukkhavipassaka and his method is mainly kaya
> anupassana(for samathayanika inferior type only)etc.

Yes, Although the mahasi people do mention other doors they seem
to emphasise mainly on kaya or the four elements. 

I have to
> mention that we can't read the lost anguttara tika (not the
> one by sariputta )because it was lost.That book might have
> some helpful comments.

OK. Sad news indeed- the ancient tikas are very useful.

Why 2 samathayanika (tanha type-see
> satipatthana sutta english translation online in
> www.accesstoinsight.org )have to emerge from jhana ?Maybe is
> because they are lacking of samadhi and having too much
> nivarana.

Isn't it because in jhana because of the fixed concentration 
awreness of rise and fall is practically unattainable. it is
immediately after leaving jhana that insight can understand the
ephemeral nature of the jhana factors?

Maybe sukkhavipassaka are having not enough insight?I
> have to read that comment in anguttara purana tika because i
> can only find it in netti and petakopadesa which is not
> helpful enough.Maybe the reverse is true -that samathayanika 
> is lacking of insight etc(see yuganaddha sutta in anugattara
> nikaya book 2.Petakopadesa and netti even said samathayanika
> will have dukkhapatipada but sukkhavipassaka will have sukkha
> patipada.I can 't agree on it because anguttara nikaya com
> said emerge from jhana will have sukkhapatipada.

This is very interesting. In the netti it indicates that
neyya(slow ones) need to be  taught many  details and go via
insight rather than samatha. This seems to show that the
sukkhavipassaka is for the less developed among us (neyya).I can
find exact references if this is useful.


> The  only sure word i can say is that mahasi sayadaw is surely
> wrong.Doing insight (without coming out from jhana)with 8
> kusala javana(khanika samadhi )will not have jhana factors and
> the samadhi bala(power).But emerge from jhana for
> samathayanika will have jhana factors because it will be
> khanika samadhi with the jhana javana.sukhavipassaka will have
> the samadhi like this(lokiya jhana)after almost completing his
> insight.

OK. You may be  right here.  I would maintain that during
initial stages of insight, (i.e. preceeding the first
vipassana-nana (nama-rupaparicchedda -nana) and onwards up until
the later stages of vipassana, but before actual path moments)
that only khanika samadhi is needed. During actual moments of
vipassana this samadhi, although momentary is very strong -
close to upacara (access) but less than full jhana. Now in the
moments just preceeding penetration of nibbana it may be that
all the jhana factors are present and the power of samadhi is
equivalent to that of jhana. Certainly, the moments when nibbana
is insighted are considered as jhana, even for the
sukkhavipassaka.
Can you agree with this?

I think it would be useful to discuss this with people like Nina
van gorkom or some of the pali experts at the foundation in
Bangkok. They would have translators available for such a
discussion.


Robert


 
4140 From: Erik 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 9:06pm
Subject: Re: Sammaditthi for Sarah

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Jon (and Erik) -
> 
> In a message dated 3/19/01 9:07:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> Jon writes:

> > 'Concentrating one one's 'I' in an attempt to search
> > the nature of 'I'' would be anathema to the Pali
> > tradition, the essence of which is the development of
> > the understanding of a characteristic of a reality
> > appearing at the present moment.

No one's looking for a "self," especially not when the entire point 
of this meditation is to recognize selflessness (emptiness)! What is 
done is that anything arising to the mind partaking of a "self" is 
negated as an impossible mode of existence. To know what these 
impossible modes are requires some training and preparatory 
analytical meditations to clear away the coarsest wrong views. If you 
known Buddhagosa's analyses of anatta, then you will have many of the 
analyses I mention (I believe Vis. XX). But this is subtle stuff too. 
It can take a long time to really understand what wrong views are in 
the first place, and this is the role of preparatory analytical 
meditation, which by themselves can take you a VERY long way, to the 
very brink of insight itself.

>  I think if we were
> > to carefully analyse these 2 propositions a number of
> > inconsistencies would be apparent.  I am confident you
> > would not be able to find in the Pali literature any
> > support for the approach you have described.

I am confident you have not understood it as it was intended, nor 
could you (or anyone) without a lot of training. I am merely 
suggesting that one be careful looking at another system and not get 
tripped up by differences in approach and terminology. I am finding 
just how hard this is for me here. I have learned just how ingorant I 
am of how some things are interperterd in Theravada, and how much I 
have to learn before I can hope to communicate effectively in ITS 
language coming from ITS point of view. I will say the same is true 
for looking at anyone's school, and I am saying this with a 
completely new appreciation for what this means, thanks to the very 
tough customers in this neck of the woods (for whom I am deeply 
grateful)! :) :) :)

That said, I think it is helpful to understand the principle of these 
meditations and WHY they work. WHY does watching present realities 
eventually bring about insight? WHY does meditating on emptiness 
eventually bring about insight? Whatever scriptural collections 
things appear in is far less important than knowing why a given 
meditation will yield the result, I think. Not that this would be 
easy to articulate, but I am curious if anyone here can. That would 
help explain why we do these things, I think. I am certainly curious.

> > 
> > Jon
> > 
> =================================
>        Hmm. Now I'm not sure whether or not I might have read a 
Theravadin 
> understanding into what Erik wrote that wasn't actually there. 
Erik, what do 
> you think? 

I think your connection clarified my understanding of the commonality 
between the two meditations, as what I mention is coming from the 
anatta side of negating the impossible mode of existence (atta) as it 
appears, rather than investigating the character as it appears by 
itself. Honestly, this is a very interesting observation you've just 
made, at least I think so. I have never had to try to understand 
satipatthana in terms of this before, but you drew the link, and in 
my thinking very carefully about it, I'm asking myself why didn't I 
see that connection before?

> Did I misinterpret what the Geshe said? How does one see the 
> absence of an "I" in, or associated with, the khandas without 
examining the 
> khandas? 

One doesn't. How could one?

> I assumed that such examination is the basis of the method: looking 
> ... looking for a self, a core, an essence, and coming up empty-
handed, 
> seeing only impersonal, dependently arisen, fleeting phenomena 
which are 
> nothing in-and-of-themselves.

That would be on the money, as they say. That is the emptiness stragy 
in a nutshell. Cutting through appearances of self-existence.

 
4141 From: Erik 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 9:14pm
Subject: Re: Self / Not self

 
  --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote:
> Dear Erik,
> 
> Anumoddhana for your answers.  I wonder if I may bother you
> to further explain the following paragraph:
> 
> For this reason, anatta is the flipside of dependent
> origination
> (paticca samuppada), and is a characteristic of all things,
> nibbana
> as well as all sankharas (composed things). It is also
> ultimately no
> different from dependent origination if you really
> understand it.

There is no difference between anatta and paticca samuppada at core. 
Both refer to the same reality slicing it from a slightly different 
angle. Anatta denotes this reality from perspective of lack of fixed, 
substantial essence. Paticca samuppada, same reality from the 
perspective of dependence. Two lenses or angles, one reality. One 
imples the other as well, anatta implies dependence; dependence 
implies anatta; anicca implies dependence and anatta; anicca implies 
dukkha. Many many ways of looking at this problem!

 
4142 From: m. nease   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 9:43pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  Dear Friends,

Alex asked me to post a question I'd asked her
off-line.  It's out of the context of the discussion
we were having, so I hope it makes sense:

> >Still, it does seem to me that an arising citta
> >would
> >already have an object, so how could it have the
> >subsiding citta as an object too (or was it
> >vice-versa)?  You would know this a lot better than
> >I...

The question had to do with whether an arising citta
'sees' the previous, subsiding citta, or something to
that effect.  I asked it because I thought that I
recalled reading that a citta only takes one object.

Thanks in advance.

mike


 
4143 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 9:57pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Erik,
I agree. Sometimes when we say anatta it is not clear that the
meaning is as  conditioned phenomena. That is why the details
help us to understand better.
Robert
--- Erik wrote:
> --- "Kom Tukovinit" 
> wrote:
> > Dear Erik,
> > 
> > Anumoddhana for your answers.  I wonder if I may bother you
> > to further explain the following paragraph:
> > 
> > For this reason, anatta is the flipside of dependent
> > origination
> > (paticca samuppada), and is a characteristic of all things,
> > nibbana
> > as well as all sankharas (composed things). It is also
> > ultimately no
> > different from dependent origination if you really
> > understand it.
> 
> There is no difference between anatta and paticca samuppada at
> core. 
> Both refer to the same reality slicing it from a slightly
> different 
> angle. Anatta denotes this reality from perspective of lack of
> fixed, 
> substantial essence. Paticca samuppada, same reality from the 
> perspective of dependence. Two lenses or angles, one reality.
> One 
> imples the other as well, anatta implies dependence;
> dependence 
> implies anatta; anicca implies dependence and anatta; anicca
> implies 
> dukkha. Many many ways of looking at this problem!
> 
> 


 
4145 From: Amara   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:36pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  --- "m. nease"  wrote:
> Dear Friends,
> 
> Alex asked me to post a question I'd asked her
> off-line.  It's out of the context of the discussion
> we were having, so I hope it makes sense:
> 
> > >Still, it does seem to me that an arising citta
> > >would
> > >already have an object, so how could it have the
> > >subsiding citta as an object too (or was it
> > >vice-versa)?  You would know this a lot better than
> > >I...
> 
> The question had to do with whether an arising citta
> 'sees' the previous, subsiding citta, or something to
> that effect.  I asked it because I thought that I
> recalled reading that a citta only takes one object.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> mike


Dear Alex and Mike,

From my understanding, both the citta and its object arise from 
conditions, therefore when the conditions are right, for example when 
there is sati arising with it there could be study of the previous 
citta which would make the characteristics of the citta that had just 
fallen away the object of the study.  For example anger that had just 
fallen away that instant could become the object of kusala sati 
arising to study its crude and violent nature, at which instant the 
anger is replaced by a moment of peaceful bhavana.  But for that tiny 
instant only, then anger might or might not arise again according to 
conditions.  When the conditions are right, however, it is surprising 
how a tiny instant of awareness can attenuate our clinging to anger, 
sometimes stopping it entirely!

Hope this helps, dear friends,

Amara

 
4146 From: Desmond Chiong   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:15am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  "It is true that the right samadhi could lead to panna, but not without
the studies of realities, even based on a higher peace of the jhana."

I like the way you put it like above.
However with samadhi at the level of equanimity one can not see realities, 
without getting "all shook up". That's why. in karuna to all beings, I will 
never undertake to suggest  to them to "see" realty without the development 
of equanimity.

Quoting largely from Visuddhi Magga, equanimity can  be understood as 
follows:

In answer to the question of "How amny kinds of concentration are there?", 
it can be answered as : there are two kinds, [1]that accompanied by bliss 
and [2]that accompanied by equanimity.
( access concentration can be accompanied by bliss or accompanied by 
equanimity. )

Equanimity can also be understood from the followings, too:
In the third tetrad, the first jhana has five factors:
[1]applied thought
[2]sustained thought
[3]happiness
[4]bliss
[5]concentration
The second jhana has three fasctors after eliminating the first two, 
[1]applied and [2]sustained thought
The third jhana has two factors, after eliminating factor [3]happiness
The fourth jhana has [4]bliss eliminated and the concentration is 
accompanied only by equanimity

( Among those that bring absorption, the ten kasinas, together with 
mindfulness of breathing bring all the four jhanas. )

When the state of equanimity is intensified: the states called 
[concentration] and [understanding] are developed, coupled together, without 
either one exceeding the other. (very important)

He dwells in equanimity: it watches things as they arise [UPApattito 
IKKHATI], thus it is in equanimity [upekkha- or looking]; it sees fairly, 
sees without partiality [a-pakkha-patita].

Equanimity of ten kinds:
[1] six factored equanimity, in one whose cankers are destroyed
[2] Equanimity as a devine abiding
[3] Equanimity as an enlightenment factor
[4] Equanimity of energy
[5] Equanimity about formations (8 kinds of equanimity arise through 
concentration, 10 kinds of equanimity arise through insight)
[6] Equanimity as a feeling
[7] Equanimity about insight
[8] Equanimity as specific neutrality
[9] Equanimity of jhana
[10] Purifying Euquanimity

Out of the ten, only equanimity of energy and equanimity as feeling are 
different from both and from each other.

Hope the above helps in clarifying and understanding of Equanimity.

with metta,
des



>From: "Amara" 
>Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom
>Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:48:30 -0000
>
>--- "Desmond Chiong" 
>wrote:
> > When you read at this anapana sutta carefully, you will notice that
>through
> > the proper practice of anapana meditation:
> > one begins to notice the [1]body, [3]mind and the cetasika
>[3]feeling and
> > [4] metal formations.
> > But the noticing of them will be of no avail until one can "see" the
>mind,
> > body and cetasikas with [7] equanimity.
>
>Dear Des,
>
>May I ask what you mean by equanimity here?  In the Tipitaka, samatha
>is peacefulness from lobha, dosa and moha, therefore any instant the
>citta evolves with dana, sila or bhavana.  Vipassana at each moment
>that sati arises in daily life is also bhavana, the development of
>panna that knows things as they really are.  As in several of Jon's
>post, it is one of the five components of the eightfold magga citta
>that is being developed each time sati arises to be aware of things as
>they really are right now, as when we read this message.  Realities
>are appearing and we do not know that the body is in contact with the
>chair or the keyboard, that hardness appears, that motion and tension
>is being experienced through the body sense as you type and move the
>mouse. That through the eyes realities appear and fall away, all the
>panna that could be accumulated through instants of sati right now.
>And the peace from all kilesa at the tiny instants of sati, when the
>self is not there and panna accumulates right understanding further.
>It is true that the right samadhi could lead to panna, but not without
>the studies of realities, even based on a higher peace of the jhana.
>But most people who have lost the skills of samadhi do not need this
>round abouts route to sati, they could study as most did in the times
>of the Buddha, where those with Sukkhavipassaka were more numerous
>even among the bhikkhus.  This is not to mention all the millions of
>lay people who also attained different levels without becoming
>ordained, although those who became the arahanta would not remain a
>layperson any more.
>
>Amara
>
>
> > Therefore if one practices anapana meditation to the higher level of
> > concentration and reaches the point of equanimity in [samatha] or
> > [appetizer], one can then automatically acheive the [vipassana] or
>[main
> > entree] and "see" the mind, body and cetasika.
> > Proper insight is after all not that difficult to understand but can
>be
> > acheived only through hard practice.
> >
> > with metta,
> > des
> >
> >
 
4147 From: Dan 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 11:48pm
Subject: On strategy (Erik)

 
  Dear Erik,
We all have a tendency to break Buddha's exhortations about speech. In 
discussing Dhamma, it's very easy to forget that: "One should not 
insist on local language, and one should not override normal usage." 
[MN 139]. When you used the word "strategy" a few days ago, there was 
quite an outcry about that word. Was the outcry an insistence on local 
language and overriding normal usage? It may well have been, but I'm 
not so sure…

In any case, you have good company in using "strategy". Bhikkhu Bodhi 
wrote: "The path begins with the minimal degree of right understanding 
and right thought need to take up the training, and there unfolds 
through its three groups as a systematic stategy designed to uproot 
the defilements that generate suffering." (Introduction to 
Nyanaponika's "Vision of Dhamma", BPS). I'm not sure how others in dsg 
would think about this view, but to me it sounds about right. This is 
quite different from taking an "anatta strategy", though, because an 
"anatta strategy" might end up being excessively narrow. Bhikkhu Bodhi 
writes (Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma, BPS pariyatti edition, 
2000): "When insight reaches its culmination, it settles upon one of 
three contemplations--of impermanence, or suffering, or non-self--as 
determined by the inclination of the meditator." Which of the three 
contemplations are insighted is not a choice of strategy. Just before 
magga and phala, for a few brief moments, one of the three 
characteristics becomes extraordinarily clear. There's no choosing 
which becomes clear, and it may well be a mistake to choose one of the 
three as a "strategy."

Dan

 
4148 From: Dan 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 11:49pm
Subject: "Discouraging" (Howard)

 
  Dear Howard,
When I read the Suttas, I feel "satisfied and delight in the Blessed 
One's words" and well "instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged." 
When I read the interview with Nina, I feel dissatisfied and do not 
delight in the words. I certainly don't feel urged, roused, and 
encouraged--more like sedated and discouraged. Why is that? I'm not 
exactly sure, but it seems that what she says is so much different 
from what the Buddha said. Many people have noted that Nina and some 
of the dsg seem to discourage formal practice of meditation, but I 
have never seen anything in the Tipitaka or commentaries to even hint 
at such discouragement. There is also a passive, fatalistic sense to 
some of the writing--a sense that is utterly lacking in Buddha's 
words. 

Buddha said: "One CAN abandon the unwholesome, O Monks! …One CAN 
cultivate the wholesome, O Monks!" (AN 2:19). And a large part of his 
teaching is devoted to practical advice on how to do so: "Meditate, 
Ananda, and do not delay or you will regret it later." (MN 152). How 
to meditate? Satipatthana sutta and anapanasati  sutta give some good 
suggestions, and meditation on illimitables and the kasinas and other 
suggestions are mentioned frequently. It requires a good deal of 
effort, as suggested by the commentary to the Sutta Nipata (Simile of 
the serpent) indicates. It discusses how a snake sheds its skin as a 
simile for how a monk walks on the path: "It is similar with a monk. 
The 'law of his own species' is sila. Standing firm in his own law of 
virtue, and seeing the misery involved, he becomes disgusted with the 
'old worn-out skin' of the 'here and beyond,' comprising (such pairs 
of opposites) as his own and others' personalized existence, tec., 
which are productive of suffering. Thus he becomes disgusted and, 
seeking the support of a noble friend, he summons is utmost strength 
by way of the path factor, right effort. Dividing day and night into 
six periods, during daytime, while walking up and down or sitting, he 
purifies the mind from obstructive things; doing so also in the first 
and the last watch of the night, he lies down for rest only in the 
night's middle watch. Thus he strives and struggles. Just as the 
serpent bends its tail, so he bends his legs to a crosslegged posture. 
As the serpent exhales forcefully, so the mond musters all his 
unremittinig strength. As the serpent expands its hood, so the monk 
works for an expansion of his insight. And just as the serpent sheds 
its old skin, so the monk abandons the here anre the beyond, and being 
now freed of the burden, he goes forth to the Nibbana-element that is 
without a residue of the groups of existence." 

One of the things that sets Buddhism apart is the abundance of good 
instructions for how proceed.


Dan

 
4149 From: Dan 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 11:50pm
Subject: Very brief (Sarah)

 
  Dear Sarah,
Thanks for the thoughtful post! I always enjoy your insights. I don't 
always agree, but I do always learn something. Thanks. I'm sure I 
don't have a lot of time before my fever climbs back up (it's been 
running up and down from about 102 to 105.6 at its highest), so I 
can't write a lot.

First, in you quote about right view being the forerunner (MN 117), I 
noticed you clipped off what Buddha said was the mundane right view, 
most importantly that it is a belief in kamma/vipaka and that there 
are enlightened people. 

You write: "There are many, many opportunities for moments of metta 
when one understands the value of friendliness and kindness to others. 
I don't need to go looking for a corpse…." Good for you, Sarah. As for 
me, I'm not so confident that attachment is such a small fetter for me 
that I'd feel comfortable explicitly rejecting Buddha's exhortation to 
meditate on foulness as a way to combat the taint of sense desire.

Dan

 
4150 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 0:02am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Dear Erik,

More questions for you.  It would be very helpful to me to
see further (nit-picking) details.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik 

> > For this reason, anatta is the flipside of dependent
> > origination
> > (paticca samuppada), and is a characteristic of
> all things,
> > nibbana
> > as well as all sankharas (composed things). It is also
> > ultimately no
> > different from dependent origination if you really
> > understand it.
>

> There is no difference between anatta and paticca
> samuppada at core.
> Both refer to the same reality slicing it from a
> slightly different
> angle.

I assume the second statement here explains the first.  I
have some understandings that are at odd with what you are
saying, so I hope you may be able to explain it.  I
understand there are some differences between realities that
are part of paticca samuppada and realities with anatta as
their characteristics.
1) Paticasamupada includes all the kandhas, but doesn't
include nibbana.  Anatta includes all realities, including
nibanna.
2) Paticasamupada explains the process/causality of
realities (only) leading to rebirth at this moment /
patisandhi.  Anatta is a characteristic of all realities.
3) Paticasamupada doesn't include the realities (processes)
leading to nibanna.  It doesn't describe Satipatthana, nor
the intellectual insights that lead to satipatthana.  Anatta
includes everything.

Details, please!

> Anatta denotes this reality from
> perspective of lack of fixed,
> substantial essence.

Since Nibanna neither rises or falls.  Do you see it as
being fixed, being substantial?   How do you explain to a
person (like me) how anatta is a characteristic of nibanna?

> Paticca samuppada, same
> reality from the
> perspective of dependence. Two lenses or angles,
> one reality. One
> imples the other as well,

Since (my understanding) the realities related to the two
(paticasamuddha and anatta) completely match, I still don't
see this.

> anatta implies
> dependence;

Since nibanna is not a conditioned reality, how doess
anatta, a characterisitc of nibbana, imply dependence?

> dependence
> implies anatta;  anicca implies dependence and
> anatta; anicca implies
> dukkha. Many many ways of looking at this problem!

Question similar to the one above...  It would be helpful to
me if you go into more details of how these imply one
another.

Thanks.

kom

 
4151 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 0:09am
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  Dear Mike and Alex,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: m. nease 
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Alex asked me to post a question I'd asked her
> off-line.  It's out of the context of the discussion
> we were having, so I hope it makes sense:
>
> > >Still, it does seem to me that an arising citta
> > >would
> > >already have an object, so how could it have the
> > >subsiding citta as an object too (or was it
> > >vice-versa)?  You would know this a lot better than
> > >I...
>
> The question had to do with whether an arising citta
> 'sees' the previous, subsiding citta, or something to
> that effect.  I asked it because I thought that I
> recalled reading that a citta only takes one object.

Can I ask the question this way?  How can a citta "see" a
reality that no longer exists?

kom

 
4152 From: Amara   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 0:21am
Subject: Re: The Interview with Nina van Gorkom

 
  > However with samadhi at the level of equanimity one can not see 
realities, 
> without getting "all shook up". That's why. in karuna to all beings, 
I will 
> never undertake to suggest  to them to "see" realty without the 
development 
> of equanimity.


Dear Des,

I think our problem lies in the definition of realities.  When I say 
realities as they really are I refer to the ultimate truth, 
paramatthadhamma, not just 'all beings' but what all things in the 
world are composed of.  All the world, beings and others are composed 
of nama, intelligence/consciousness/element that knows or experiences, 
and rupa, everything else, the dead body, minerals, electricity, 
space, all that cannot experience anything.  The paramatthadhamma or 
ultimate realities comprise the citta, the cetasika, the rupa and 
nibbana.  Vipassana or mental development cannot have other arammana 
than these four, although other meditation can.  

This is why the development of the brahma vihara is not vipassana 
bhavana, although they can be developed 'simultaneously' since the 
citta is so fast, they could alternate, especially since they are 
both kusala.  Sati arises only with kusala citta and the moment of 
study there is peace from any lobha dosa or moha automatically, which 
is the result of seeing realities as they really are, not as beings 
but as visible object appearing uniquely through the eyes, as thoughts 
evolving in karuna, for example, uniquely appearing through the mind, 
etc.  Which is why moments of karuna or any of the brahma vihara are 
not the same moments of vipassana, though the speed at which they 
occur might make one think so.  Not long ago we discussed this, you 
might find posts no. 3739 interesting.  Please read it first and tell 
us what you think.

Amara

 
4153 From: Desmond Chiong   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 0:24am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Very brief (Sarah)

 
  The fever is just there.
It's not your fever.

with metta,
des


>From: Dan
>Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Very brief (Sarah)
>Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:50:24 -0000
>
>Dear Sarah,
>Thanks for the thoughtful post! I always enjoy your insights. I don't
>always agree, but I do always learn something. Thanks. I'm sure I
>don't have a lot of time before my fever climbs back up (it's been
>running up and down from about 102 to 105.6 at its highest), so I
>can't write a lot.
>
>First, in you quote about right view being the forerunner (MN 117), I
>noticed you clipped off what Buddha said was the mundane right view,
>most importantly that it is a belief in kamma/vipaka and that there
>are enlightened people.
>
>You write: "There are many, many opportunities for moments of metta
>when one understands the value of friendliness and kindness to others.
>I don't need to go looking for a corpse…." Good for you, Sarah. As for
>me, I'm not so confident that attachment is such a small fetter for me
>that I'd feel comfortable explicitly rejecting Buddha's exhortation to
>meditate on foulness as a way to combat the taint of sense desire.
>
>Dan
>
>
>


 
4154 From: Howard 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 7:29pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  Hi, Mike (and all) -

In a message dated 3/20/01 8:56:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
mike nease writes:


> Dear Friends,
> 
> Alex asked me to post a question I'd asked her
> off-line.  It's out of the context of the discussion
> we were having, so I hope it makes sense:
> 
> > >Still, it does seem to me that an arising citta
> > >would
> > >already have an object, so how could it have the
> > >subsiding citta as an object too (or was it
> > >vice-versa)?  You would know this a lot better than
> > >I...
> 
> The question had to do with whether an arising citta
> 'sees' the previous, subsiding citta, or something to
> that effect.  I asked it because I thought that I
> recalled reading that a citta only takes one object.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> mike
> 
===============================
       My unscholarly response would be that a current citta "sees" a 
previous citta when the current citta is (at least in part) a memory. 
       This leads me to a different but related question: What exactly 
constitutes mindfulness? I have read that one citta may be mindful of a 
previous citta. To me, this is impossible. The previous citta, with all its 
accompaniments is *gone*. All that could be left is a memory trace (unless, 
Buddha forbid, the Sarvastivadins were correct! ;-). It seems to me more 
reasonable that a form of parallel processing is in effect, in the sense that 
mindfulness is a factor accompanying a current citta with the feature of 
intensifying and clarifying the "knowing" of that citta. No doubt, this 
so-called "reasonable" understanding of mine is contrary to the Abhidhammic 
understanding. I would much appreciate an explanation of the traditional 
Theravadin understanding of this point.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4155 From: Erik 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 0:42am
Subject: Re: On strategy (Erik)

 
  --- Dan wrote:
> Just before 
> magga and phala, for a few brief moments, one of the three 
> characteristics becomes extraordinarily clear. There's no choosing 
> which becomes clear, and it may well be a mistake to choose one of 
the 
> three as a "strategy."

Hi Dan, I agree with you here about the use of the term strategy. In 
fact, I didn't even adopt this usage until I'd seen Thanisarro 
Bikkhu's usage of it in this context, and said, "yeah!" :)

Anyway, on your last point, I completely agree with you meaning, 
though I will say that in the system I've been trained in, while 
anicca and dukkha are obviously indispensible factors and aspects of 
this same truth, all the effort is expended on cracking this "wrong 
view" nut via the anatta angle, so all the meditations emphasize this 
approach. Why? The reasoning given is that the biggest problem most 
people have with not comprehending Right View is the tendency to 
reify the body, mind, and phenomena as atta.

It is helpful to understand what "reify" means in this sense. It 
means to "make concrete" in the mind; it means to attribute "true" 
or "independent" existence to dhammas, which is a totally imposible 
condition, since all sankharas depend. In this sense anatta is taught 
as an "antidote" strategy to uproot this common tendency to mistake 
the khanas AND phenomena for "self." 

For a very broad swath of meditators this approach is best. For 
others it is perhaps not as helpful. So it is in this sense I use the 
term "anatta strategy," which is the same usage, I believe, as 
Thanissaro Bikkhu's.

 
4156 From: Howard 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 7:47pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] "Discouraging" (Howard)

 
  Hi, Dan -

In a message dated 3/20/01 11:16:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Dan writes:


> Dear Howard,
> When I read the Suttas, I feel "satisfied and delight in the Blessed 
> One's words" and well "instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged." 
> When I read the interview with Nina, I feel dissatisfied and do not 
> delight in the words. I certainly don't feel urged, roused, and 
> encouraged--more like sedated and discouraged. Why is that? I'm not 
> exactly sure, but it seems that what she says is so much different 
> from what the Buddha said. Many people have noted that Nina and some 
> of the dsg seem to discourage formal practice of meditation, but I 
> have never seen anything in the Tipitaka or commentaries to even hint 
> at such discouragement. There is also a passive, fatalistic sense to 
> some of the writing--a sense that is utterly lacking in Buddha's 
> words. 
> 
> Buddha said: "One CAN abandon the unwholesome, O Monks! …One CAN 
> cultivate the wholesome, O Monks!" (AN 2:19). And a large part of his 
> teaching is devoted to practical advice on how to do so: "Meditate, 
> Ananda, and do not delay or you will regret it later." (MN 152). How 
> to meditate? Satipatthana sutta and anapanasati  sutta give some good 
> suggestions, and meditation on illimitables and the kasinas and other 
> suggestions are mentioned frequently. It requires a good deal of 
> effort, as suggested by the commentary to the Sutta Nipata (Simile of 
> the serpent) indicates. It discusses how a snake sheds its skin as a 
> simile for how a monk walks on the path: "It is similar with a monk. 
> The 'law of his own species' is sila. Standing firm in his own law of 
> virtue, and seeing the misery involved, he becomes disgusted with the 
> 'old worn-out skin' of the 'here and beyond,' comprising (such pairs 
> of opposites) as his own and others' personalized existence, tec., 
> which are productive of suffering. Thus he becomes disgusted and, 
> seeking the support of a noble friend, he summons is utmost strength 
> by way of the path factor, right effort. Dividing day and night into 
> six periods, during daytime, while walking up and down or sitting, he 
> purifies the mind from obstructive things; doing so also in the first 
> and the last watch of the night, he lies down for rest only in the 
> night's middle watch. Thus he strives and struggles. Just as the 
> serpent bends its tail, so he bends his legs to a crosslegged posture. 
> As the serpent exhales forcefully, so the mond musters all his 
> unremittinig strength. As the serpent expands its hood, so the monk 
> works for an expansion of his insight. And just as the serpent sheds 
> its old skin, so the monk abandons the here anre the beyond, and being 
> now freed of the burden, he goes forth to the Nibbana-element that is 
> without a residue of the groups of existence." 
> 
> One of the things that sets Buddhism apart is the abundance of good 
> instructions for how proceed.
> 
> 
> Dan
> 
=================================
       I agree with the sense of your post. My reaction to the interview was 
similar to yours. I would add just a couple thoughts: (1) As you say, it is 
only some on the list who give little value to formal meditation, and (2) In 
the case of these folks, there still is a practice of cultivation involving a 
day-to-day and moment-by-moment exercise of mindfulness, right effort, and 
guarding the senses guided by intellectual knowledge of the Dhamma. They seem 
to follow this path based on the assumption that it is really all that is 
needed, and/or that formal meditation may, for one reason or another, either 
be too hard or likely to be improperly executed. This is not a wildly 
unreasonable approach, but is one that I don't agree with and that I think, 
as you do, is at variance with what the Buddha taught. But if this (limited) 
practice is carried out faithfully, consistently, and devotedly, I think it 
can take one very far, further, in fact, than a more traditional practice 
that is only done sporadically or halfheartedly. So any worthwhile Buddhist 
practice is exactly that - worthwhile buddhist practice. 
       Again, I agree with what you write in this post, but I thought it 
might be worthwhile to say a little more in a countervailing fashion.

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4157 From: Erik 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 0:53am
Subject: Re: "Discouraging" (Howard)

 
  --- Dan wrote:
> Many people have noted that Nina and some 
> of the dsg seem to discourage formal practice of meditation, but I 
> have never seen anything in the Tipitaka or commentaries to even 
hint 
> at such discouragement. There is also a passive, fatalistic sense 
to 
> some of the writing--a sense that is utterly lacking in Buddha's 
> words. 

Dan, thank you again for saying so much more eloquently something 
that struck me very hard on reading some of the messages here. This 
stuff, to me, is 100% about applying it IN PRACTICE for the sole aim 
of awakening HERE AND NOW, not in some hypothetical future life, 
which could possibly even be in the hell-realms if there's some 
akusala hanging around looking for a means of expression. 

Furthermore, it is my understadning that intensive practice can even 
neutralize this akusala and prevent even this type of kamma from 
manifesting, though I am displaying my ignorance of the subtleties of 
teachings on kamma, and I hope someone could correct me if I'm wrong 
in saying this. 

I don't recall who said it here, that any merit we accumulate in this 
lifetime though bhavana doesn't manifest in this lifetime. I'd really 
like to see references for this from the Suttas, because I have never 
come across anything that would discourage practicing to awaken here 
and now as this notion would for me, that what we practice now won't 
have an effect such that we may awaken in THIS lifetime. That sounds 
VERY off to me, frankly, but I suspend judgment awaiting further 
evidence.

 
4158 From: Amara   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 1:13am
Subject: Re: "Discouraging" (Howard)

 
  Dear Howard,

Anumodana with this excellent analysis.  Personally I have never been 
interested in meditation, so I have always found the Buddha's 
teachings very encouraging, at least there is a way out and wonderful 
knowledge that I have never known to be learnt.  I always love to 
learn new things and have much chanda in acquiring knowledge so that 
since I 'practice' satipatthana I have always been avid of learning 
more about the realities as they really are at all instants possible, 
and the piti that accompanies instants of knowledge is something lobha 
would be very satisfied with, it is so much fun as well.  Which is why 
I find the Buddha's exhortation to be brave and cheerful along the 
path is so realistic, it does need a lot of bravery to walk this path 
of truth and reality because it is not easy and the more one walks the 
more one realizes the truth about oneself and all one has accumulated 
that has kept us in samsara 2500 years after the Buddha's time, until 
now the sasana shows many signs of decline.  But I think it is 
encouraging that we have most of the teachings still available and can 
glimpse the path the Buddha discovered, and could never encourage 
others enough to study and enjoy it as much as I do.

Amara


>        I agree with the sense of your post. My reaction to the 
interview was 
> similar to yours. I would add just a couple thoughts: (1) As you 
say, it is 
> only some on the list who give little value to formal meditation, 
and (2) In 
> the case of these folks, there still is a practice of cultivation 
involving a 
> day-to-day and moment-by-moment exercise of mindfulness, right 
effort, and 
> guarding the senses guided by intellectual knowledge of the Dhamma. 
They seem 
> to follow this path based on the assumption that it is really all 
that is 
> needed, and/or that formal meditation may, for one reason or 
another, either 
> be too hard or likely to be improperly executed. This is not a 
wildly 
> unreasonable approach, but is one that I don't agree with and that I 
think, 
> as you do, is at variance with what the Buddha taught. But if this 
(limited) 
> practice is carried out faithfully, consistently, and devotedly, I 
think it 
> can take one very far, further, in fact, than a more traditional 
practice 
> that is only done sporadically or halfheartedly. So any worthwhile 
Buddhist 
> practice is exactly that - worthwhile buddhist practice. 
>        Again, I agree with what you write in this post, but I 
thought it 
> might be worthwhile to say a little more in a countervailing 
fashion.
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 
> /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a 
bubble 
> in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering 
lamp, a 
> phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)          
          

 
4159 From: Erik 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 1:42am
Subject: Re: Self / Not self

 
  --- "Kom Tukovinit"  wrote:
> Dear Erik,
> 
> More questions for you.  It would be very helpful to me to
> see further (nit-picking) details.

Wow, Kom! Stop making me sweat like this! :) :) :)

> > There is no difference between anatta and paticca
> > samuppada at core.
> > Both refer to the same reality slicing it from a
> > slightly different
> > angle.
> 
> I assume the second statement here explains the first.  I
> have some understandings that are at odd with what you are
> saying, so I hope you may be able to explain it.  I
> understand there are some differences between realities that
> are part of paticca samuppada and realities with anatta as
> their characteristics.
> 1) Paticasamupada includes all the kandhas, but doesn't
> include nibbana.  Anatta includes all realities, including
> nibanna.

Same-same.

> 2) Paticasamupada explains the process/causality of
> realities (only) leading to rebirth at this moment /
> patisandhi.  Anatta is a characteristic of all realities.

Same-same, though I'm using the most elementary definition of PS. See 
below.

> 3) Paticasamupada doesn't include the realities (processes)
> leading to nibanna.  It doesn't describe Satipatthana, nor
> the intellectual insights that lead to satipatthana.  Anatta
> includes everything.

Same-same. Except I do not understand what you mean "anatta includes 
everything" in this context. Yes, in terms of dhammas, obviously. Not 
sure how you mean otherwise, though. Can you please clarify?

> Details, please!

And details you shall have. To the best of my very (VERY) limited 
ability.

I was speaking of paticca samuppada, in this context, solely in terms 
of dependence (its simplest definition), forgetting for a moment the 
definition that includes the nidanas, which is broader in scope.

In this sense all sankharas are characterized by this fact of 
dependence. Is there any "non-produced" sankhara you can point to? To 
say that would be to state an absurdity, because if something is non-
produced it must be permanent, eternal, atta (it couldn't even be 
sankhara of this wree true!). So this clearly will not do. It is due 
to this dependence that anatta must apply for all sankharas.

> > Anatta denotes this reality from
> > perspective of lack of fixed,
> > substantial essence.
> 
> Since Nibanna neither rises or falls.  Do you see it as
> being fixed, being substantial?   How do you explain to a
> person (like me) how anatta is a characteristic of nibanna?

How could the asankhara possibly arise or cease? 

> > Paticca samuppada, same
> > reality from the
> > perspective of dependence. Two lenses or angles,
> > one reality. One
> > imples the other as well,
> 
> Since (my understanding) the realities related to the two
> (paticasamuddha and anatta) completely match, I still don't
> see this.

It does in the case of PS referring to the fact that sankhara dhammas 
all depend on causes.

> > anatta implies
> > dependence;
> 
> Since nibanna is not a conditioned reality, how doess
> anatta, a characterisitc of nibbana, imply dependence?

Anatta must imply dependence in the case of sankharas, but as 
always, "anatta" is never more than a mere label denoting a specific 
fact about a dhamma, either sankhara or asankhara (is this an example 
if vijjamana pannati? Can anyone clarify this for me?). 

In the case of sankharas, because they depend, they must be anatta, 
because anatta denotes lack of fixed entitness, core, or substantial 
existence, and these facts are all implied by PS due to dependence. 
Because to say they are atta entails the absurd consequence 
(prasanga) of saying sankhara dhammas are atta due to their being 
unproduced, eternal, self. This is the logical entailment of the 
miccha-ditthi that clings to the view that sankharas are eternal or 
permanent.

Some analogies I've seen in the Tipitaka include the milk-curd 
analogy (also, incidentally, used by Arya Nagarjuna in the 
Mulamadhyamakakarika, the "root" text of the Madhyamika school I 
study in). Curd is certainly not milk, and milk is not curd, but 
there is a point where you DESIGNATE the difference between the two 
in dependence on the change in process that transforms the "base of 
imputation" from "milk" to "curd," based on its physical 
characteristics. 

Anatta here can ALSO be understood as the fact that milk and curd are 
different in function, meaning that the bases applied to milk and 
curd apply to the same process-continuum, though at different points 
in this same continuum. Each moment of this process-continuum is 
conditioned by (but not identical to or "separate from") its previous 
conditions. The reality of "milk" cannot be found in the "entitness" 
of milk, for example, nor the "entitness" of curd either, because 
both lack entity. So these labels are mere designations for a set 
of "physical bases" in the process of change.

I have found some of Arya Nagarjuna's meditations on this SUPERB, 
such as:

Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything, whatever, anywhere arise

These types of analyses (and there are many, many more in thie vein) 
leave very few handholds for the type of mind that likes seizing on 
sankharas as atta!

> > dependence
> > implies anatta;  anicca implies dependence and
> > anatta; anicca implies
> > dukkha. Many many ways of looking at this problem!
> 
> Question similar to the one above...  It would be helpful to
> me if you go into more details of how these imply one
> another.

See above anatta + PS. Anicca entails the fact of dukkha, due to the 
fact there is clinging to formations as atta, and the process of 
anicca itself produces unpleasant vipaka due to clinging to these 
formations as "self." There is not anything in the tilakkhana that 
can be separated out in terms of sankhara dhammas. They all MUST hang 
perfectly together and imply one another when understanding of 
realities is non-mistaken. Anatta by itself applies only to nibbana, 
and why is nibbana anatta? How could one say nibbana has atta? That 
is absurd! This would be to say it possesses "entitiness" or "true 
reality" which it does not.

Kom, please know I'm using a slightly different "language" here, as 
I'm more accustomed to the Prasangika logic style that uses Prasanga 
(lit. "consequence") to denote "absurd consequences" of miccha-ditthi 
by noting what those views entail, when their implications are fully 
elaborated. This is what I am most fluent in though I am working very 
hard to adjust it to make sense from the perspective of the 
Tipitaka's presentation.

 
4160 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 1:51am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] "Discouraging" (Howard)

 
  Dear Dan,
I think if you looked carefully at Ninas writing what you would
see that she encourages all types of kusala according to the
conditions of the listener. 
You quote this from the Buddha "
 "Meditate, 
> Ananda, and do not delay or you will regret it later." (MN
> 152). How 
> to meditate? Satipatthana sutta and anapanasati  sutta give
> some good 
> suggestions, and meditation on illimitables and the kasinas
> and other 
> suggestions are mentioned frequently. 

There are two types of meditation explained here. One takes the
forty types of samatha. The other is vipassana and has the
khandas, ayatanas and dhatus as object. Nina has explained both
types but it is true that she emphasises the latter. You seem to
object to this. I did a quick search and found some quotes from
mahasi teachers as you have indicated that mahasi and goenka
methods are the true teachings of the Buddha.

. A senior mahasi teacher Ven u kundala writes on buddha net
about the last sentence of the buddha before his parinibbana .
>>"Appamadena sampadetha"- strive with earnestness.
The venerable says that this means "do not forget, practice with
earnestness. The ordinary unforgetting is when the yogi
practices dana, sila and samattha bhavana which will lead toward
human wealth, celestial wealth and Brahmas wealth. But the real
intention is for us not to forget the satipatthana
Vipassana""...>>
endquote. 
I think Nina explains not only satipatthana but also other types
of kusala. However, in accordance with the tipitaka she
recognises that devloping insight into nama and
rupa(satipatthana) is most important. 

Here is another quote from a teacher who has been influenced by
mahasi. His name is venerable Gunaratana and he wrote a book
that is said to be a buddhist bestseller (so I just read on the
internet) Mindfulness in Plain English
>>>>>He writes "One of the most difficult things to learn is
that mindfulness is not dependent on any emotional or mental
state. We have certain images of meditation. Meditation is
something done in quiet caves by tranquil people who move
slowly. Those are training conditions. They are set up to foster
concentration and to learn the skill of mindfulness. Once you
have learned that skill, however, you can dispense with the
training restrictions, and you should. You don't need to move at
a snail's pace to be mindful. You don't even need to be calm.
You can be mindful while solving problems in intensive calculus.
You can be mindful in the middle of a football scrimmage. You
can even be mindful in the midst of a raging fury. Mental and
physical activities are no bar to mindfulness. If you find your
mind extremely active, then simply observe the nature and degree
of that activity. It is just a part of the passing show
within.""endquote
If you looked hard at ninas writing you might see not so much
difference. Except she would might say from the beginning there
can be awareness of nama and rupa - even without moving slowly.
I am not saying nina is teaching a variation of mahasi method;
this is just to point out that what she is saying is not so out
of step with what your teachers have said. 

Of course  awareness can arise when sitting and should be
cultivated whenever we are sitting - in fact it would be bizarre
if someone decided that because awareness can arise anytime they
should not sit quietly and contemplate dhammas. Feel guilty
about it. Or someone else leaves their secluded hut in the
forest because they feel that the real work is done while in a
busy job. No these are ideal places for awareness- at least for
some people- but place and position are secondary to the more
important factor of right understanding: effort and
determination should be lifelong. It is so important that it
should be cultivated even in the most strenous circumstances.
This is what Nina points to. 

Nina does suggest that awareness can only arise if the right
conditions, especially right understanding are present. Is that
going against the Dhamma? 
You seem to be saying that if someone could do intensive formal
meditation for many hours a day that this is a faster route.
`Maybe it is. Why are you not then sitting in meditation 18
hours a day right now? Why aren't you living in a meditaion
center? Why waste valuable meditation time writing on the
internet. I think we agree that the path to Nibbana takes
priority over anything else in life.


One day we might be unable to take a sitting posture - who
knows.  If I believe that I should feel clear headed before sati
can arise then what about if I am struck with alzheimers later
in life or have a stroke. What about if I am in an accident and
have my leg ripped off - that seems to be  a useful time for
awreness to arise that sees rupa as parmattha dhamma, pain as
simply vedana.  I just cut my finger in the kitchen tonight - so
natural to consider those moments with a degree of detachment
conditioned by satipatthana. And also good to see how much
attachment is still there. It would be sad if I pretended to
myself that I am advanced in Dhamma just because a tiny amount
of awareness arises.
I know I still choose situations for awareness. The hard times
in life seem to bring up reserves and easily condition awareness
but the pleasant times are so easy to get lost and forget.  That
is one of the reasons that meeting someone like Acharn Sujin is
helpful. She says this is not right effort and that one must
also endure the pleasant- study those feelings just as much and
see them as simply paramattha dhamma.

You  note that the visuddhimagga also gives the kasinas as
meditation objects. How much success have you had with the
kasina meditations? 

You perhaps also didn't see my post to eric yesterday where I
noted that even the most dry sukkhvipassaka also engages in
samatha because considering the Dhamma - a preliminary to
satipatthana- brings with it piti and other factors of jhana. it
is classified as one of the 40 objects -
Dhammanasati(spelling?).

robert


--- Dan wrote:
> Dear Howard,
> When I read the Suttas, I feel "satisfied and delight in the
> Blessed 
> One's words" and well "instructed, urged, roused, and
> encouraged." 
> When I read the interview with Nina, I feel dissatisfied and
> do not 
> delight in the words. I certainly don't feel urged, roused,
> and 
> encouraged--more like sedated and discouraged. Why is that?
> I'm not 
> exactly sure, but it seems that what she says is so much
> different 
> from what the Buddha said. Many people have noted that Nina
> and some 
> of the dsg seem to discourage formal practice of meditation,
> but I 
> have never seen anything in the Tipitaka or commentaries to
> even hint 
> at such discouragement. > 
> Buddha said: "One CAN abandon the unwholesome, O Monks! …One
> CAN 
> cultivate the wholesome, O Monks!" (AN 2:19). And a large part
> of his 
> teaching is devoted to practical advice on how to do so:
> "Meditate, 
> Ananda, and do not delay or you will regret it later." (MN
> 152). How 
> to meditate? Satipatthana sutta and anapanasati  sutta give
> some good 
> suggestions, and meditation on illimitables and the kasinas
> and other 
> suggestions are mentioned frequently. It requires a good deal
> of 
> effort, as suggested by the commentary to the Sutta Nipata
> (Simile of 
> the serpent) indicates. It discusses how a snake sheds its
> skin as a 
> simile for how a monk walks on the path: "It is similar with a
> monk. 
> The 'law of his own species' is sila. Standing firm in his own
> law of 
> virtue, and seeing the misery involved, he becomes disgusted
> with the 
> 'old worn-out skin' of the 'here and beyond,' comprising (such
> pairs 
> of opposites) as his own and others' personalized existence,
> tec., 
> which are productive of suffering. Thus he becomes disgusted
> and, 
> seeking the support of a noble friend, he summons is utmost
> strength 
> by way of the path factor, right effort. Dividing day and
> night into 
> six periods, during daytime, while walking up and down or
> sitting, he 
> purifies the mind from obstructive things; doing so also in
> the first 
> and the last watch of the night, he lies down for rest only in
> the 
> night's middle watch. Thus he strives and struggles. Just as
> the 
> serpent bends its tail, so he bends his legs to a crosslegged
> posture. 
> As the serpent exhales forcefully, so the mond musters all his
> 
> unremittinig strength. As the serpent expands its hood, so the
> monk 
> works for an expansion of his insight. And just as the serpent
> sheds 
> its old skin, so the monk abandons the here anre the beyond,
> and being 
> now freed of the burden, he goes forth to the Nibbana-element
> that is 
> without a residue of the groups of existence." 
> 
> One of the things that sets Buddhism apart is the abundance of
> good 
> instructions for how proceed.
> 
> 
> Dan
> 





 
4161 From: Howard 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 11:53pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  Hi, Kom -

In a message dated 3/20/01 2:04:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, kom
writes:


> Dear Mike and Alex,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: m. nease 
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > Alex asked me to post a question I'd asked her
> > off-line.  It's out of the context of the discussion
> > we were having, so I hope it makes sense:
> >
> > > >Still, it does seem to me that an arising citta
> > > >would
> > > >already have an object, so how could it have the
> > > >subsiding citta as an object too (or was it
> > > >vice-versa)?  You would know this a lot better than
> > > >I...
> >
> > The question had to do with whether an arising citta
> > 'sees' the previous, subsiding citta, or something to
> > that effect.  I asked it because I thought that I
> > recalled reading that a citta only takes one object.
> 
> Can I ask the question this way?  How can a citta "see" a
> reality that no longer exists?
> 
> kom
> 
===============================
Hah! Looks like you and I asked the very same question!

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         

 
4162 From: Howard 
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 11:58pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Very brief (Sarah)

 
  Hi, Dan -

In a message dated 3/20/01 2:52:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Dan writes:


> I'm sure I 
> don't have a lot of time before my fever climbs back up (it's been 
> running up and down from about 102 to 105.6 at its highest), so I 
> can't write a lot.
> 
==========================
       Whew! That's awfully high. I seem to have missed what's this all 
about. I assume you're under a doctor's care?

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4163 From: Howard 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 0:44am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Hi, Kom (and Erik) -

In a message dated 3/20/01 3:12:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, kom
writes:


> Dear Erik,
> 
> More questions for you.  It would be very helpful to me to
> see further (nit-picking) details.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik 
> 
> > > For this reason, anatta is the flipside of dependent
> > > origination
> > > (paticca samuppada), and is a characteristic of
> > all things,
> > > nibbana
> > > as well as all sankharas (composed things). It is also
> > > ultimately no
> > > different from dependent origination if you really
> > > understand it.
> >
> 
> > There is no difference between anatta and paticca
> > samuppada at core.
> > Both refer to the same reality slicing it from a
> > slightly different
> > angle.
> 
> I assume the second statement here explains the first.  I
> have some understandings that are at odd with what you are
> saying, so I hope you may be able to explain it.  I
> understand there are some differences between realities that
> are part of paticca samuppada and realities with anatta as
> their characteristics.
> 1) Paticasamupada includes all the kandhas, but doesn't
> include nibbana.  Anatta includes all realities, including
> nibanna.
> 2) Paticasamupada explains the process/causality of
> realities (only) leading to rebirth at this moment /
> patisandhi.  Anatta is a characteristic of all realities.
> 3) Paticasamupada doesn't include the realities (processes)
> leading to nibanna.  It doesn't describe Satipatthana, nor
> the intellectual insights that lead to satipatthana.  Anatta
> includes everything.
> 
> Details, please!
> 
> > Anatta denotes this reality from
> > perspective of lack of fixed,
> > substantial essence.
> 
> Since Nibanna neither rises or falls.  Do you see it as
> being fixed, being substantial?   How do you explain to a
> person (like me) how anatta is a characteristic of nibanna?
> 
> > Paticca samuppada, same
> > reality from the
> > perspective of dependence. Two lenses or angles,
> > one reality. One
> > imples the other as well,
> 
> Since (my understanding) the realities related to the two
> (paticasamuddha and anatta) completely match, I still don't
> see this.
> 
> > anatta implies
> > dependence;
> 
> Since nibanna is not a conditioned reality, how doess
> anatta, a characterisitc of nibbana, imply dependence?
> 
> > dependence
> > implies anatta;  anicca implies dependence and
> > anatta; anicca implies
> > dukkha. Many many ways of looking at this problem!
> 
> Question similar to the one above...  It would be helpful to
> me if you go into more details of how these imply one
> another.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> kom
> 
====================================
       I think you raise an interesting question here, one which touches on 
what I believe is a terminological difference between Theravada and Mahayana 
(and Vajrayana), namely the meaning of sunyata/shunyata.
       In Theravada, 'sunyata' pertains to all dhammas being empty of self or 
anything related to self. It refers to the impersonality of all dhammas, both 
conditioned and unconditioned. The dependently arisen status of conditioned 
dhammas points to their impersonality, their sunyata. The lack of any 
conditions at all in nibbana whereby it might be grasped at as 'me' or 'mine' 
makes it the supreme emptiness in that same sense. Thus, in Theravada, 
'sunyata' and 'anatta' basically carry the same meaning. 
       However, my understanding is that in Mahayana, 'shunyata' has the same 
meaning as 'insubstantiality', 'essencelessness', and 'lack of own-being'. 
Clearly both Mahayana and Theravada see all conditioned dhammas as having 
this characteristic, but with Theravada not using the word 'sunyata' to refer 
to it. However, I don't think that Theravada sees nibbana as being 
insubstantial, without essence, and without "own-being"; in fact, I believe 
it refers to nibbana as santo (real). The Mahayana position that nirvana is 
shunyata, empty of essence and own-being has, indeed, puzzled me. I have 
never seen an explanation of why it is to be understood to be empty in that 
sense. Lacking conditions doesn't do it. That just makes it radically 
different from all conditioned dhammas. It is the conditioned dhammas that 
are fleeting and dependently arisen, making them both impersonal and 
insubstantial ("like foam" as the Buddha said). But I don't know why 
Mahayanists see nirvana as empty in the sense of being insubstantial and 
without independent reality.
       Actually, a possible answer to this last matter has just occurred to 
me. Perhaps the Mahayanists view the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, to be 
empty of independent reality because there is a relation of interdependence 
between the conditioned dhammas, on the one hand, and the unconditioned 
dhamma, on the other, this mutual dependence making each of them empty of 
self-nature! Could that be it, Erik?

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4164 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 6:02am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Dear Erik,

I have still more questions for you.  You don't need to sweat, since I
(maybe somebody else) won't be grading you!  Of course, the paramatha
dhammas that we call sweat are conditioned dhamma...

--- Erik wrote:
> > > There is no difference between anatta and paticca
> > > samuppada at core.
> > > Both refer to the same reality slicing it from a
> > > slightly different
> > > angle.
> > 
> > I assume the second statement here explains the first.  I
> > have some understandings that are at odd with what you are
> > saying, so I hope you may be able to explain it.  I
> > understand there are some differences between realities that
> > are part of paticca samuppada and realities with anatta as
> > their characteristics.
> > 1) Paticasamupada includes all the kandhas, but doesn't
> > include nibbana.  Anatta includes all realities, including
> > nibanna.
> 
> Same-same.

I don't understand your explanation here.  Does same-same mean you
disagree?  Does it mean you agree?  Does it mean my attempt at the
explanation doesn't add any more to the earlier conversation?

> > 3) Paticasamupada doesn't include the realities (processes)
> > leading to nibanna.  It doesn't describe Satipatthana, nor
> > the intellectual insights that lead to satipatthana.  Anatta
> > includes everything.
> 
> Same-same. Except I do not understand what you mean "anatta includes 
> everything" in this context. Yes, in terms of dhammas, obviously. Not
> sure how you mean otherwise, though. Can you please clarify?

What I mean is anatta is a common characteristic to all realities,
including Paticasamupada, and nibanna.

> I was speaking of paticca samuppada, in this context, solely in terms
> of dependence (its simplest definition), forgetting for a moment the 
> definition that includes the nidanas, which is broader in scope.
> 
> In this sense all sankharas are characterized by this fact of 
> dependence. Is there any "non-produced" sankhara you can point to? To
> 
> say that would be to state an absurdity, because if something is non-
> produced it must be permanent, eternal, atta (it couldn't even be 
> sankhara of this wree true!). So this clearly will not do. It is due 
> to this dependence that anatta must apply for all sankharas.

Understand this part...
 
> > > Anatta denotes this reality from
> > > perspective of lack of fixed,
> > > substantial essence.
> > 
> > Since Nibanna neither rises or falls.  Do you see it as
> > being fixed, being substantial?   How do you explain to a
> > person (like me) how anatta is a characteristic of nibanna?
> 
> How could the asankhara possibly arise or cease? 

Well, my interpretation of what you have said earlier is that all
sankharas are anatta because they are conditioned:  they depend on
other dhammas to rise.  Since Nibanna doesn't rise and doesn't fall and
is not conditioned, how do you explain the anattaness in nibana?  We
know the Budda explained that Nibanna is asankhara.  How do YOU explain
the anattaness in nibana?

> It does in the case of PS referring to the fact that sankhara dhammas
> all depend on causes.

I can certainly agree to the statement that anatta does explain
Paticasamupada.  However, I wouldn' agree that Paticasamupada explains
anatta.  Anatta can be used to explained everything, whereas
Patciasamupada can be used only to explain conditioned realities, and
only those that lead to rebirth.  Paticasamupada, by definition, covers
limited set of Paramatha dhamma, where anatta has no limit.  

I am satisfied with the explanation that you gave to the stament "There
is no difference between anatta and paticca samuppada at core". 
However, I would not put it in that manner without detailed
explanation.  Clearly (to me), Anatta does not equate Paticaa
saumppada.

> In the case of sankharas, because they depend, they must be anatta, 
> because anatta denotes lack of fixed entitness, core, or substantial 
> existence, and these facts are all implied by PS due to dependence. 
> Because to say they are atta entails the absurd consequence 
> (prasanga) of saying sankhara dhammas are atta due to their being 
> unproduced, eternal, self. This is the logical entailment of the 
> miccha-ditthi that clings to the view that sankharas are eternal or 
> permanent.
> 
> Some analogies I've seen in the Tipitaka include the milk-curd 
> analogy (also, incidentally, used by Arya Nagarjuna in the 
> Mulamadhyamakakarika, the "root" text of the Madhyamika school I 
> study in). Curd is certainly not milk, and milk is not curd, but 
> there is a point where you DESIGNATE the difference between the two 
> in dependence on the change in process that transforms the "base of 
> imputation" from "milk" to "curd," based on its physical 
> characteristics. 
> 
> Anatta here can ALSO be understood as the fact that milk and curd are
> 
> different in function, meaning that the bases applied to milk and 
> curd apply to the same process-continuum, though at different points 
> in this same continuum. Each moment of this process-continuum is 
> conditioned by (but not identical to or "separate from") its previous
> 
> conditions. The reality of "milk" cannot be found in the "entitness" 
> of milk, for example, nor the "entitness" of curd either, because 
> both lack entity. So these labels are mere designations for a set 
> of "physical bases" in the process of change.
> 
> I have found some of Arya Nagarjuna's meditations on this SUPERB, 
> such as:
> 
> Neither from itself nor from another,
> Nor from both,
> Nor without a cause,
> Does anything, whatever, anywhere arise
> 
> These types of analyses (and there are many, many more in thie vein) 
> leave very few handholds for the type of mind that likes seizing on 
> sankharas as atta!

Anumodhana.  A good analogy, indeed.

> See above anatta + PS. Anicca entails the fact of dukkha, due to the 
> fact there is clinging to formations as atta, and the process of 
> anicca itself produces unpleasant vipaka due to clinging to these 

This raises another question.  Are the process of clinging and the
resultant unhappiness vipaka?  

> formations as "self." There is not anything in the tilakkhana that 
> can be separated out in terms of sankhara dhammas. They all MUST hang
> 
> perfectly together and imply one another when understanding of 
> realities is non-mistaken. Anatta by itself applies only to nibbana, 
> and why is nibbana anatta? How could one say nibbana has atta? That 
> is absurd! This would be to say it possesses "entitiness" or "true 
> reality" which it does not.

I am still disatisfied with your explanation of the anattaness of
nibana.  (I don't have one myself, that's why I am insisting).  Nibanna
is just a dhatu.  This implies that there is no entity posessing it nor
entity in it.  Would you explain when you implied (if you did not,
forgive my clumsiness) Nibanna is not a true reality?

> Kom, please know I'm using a slightly different "language" here, as 
> I'm more accustomed to the Prasangika logic style that uses Prasanga 
> (lit. "consequence") to denote "absurd consequences" of miccha-ditthi

Erik, you seem to be doing pretty well at detailed explanation. 
Regardless of the styles of logic, if we arrive at the understanding of
dhamma as it truly is, then the styles won't matter.   

My original questioning of your statement was provoked by the
generality of the statement "There is no difference between anatta and
paticca samuppada at core."  It appears to me that there are obvious
differences, and we can interpret/misinterpret the statement in many
different ways.  Buddha dhamma is subtle and hard to see: the more
precise (accurate would be nice too, but I guess only an Ariya can tell
you accurately) we are, the better chance we get at understading the
right things.  There should be no nit left unpicked after we are done!

I am very happy that you have joined the list, and count myself as
fortunate to be among the presence of people eagar to learned the true
meanings of buddha dhamma.   I have no anger toward the differences in
opinion, I am only eagar to learn what you think are the teachings of
Buddha.

With the differences in opinion of how the path can be developed, it
reminds me to rejoice for the panna and karuna of the Buddha.  This
dhamma is subtle indeed; even people reading from the same source are
interpreting it differently.

Anumoddhana.

kom

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 9:42 AM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self


--- "Kom Tukovinit"  wrote:
> Dear Erik,
> 
> More questions for you.  It would be very helpful to me to
> see further (nit-picking) details.

Wow, Kom! Stop making me sweat like this! :) :) :)

> > There is no difference between anatta and paticca
> > samuppada at core.
> > Both refer to the same reality slicing it from a
> > slightly different
> > angle.
> 
> I assume the second statement here explains the first.  I
> have some understandings that are at odd with what you are
> saying, so I hope you may be able to explain it.  I
> understand there are some differences between realities that
> are part of paticca samuppada and realities with anatta as
> their characteristics.
> 1) Paticasamupada includes all the kandhas, but doesn't
> include nibbana.  Anatta includes all realities, including
> nibanna.

Same-same.

> 2) Paticasamupada explains the process/causality of
> realities (only) leading to rebirth at this moment /
> patisandhi.  Anatta is a characteristic of all realities.

Same-same, though I'm using the most elementary definition of PS. See 
below.

> 3) Paticasamupada doesn't include the realities (processes)
> leading to nibanna.  It doesn't describe Satipatthana, nor
> the intellectual insights that lead to satipatthana.  Anatta
> includes everything.

Same-same. Except I do not understand what you mean "anatta includes 
everything" in this context. Yes, in terms of dhammas, obviously. Not 
sure how you mean otherwise, though. Can you please clarify?

> Details, please!

And details you shall have. To the best of my very (VERY) limited 
ability.

I was speaking of paticca samuppada, in this context, solely in terms 
of dependence (its simplest definition), forgetting for a moment the 
definition that includes the nidanas, which is broader in scope.

In this sense all sankharas are characterized by this fact of 
dependence. Is there any "non-produced" sankhara you can point to? To 
say that would be to state an absurdity, because if something is non-
produced it must be permanent, eternal, atta (it couldn't even be 
sankhara of this wree true!). So this clearly will not do. It is due 
to this dependence that anatta must apply for all sankharas.

> > Anatta denotes this reality from
> > perspective of lack of fixed,
> > substantial essence.
> 
> Since Nibanna neither rises or falls.  Do you see it as
> being fixed, being substantial?   How do you explain to a
> person (like me) how anatta is a characteristic of nibanna?

How could the asankhara possibly arise or cease? 

> > Paticca samuppada, same
> > reality from the
> > perspective of dependence. Two lenses or angles,
> > one reality. One
> > imples the other as well,
> 
> Since (my understanding) the realities related to the two
> (paticasamuddha and anatta) completely match, I still don't
> see this.

It does in the case of PS referring to the fact that sankhara dhammas 
all depend on causes.

> > anatta implies
> > dependence;
> 
> Since nibanna is not a conditioned reality, how doess
> anatta, a characterisitc of nibbana, imply dependence?

Anatta must imply dependence in the case of sankharas, but as 
always, "anatta" is never more than a mere label denoting a specific 
fact about a dhamma, either sankhara or asankhara (is this an example 
if vijjamana pannati? Can anyone clarify this for me?). 

In the case of sankharas, because they depend, they must be anatta, 
because anatta denotes lack of fixed entitness, core, or substantial 
existence, and these facts are all implied by PS due to dependence. 
Because to say they are atta entails the absurd consequence 
(prasanga) of saying sankhara dhammas are atta due to their being 
unproduced, eternal, self. This is the logical entailment of the 
miccha-ditthi that clings to the view that sankharas are eternal or 
permanent.

Some analogies I've seen in the Tipitaka include the milk-curd 
analogy (also, incidentally, used by Arya Nagarjuna in the 
Mulamadhyamakakarika, the "root" text of the Madhyamika school I 
study in). Curd is certainly not milk, and milk is not curd, but 
there is a point where you DESIGNATE the difference between the two 
in dependence on the change in process that transforms the "base of 
imputation" from "milk" to "curd," based on its physical 
characteristics. 

Anatta here can ALSO be understood as the fact that milk and curd are 
different in function, meaning that the bases applied to milk and 
curd apply to the same process-continuum, though at different points 
in this same continuum. Each moment of this process-continuum is 
conditioned by (but not identical to or "separate from") its previous 
conditions. The reality of "milk" cannot be found in the "entitness" 
of milk, for example, nor the "entitness" of curd either, because 
both lack entity. So these labels are mere designations for a set 
of "physical bases" in the process of change.

I have found some of Arya Nagarjuna's meditations on this SUPERB, 
such as:

Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything, whatever, anywhere arise

These types of analyses (and there are many, many more in thie vein) 
leave very few handholds for the type of mind that likes seizing on 
sankharas as atta!

> > dependence
> > implies anatta;  anicca implies dependence and
> > anatta; anicca implies
> > dukkha. Many many ways of looking at this problem!
> 
> Question similar to the one above...  It would be helpful to
> me if you go into more details of how these imply one
> another.

See above anatta + PS. Anicca entails the fact of dukkha, due to the 
fact there is clinging to formations as atta, and the process of 
anicca itself produces unpleasant vipaka due to clinging to these 
formations as "self." There is not anything in the tilakkhana that 
can be separated out in terms of sankhara dhammas. They all MUST hang 
perfectly together and imply one another when understanding of 
realities is non-mistaken. Anatta by itself applies only to nibbana, 
and why is nibbana anatta? How could one say nibbana has atta? That 
is absurd! This would be to say it possesses "entitiness" or "true 
reality" which it does not.

Kom, please know I'm using a slightly different "language" here, as 
I'm more accustomed to the Prasangika logic style that uses Prasanga 
(lit. "consequence") to denote "absurd consequences" of miccha-ditthi 
by noting what those views entail, when their implications are fully 
elaborated. This is what I am most fluent in though I am working very 
hard to adjust it to make sense from the perspective of the 
Tipitaka's presentation.



 
4165 From: Dan 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 6:37am
Subject: Re: Very brief (Sarah)

 
  Dear Howard,

You wrote:
>Whew! That's awfully high. I seem to have missed what's this 
all 
> about. I assume you're under a doctor's care?

I've missed what it's all about too. Maybe it's akusala vipaka for 
writing such sharp posts recently! (or not...) 

Unfortunately, my wife is not a doctor yet, but she is working on her 
PhD in statistics. I don't think she'll finish in time to help me 
though.

Dan

 
4166 From: Dan 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 6:44am
Subject: Re: Very brief (Sarah)

 
  Dear des,
You wrote:
> The fever is just there.
> It's not your fever.

I keep noting that, and I've been keeping fairly cheerful. 
Thina-middha keeps arising, though, and usually I just take up the 
lion's posture. There is heat, then cold, then heat. When the 
thina-middha gets strong enough, then aversion starts arising more 
frequently and intensely, but only briefly before sleep. These unusual 
and "relentless" sensations are of course anicca, and by tomorrow or 
the next day, they are bound to subside for some time.

Thanks for the words of wisdom.

Dan

 
4167 From: Desmond Chiong   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 6:55am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Very brief (Sarah)

 
  Hope you feel well soon.
Don't just have faith. Keep a well balanced faith and wisdom.

I am glad you were not offended by my first hasty comment.

with metta,
des

>From: Dan
>Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Very brief (Sarah)
>Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:44:35 -0000
>
>Dear des,
>You wrote:
> > The fever is just there.
> > It's not your fever.
>
>I keep noting that, and I've been keeping fairly cheerful.
>Thina-middha keeps arising, though, and usually I just take up the
>lion's posture. There is heat, then cold, then heat. When the
>thina-middha gets strong enough, then aversion starts arising more
>frequently and intensely, but only briefly before sleep. These unusual
>and "relentless" sensations are of course anicca, and by tomorrow or
>the next day, they are bound to subside for some time.
>
>Thanks for the words of wisdom.
>
>Dan
>


 
4168 From: Num 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 2:23am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Hi Herman,

Just like to respond to some of your writing, esp. the biology part :)

<<<Yes, there is no lasting self. But some phenomena last longer than others.
And though the component particles may arise and decay billions of times
each second, they do not arise haphazardly, randomly, they arise according
to conditions. >>

I agree with this but then you said.

<<And the conditions do not change randomly or haphazardly. The
only phenomena we know about are the ones that reoccur, according to a
structure (the rest pass to quickly).>>

Not all causes and conditions arise randomly, I think some of them are. They 
depend on a lot of paccaya

<<<I am glad you mention physics. Perhaps I can slip biology in here. Our
bodies, though they are impermanent, are structured according to the genes.
The particles that make up the genes arise and decay rapidly, yet the
structure of the genes remains fairly much the same for the lifetime of the
body.

And this structure of the genes determines the structure of the body, the
component particles of which arise and decay billions of times each second.
Yet there is a structure to this body , a sense of self in biological terms.
The body recognises and accepts itself and rejects living matter with
genetic matter foreign to it.
>>>

As you mentioned, genomic DNA is always changing, I mean it is dynamic rather 
than static.  When we plant an apple seed, we get an apple tree. Gene does 
not totally determine phenotype, genes always interact with environment. Gene 
changes when the environment changes. I think it in the Tipitaka calls this 
kind of stuff, Peecha-kamma. I have to look for a reference.

Let see what do you think,

<<  We might ask: Is the flame now burning in the  pressure  lantern the same 
flame  which once burned  in the match?    The answer can be  either yes or 
no.   Similarly,  the Buddha said there are two extremes.   One extreme is to 
say that when  a man  dies that same person is bornagain,  and the other 
extreme is to say that at death that person is forever annihilated.   The 
Buddhist position is between these two.

In Milinda-panha, Ven. Nakasena asked Milinda that is the candle flame now 
the same as the same as the flame in previous watch. Or are adult Milinda the 
same person as juvenile Milinda?

and from dhammastudy.com, Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part IX


The Venerable Ananda said, "Behold, Venerable Udayi, a man desiring the wood 
core, seeking the wood core, takes a sharp axe into the forest.  He finds a 
great banana plant, straight and free from twines.  He cuts the base of the 
trunk, cuts the top and then peels off the layers but could not find even the 
sapwood, so how could he find the core?  So behold, Venerable
 Udayi, neither can a bhikkhu examine and search to find the self or anything 
of the self in the six phassayatana.  Seeing thus, he would not cling to 
anything in the world.  Not clinging, he would not struggle.  Since he does 
not struggle, he would reach nibbana, know clearly that rebirths are over, 
the chaste life is led, the task is done, other functions towards being thus 
do not exist.

The last part where the Venerable Ananda said, "Behold, Venerable Udayi, a 
man desiring the wood core, seeking the wood core, takes a sharp axe into the 
forest.  He finds a great banana plant, straight and free from twines.  Since 
it is a banana plant, it is still a position, for it is collective, a 
composition.

"He cuts the base of the trunk, cuts the top and then peels off the layers" 
means he must disperse what he used to take as a whole, a conglomerate, an 
object, the self, a position. "But could not find even the sapwood, so how 
could he find the core?"  Thus he is able to abandon mistaking it as a banana 
tree.  Likewise, a whole ox with the skin unstripped, parts uncut, is still 
seen as an ox lying there.  As long as rupa are assembled together, they are 
remembered as a position, a stance or another and still seen as an object, a 
person.  Only when one knows the characteristics of realities as they truly 
are, could not one mistake realities as entities or persons, like the peeling 
of layers when no sapwood can be found, much less the core of the tree. 
"Behold, Venerable Udayi, neither can a bhikkhu examine and search to find 
the self or anything of the self in the six phassayatana."  In the six 
phassayatana there are no positions.  The eye is one ayatana.  Rupayatana is 
only something that appears.  As long as one still sees it as a person 
sitting, it cannot be said that it is not the self.  It is only thinking that 
it is not the self.  It is not the true realization that it is not the self 
when panna must know that this instant of seeing sees only what appears 
through the eyes.  After that there is thinking or remembering the features 
of what appears and then the recognition of what appears.  Even then it's 
only the nama-dhamma that knows and remembers, not an entity, a person or the 
self.  Through the ears that are hearing sound, there are no memory remaining 
from the eyes that they were seeing people, conversing or talking because at 
that instant sati is being mindful of the characteristics of the reality that 
hears, which is only an element that knows sound.  After which the citta 
would think of words or thoughts according to the high and low sound they 
hear and panna would know that the instant of knowing words is the 
nama-dhamma of the kind that knows words.>>>


So a banana tree is a banana tree but there is no self or entity.

I think you brought up a good point.  I have to go for a class.  I don't 
think I answer your question but I used to ask myself the same question 
before. I think it's hard to talk about modern science from buddhism 
perspective at times.


Let me share with you my sympathy rgd your nephew.


Num







 
4169 From: Erik 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 8:08am
Subject: Re: Self / Not self

 
  --- Kom Tukovinit  wrote:
> Of course, the paramatha
> dhammas that we call sweat are conditioned dhamma...

If only the folks who do my laundry understood that!

> > Same-same.
> 
> I don't understand your explanation here.  Does same-same mean you
> disagree?  Does it mean you agree?

To get really technical, the same as what I understood your intended 
meaning to be.

> What I mean is anatta is a common characteristic to all realities,
> including Paticasamupada, and nibanna.

Yes, I agree.

> > How could the asankhara possibly arise or cease? 
> 
> Well, my interpretation of what you have said earlier is that all
> sankharas are anatta because they are conditioned:  they depend on
> other dhammas to rise.  Since Nibanna doesn't rise and doesn't fall 
and
> is not conditioned, how do you explain the anattaness in nibana?  We
> know the Budda explained that Nibanna is asankhara.  How do YOU 
explain
> the anattaness in nibana?

I won't even try, because I'll make a hopeless mess of it, as it is 
presently beyond my ability to articulate something so subtle (one 
reason I'm studying Abhidhamma if you must know). So I'll defer to 
Arya Nagarjuna instead. And it fully reflects my understanding on 
this:

Unrelinquished, unattained,
Unannihilated, not permanent,
Unarise, unceased:
That is how Nirvana is described.

Some other illustrative quotes include:

-If nirvana were existent, it would be composed
-If nirvana were existent, how could it be non-dependent?

There is a whole set of stanzas in the Mulamadhymakakarika on Nirvana 
along these lines I find useful. Bottom line, all of 
these "descriptions" are mere tactics to knock the legs out from 
under the mind that clings of wrong views of how things exist. I have 
found these to be very powerful meditations in and of themsleves, but 
would never mistake them for a representative "description" of 
Nibbana. In that case I'd be truly "incurable!" :)

> I can certainly agree to the statement that anatta does explain
> Paticasamupada.  However, I wouldn' agree that Paticasamupada 
explains
> anatta.  Anatta can be used to explained everything, whereas
> Patciasamupada can be used only to explain conditioned realities, 
and
> only those that lead to rebirth.  Paticasamupada, by definition, 
covers
> limited set of Paramatha dhamma, where anatta has no limit.  

Definitions! I thought I mentioned that I am using the most 
elementary definition of paticca samuppada as principle, that means 
only "do this, get that." In other words, basic cause-and-effect, and 
no more. This is one way I've been taught it, and I know it is also 
represented in the Tipitaka this way, as it is in terms 
of "idappaccayata" (can get the Pali for you here too if you want):

When there is this, that is
With the arising of this, that arises
When this is not, neither is that
With the cessation of this, that ceases

> I am satisfied with the explanation that you gave to the 
stament "There
> is no difference between anatta and paticca samuppada at core". 
> However, I would not put it in that manner without detailed
> explanation.  Clearly (to me), Anatta does not equate Paticaa
> saumppada.

I hope the above definition clarifies how I was using the term.

> > See above anatta + PS. Anicca entails the fact of dukkha, due to 
the 
> > fact there is clinging to formations as atta, and the process of 
> > anicca itself produces unpleasant vipaka due to clinging to these 
> 
> This raises another question.  Are the process of clinging and the
> resultant unhappiness vipaka? 

Tough question for this Abhidhamma beginner, but I'll give it a try. 
Based on my present understanding, I can't see how it's otherwise. 
I'm just drawing inferences from what I already know, namely, that 
rupa of the body is a result of kamma-vipaka. Therefore any processes 
of clinging would be arising in dependence on this kamma-vipaka. Am I 
missing something here, or does this match your understanding? 
 
> I am still disatisfied with your explanation of the anattaness of
> nibana.  (I don't have one myself, that's why I am insisting).

Fair enough. Insist away, but I'm not going even going to try to use 
my own words on this one. Yet, anyway. If there's a day I'm convinced 
such an explanation will get past the bullshit filters around here, 
you'll be among the first to hear it.

>  Nibanna
> is just a dhatu.  This implies that there is no entity posessing it 
nor
> entity in it.  Would you explain when you implied (if you did not,
> forgive my clumsiness) Nibanna is not a true reality?

Never said it isn't a "true" reality, because it can 
be "experienced." In this sense it's "true enough" for me. I actually 
believe this has been a major point of contention between the 
Abhidharma systems and certainly some Madhyamika schools. I am 
entirely convinced this is based on an essential misrepresentation  
(on purpose for teaching purposes only, as part of the pedagogical 
structure used to refute commonly held wrong substantialist views) of 
HOW paramattha dhammas are interpreted in the Tipitaka. The way I 
understand the Tipitaka's interpretation, paramattha dhammas are 
interpreted as "irreducible units of experience that can be talked 
about meaningfully in terms of practice." Nowhere have I gotten the 
impression, as I mistakenly had before I really looked at the Suttas 
on this, that there's an implication these are in any way atta, which 
is the charge leveled agaist the Abhidhammists in my school (and many 
others, just so's you're aware).

> Erik, you seem to be doing pretty well at detailed explanation. 
> Regardless of the styles of logic, if we arrive at the 
understanding of
> dhamma as it truly is, then the styles won't matter.   

Absolutely agreed on this.

> My original questioning of your statement was provoked by the
> generality of the statement "There is no difference between anatta 
and
> paticca samuppada at core."  It appears to me that there are obvious
> differences, and we can interpret/misinterpret the statement in many
> different ways.

Fair enough and just so you know I've been over this debate many  
times now, so I have a little more experience with it and a better 
chance of explaining my understanding. Basically, the way this is 
understood is that anatta and paticca samuppada (the cause-effect 
definition!) are ways of saying X about reality. In the case of 
anatta, that is that all things lack core, essence, substance, true 
nature, entity, etc. etc. PS is a way of describing the same reality 
in terms of the fact that everything depends. The two are not 
describing the same property of reality; they are, however, 
describing the same reality, in the same way if you're describing an 
orange, you can state a number of facts about it. Solidity. 
Roundness. None of these labels is the orange, but they are 
characteristics of an orange, in the same way anatta and PS and 
anicca and dukkha are characteristics, or lakkhana, of all sankhara 
dhammas. Regadrless of whether you accept this or not, as Je 
Tsongkhapa (founder of the Geluk school of Tibetan Buddhism--the 
lineage of the Dalai Lama) notes:

You've yet to realize the thought of the Able
As long as two ideas seem to you disparate:
The appearance of things-infallible interdependence;
And emptiness-beyond taking any position.

At some point, they no longer alternate, come together;
Just seeing that interdependence never fails
Brings realization that destroys how you hold to objects,
And then your analysis with view is complete

I'm using these quotes to show I'm speaking using the understanding 
of an entire system, not simply using my own ad-hoc language, and 
this is where I'm coming from. Also, Arya Nagarjuna notes the 
inseparability of PS and anatta, and it is for the above reasons.

> Buddha dhamma is subtle and hard to see: the more
> precise (accurate would be nice too, but I guess only an Ariya can 
tell
> you accurately) we are, the better chance we get at understading the
> right things.  There should be no nit left unpicked after we are 
done!

Agree completely with you in everything you've just said, and I 
invite you to pick the nits off me anyday. Or something like that.

> I am very happy that you have joined the list, and count myself as
> fortunate to be among the presence of people eagar to learned the 
true
> meanings of buddha dhamma. 

I am similarly happy to have the privilege of your time and 
knowledge, as well as the time of others here who I have so very much 
to learn from.

> I have no anger toward the differences in
> opinion, I am only eagar to learn what you think are the teachings 
of
> Buddha.

Excellent. As I am to learn how to interpret these things as they're 
meant to be understood by the Tathagatas. This is where the rubber 
meets the road, in my opinion. Anumoddhana to your studies and 
insight!

 
4170 From: Erik 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 8:50am
Subject: Re: Self / Not self

 
  Howard,

--- Howard wrote:

>        I think you raise an interesting question here, one which 
touches on 
> what I believe is a terminological difference between Theravada and 
Mahayana 
> (and Vajrayana), namely the meaning of sunyata/shunyata.

Oh yeah? We'll see about that! :)

>        In Theravada, 'sunyata' pertains to all dhammas being empty 
of self or 
> anything related to self. It refers to the impersonality of all 
dhammas, both 
> conditioned and unconditioned. The dependently arisen status of 
conditioned 
> dhammas points to their impersonality, their sunyata. The lack of 
any 
> conditions at all in nibbana whereby it might be grasped at as 'me' 
or 'mine' 
> makes it the supreme emptiness in that same sense. Thus, in 
Theravada, 
> 'sunyata' and 'anatta' basically carry the same meaning.

You just gave me a lecture on my own school's definitions there. Are 
you sure you're not a ringer? :)

>        However, my understanding is that in Mahayana, 'shunyata' 
has the same 
> meaning as 'insubstantiality', 'essencelessness', and 'lack of own-
being'. 

Can you show me the diffference between what "own-being" (svabhava; 
rang-tong in Tibetan) means and emptiness of "self" as taught about 
anatta? 

Before doing so, though, I believe it is very helpful to work with 
the same definitions of "self." I'd be happy to give you a bunch of 
definitions for this "self" that should hopefully make it very clear 
that anatta and shunyata refer to the same thing across the board, in 
the same way paticca samuppada and anatta refer to the same thing 
(cf. my letter to Kom). If you want, I'll do.

Other than that, "self" is broader than simply "self" as relates the 
khandas; "self" also relates to all sankharas, and specifically, when 
it's examined, refers to "independent" or "true" 
existence. "Core." "Substance." (cf. Vis.) This "self" is the 
impossible "object of negation" to be abandoned. It's an 
impossibility, like a "horn of a rabbit" or a "hair of a tortise." 
It's a nonexistent in the first place, yet the mind thinks in terms 
of "self" all the time. 

> Clearly both Mahayana and Theravada see all conditioned dhammas as 
having 
> this characteristic, but with Theravada not using the 
word 'sunyata' to refer 
> to it. However, I don't think that Theravada sees nibbana as being 
> insubstantial, without essence, and without "own-being"; in fact, I 
believe 
> it refers to nibbana as santo (real).

If the Tipitaka aserts nibbana has "own-being" (svabhava, Tib. rang-
tong), then I'll retract everything nice I've ever said about the 
Theravada and pack my bags right now! (Sorry about that little 
outburst there. I think you may infer I disagree just a little bit 
with that idea. :) )

I think the term "real" is helpful to unpack, since you brought it 
up. What about Nibbana is "real?" It can be experienced by lokuttara 
cittas as an arammana. Yet, does this mean "it" must necessarily 
possess svabhava? So, how do you define "real" here? I think this 
would help clarify some. Actually, a lot.

> The Mahayana position that nirvana is 
> shunyata, empty of essence and own-being has, indeed, puzzled me. 

Does the phrase "sabba dhamma antta" puzzle you? (I mean, it should 
puzzle all of us in a very kusala way, I think!).

> I have 
> never seen an explanation of why it is to be understood to be empty 
in that 
> sense. Lacking conditions doesn't do it. That just makes it 
radically 
> different from all conditioned dhammas. It is the conditioned 
dhammas that 
> are fleeting and dependently arisen, making them both impersonal 
and 
> insubstantial ("like foam" as the Buddha said). But I don't know 
why 
> Mahayanists see nirvana as empty in the sense of being 
insubstantial and 
> without independent reality.

Can you explain how Nibbana might possess svabhava then? I am curious 
how you might make such an argument.

>        Actually, a possible answer to this last matter has just 
occurred to 
> me. Perhaps the Mahayanists view the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, 
to be 
> empty of independent reality because there is a relation of 
interdependence 
> between the conditioned dhammas, on the one hand, and the 
unconditioned 
> dhamma, on the other, this mutual dependence making each of them 
empty of 
> self-nature! Could that be it, Erik?

Um hum. Just as I suspected. A ringer. :)

As always, Howard, I truly appreciate your insights, and anumodhana 
to your studies too!

 
4171 From: Howard 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 7:33am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Hi, Erik -

In a message dated 3/20/01 7:58:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Erik writes:


> Howard,
> 
> --- Howard wrote:
> 
> >        I think you raise an interesting question here, one which 
> touches on 
> > what I believe is a terminological difference between Theravada and 
> Mahayana 
> > (and Vajrayana), namely the meaning of sunyata/shunyata.
> 
> Oh yeah? We'll see about that! :)
> 
> >        In Theravada, 'sunyata' pertains to all dhammas being empty 
> of self or 
> > anything related to self. It refers to the impersonality of all 
> dhammas, both 
> > conditioned and unconditioned. The dependently arisen status of 
> conditioned 
> > dhammas points to their impersonality, their sunyata. The lack of 
> any 
> > conditions at all in nibbana whereby it might be grasped at as 'me' 
> or 'mine' 
> > makes it the supreme emptiness in that same sense. Thus, in 
> Theravada, 
> > 'sunyata' and 'anatta' basically carry the same meaning.
> 
> You just gave me a lecture on my own school's definitions there. Are 
> you sure you're not a ringer? :)
> 
> >        However, my understanding is that in Mahayana, 'shunyata' 
> has the same 
> > meaning as 'insubstantiality', 'essencelessness', and 'lack of own-
> being'. 
> 
> Can you show me the diffference between what "own-being" (svabhava; 
> rang-tong in Tibetan) means and emptiness of "self" as taught about 
> anatta? 
> 
> Before doing so, though, I believe it is very helpful to work with 
> the same definitions of "self." I'd be happy to give you a bunch of 
> definitions for this "self" that should hopefully make it very clear 
> that anatta and shunyata refer to the same thing across the board, in 
> the same way paticca samuppada and anatta refer to the same thing 
> (cf. my letter to Kom). If you want, I'll do.
> 
> Other than that, "self" is broader than simply "self" as relates the 
> khandas; "self" also relates to all sankharas, and specifically, when 
> it's examined, refers to "independent" or "true" 
> existence. "Core." "Substance." (cf. Vis.) This "self" is the 
> impossible "object of negation" to be abandoned. It's an 
> impossibility, like a "horn of a rabbit" or a "hair of a tortise." 
> It's a nonexistent in the first place, yet the mind thinks in terms 
> of "self" all the time. 
> 
> > Clearly both Mahayana and Theravada see all conditioned dhammas as 
> having 
> > this characteristic, but with Theravada not using the 
> word 'sunyata' to refer 
> > to it. However, I don't think that Theravada sees nibbana as being 
> > insubstantial, without essence, and without "own-being"; in fact, I 
> believe 
> > it refers to nibbana as santo (real).
> 
> If the Tipitaka aserts nibbana has "own-being" (svabhava, Tib. rang-
> tong), then I'll retract everything nice I've ever said about the 
> Theravada and pack my bags right now! (Sorry about that little 
> outburst there. I think you may infer I disagree just a little bit 
> with that idea. :) )
> 
> I think the term "real" is helpful to unpack, since you brought it 
> up. What about Nibbana is "real?" It can be experienced by lokuttara 
> cittas as an arammana. Yet, does this mean "it" must necessarily 
> possess svabhava? So, how do you define "real" here? I think this 
> would help clarify some. Actually, a lot.
> 
> > The Mahayana position that nirvana is 
> > shunyata, empty of essence and own-being has, indeed, puzzled me. 
> 
> Does the phrase "sabba dhamma antta" puzzle you? (I mean, it should 
> puzzle all of us in a very kusala way, I think!).
> 
> > I have 
> > never seen an explanation of why it is to be understood to be empty 
> in that 
> > sense. Lacking conditions doesn't do it. That just makes it 
> radically 
> > different from all conditioned dhammas. It is the conditioned 
> dhammas that 
> > are fleeting and dependently arisen, making them both impersonal 
> and 
> > insubstantial ("like foam" as the Buddha said). But I don't know 
> why 
> > Mahayanists see nirvana as empty in the sense of being 
> insubstantial and 
> > without independent reality.
> 
> Can you explain how Nibbana might possess svabhava then? I am curious 
> how you might make such an argument.
> 
> >        Actually, a possible answer to this last matter has just 
> occurred to 
> > me. Perhaps the Mahayanists view the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, 
> to be 
> > empty of independent reality because there is a relation of 
> interdependence 
> > between the conditioned dhammas, on the one hand, and the 
> unconditioned 
> > dhamma, on the other, this mutual dependence making each of them 
> empty of 
> > self-nature! Could that be it, Erik?
> 
> Um hum. Just as I suspected. A ringer. :)
> 
> As always, Howard, I truly appreciate your insights, and anumodhana 
> to your studies too! 
> 
=====================================
       My point - and I might be right, and I might be wrong - is that the 
notion of 'anatta' (or 'sunya') in Theravada is a restriction of that in 
Mahayana. 
       When a Mahayanist says that all dharmas are empty he/she means that 
they have no separate identity, but only are "things-in-relation". BECAUSE OF 
THIS, in particular, all dharmas are impersonal; that is, they are not, 
individually, or in combination, a self in the sense of a (truly existent) 
person nor are they owned or controlled by any self or related to any self. 
       However, when a Theravadin says that all dhammas are empty, he/she 
means only that they are impersonal, that they are, individually or in 
combination, neither a self nor related to a self. Theravadins do, indeed, 
accept that all conditioned dhammas are insubstantial (and they use that to 
*point* to their impersonality), but I don't think they they use 'sunya' to 
describe that insubstantiality, but only to describe their impersonality. I 
believe that for Theravadins, sunya = anatta = impersonal, whereas for 
Mahayanists, shunya = anatma = nihsvabhava (asvabhava?). I'm not sure whether 
or not the Theravadin understanding is that nibbana is lacking in 
self-nature; I'm only certain that the understanding is that it is 
impersonal. Do you see my point? Now, perhaps I'm wrong on the Theravadin 
usage, and I welcome correction.
       Now, with regard to the unconditioned dhamma being empty (in the 
Mahayana sense) due to the mutual dependence between it and the conditioned 
dhammas, this does make sense to me. The alternative would either be a 
position somewhat like that of advaita vedanta, with nibbana being inherently 
existent (an "absolute") and conditioned dhammas being inherently nonexistent 
(and only appearing to exist), a position that I think is incoherent, or the 
diametrical opposite position, which I think few Buddhists could except. The 
position that conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma are all empty 
(in the Mahayanist sense) is one which allows *both* to exist in the 
middle-way, conventional sense.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4172 From: Desmond Chiong   
Date: Tue Mar 20, 2001 11:36pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  Yes, a citta can actually "see" another citta.
This is probably the highest level of explanation, and can happen only to 
people who are enlightened. Since we have a group of very near enlightened 
people, I thought I would go ahead and share with you.

Remeber a rupa lasts 17 times longer than a citta.
When a observing citta [e.g. 1 second] looks at the observed citta [e.g. 17 
seconds], then the observed citta ends up looking back at the observing 
citta for 16 seconds more.

Wishing you all the shortest way to Nirvana. Practice, practice and practice 
more.........

With metta,
des


>From: "Amara" 
>Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing 
>Consciousness
>Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:36:39 -0000
>
>--- "m. nease"  wrote:
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > Alex asked me to post a question I'd asked her
> > off-line.  It's out of the context of the discussion
> > we were having, so I hope it makes sense:
> >
> > > >Still, it does seem to me that an arising citta
> > > >would
> > > >already have an object, so how could it have the
> > > >subsiding citta as an object too (or was it
> > > >vice-versa)?  You would know this a lot better than
> > > >I...
> >
> > The question had to do with whether an arising citta
> > 'sees' the previous, subsiding citta, or something to
> > that effect.  I asked it because I thought that I
> > recalled reading that a citta only takes one object.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > mike
>
>
>Dear Alex and Mike,
>
>From my understanding, both the citta and its object arise from
>conditions, therefore when the conditions are right, for example when
>there is sati arising with it there could be study of the previous
>citta which would make the characteristics of the citta that had just
>fallen away the object of the study.  For example anger that had just
>fallen away that instant could become the object of kusala sati
>arising to study its crude and violent nature, at which instant the
>anger is replaced by a moment of peaceful bhavana.  But for that tiny
>instant only, then anger might or might not arise again according to
>conditions.  When the conditions are right, however, it is surprising
>how a tiny instant of awareness can attenuate our clinging to anger,
>sometimes stopping it entirely!
>
>Hope this helps, dear friends,
>
>Amara
>


 
4173 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 3:46pm
Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Dear Erik,


> -----Original Message-----
> I won't even try, because I'll make a hopeless
> mess of it, as it is
> presently beyond my ability to articulate
> something so subtle (one
> reason I'm studying Abhidhamma if you must know).
> So I'll defer to
> Arya Nagarjuna instead. And it fully reflects my
> understanding on
> this:

I would actually be happier if you describe this in your
words than quoting a text not coming from the Tipitaka or
commentaries.  There are values in reading from the same
source: we can converge faster (maybe) on the understandings
of Buddha dhamma.  I will further nit-pick the text you
quoted below, but I think the value of this will be minimal.

> Unrelinquished, unattained,
> Unannihilated, not permanent,

Again, if Nibanna doesn't rise and doesn't fall, how do you
explain that it is impermanent?

> Unarise, unceased:
> That is how Nirvana is described.
>
> Some other illustrative quotes include:
>
> -If nirvana were existent, it would be composed
> -If nirvana were existent, how could it be non-dependent?

Paramatha dhamma are dhammas with characteristics that
citta/cetasikas can experience.  How do you define
existence?

> There is a whole set of stanzas in the
> Mulamadhymakakarika on Nirvana

I am unfamiliar with this work.  Is it coming from the
Tipitaka?

> > > fact there is clinging to formations as atta,
> and the process of
> > > anicca itself produces unpleasant vipaka due
> to clinging to these
> > This raises another question.  Are the process
> of clinging and the
> > resultant unhappiness vipaka?
>
> Tough question for this Abhidhamma beginner, but
> I'll give it a try.

I think a few people might be able to help here.  Clinging
(lobha) is not vipakka.  Clinging (lobha) without the
appropriate cetana (volition) doesn't cause future
unpleasant vipakka.  The mental unhappiness resulting from
not being able to obtain what one clings to, parting from
what one clings to, etc., is domanassa vedana (unhappy
feeling) arising with dosa (anger), again not vipaka, again
without the appropriate cetana doesn't cause future
unpleasant vipakka.

> know, namely, that
> rupa of the body is a result of kamma-vipaka.

The rupa of the "body" in fact comprises of different types
of rupas that have the followings as samuddhana (cause,
foundation):
1) Kamma
2) Citta (that explains how we move)
3) Ahara (that explains why we get fatter if we eat too
much)
4) Utu (that explains why dead bodies still remain even when
Kamma, Citta, and Ahara are not supporting it anymore.

> Therefore any processes
> of clinging would be arising in dependence on
> this kamma-vipaka.

We can cling to many things besides our bodies.  We can
cling to what we see (say a car) which is clinging to
"Vipaka" directly caused by Kamma.  We can cling to the
concept of our car which is not a direct result of Kamma.
In fact, we don't even have to have a body to cling to
something.  In Arupa-brahma planes, there are no bodies, but
yet, the arupa-brahma can still cling.

> Never said it isn't a "true" reality, because it can
> be "experienced." In this sense it's "true
> enough" for me. I actually

Paramattha dhamma are realities whose characteristics the
citta can directly experience.  Regardless of whether or not
we call it a "true" realities, the citta can experience
paramattha dhamma.  In this sense, I think we agree.

> believe this has been a major point of contention
> between the
> Abhidharma systems and certainly some Madhyamika
> schools. I am
> entirely convinced this is based on an essential
> misrepresentation
> (on purpose for teaching purposes only, as part
> of the pedagogical
> structure used to refute commonly held wrong
> substantialist views) of
> HOW paramattha dhammas are interpreted in the
> Tipitaka. The way I

Sorry I couldn't contribute here.  I am not familiar with
the disagreements.

> understand the Tipitaka's interpretation,
> paramattha dhammas are
> interpreted as "irreducible units of experience
> that can be talked
> about meaningfully in terms of practice." Nowhere
> have I gotten the
> impression, as I mistakenly had before I really
> looked at the Suttas
> on this, that there's an implication these are in
> any way atta, which
> is the charge leveled agaist the Abhidhammists in
> my school (and many
> others, just so's you're aware).

I don't think there is anybody in this group who would argue
(I am almost certain!  despite all the disagreements) that
there is an atta in anything.  I believe (mistakenly?) that
the "Abhidhammists" are charged because the language that is
used, i.e, that paramatha dhamma are "ultimate" realities,
and these realities exist and have  their own functions
beyond manifesting the characteristics [epistomological
arguments (thanks, Howard!  I needed to look that up when
you mentioned it the first time)] .

> In the case of
> anatta, that is that all things lack core,
> essence, substance, true
> nature, entity, etc. etc.

Do you regard the characteristic of anger, for example, as
essence, substance, true nature?  Why not?  The citta can
certainly directly experience the anger, while the citta
cannot directly experience a car.  What does it mean when
you say that all things lack core, essense, substance, true
nature?  We may be able to explain this for Sankharas by the
way of conditioned arising.  How do we explain Nibanna?  I
am running in circle here...

> Also, Arya
> Nagarjuna notes the
> inseparability of PS and anatta, and it is for
> the above reasons.

I think we have exhausted this particular line of discussion
(difference/non-difference of PS and anatta) without coming
to a common conclusion...

kom

 
4174 From: Amara   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 4:21pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  > Yes, a citta can actually "see" another citta.
> This is probably the highest level of explanation, and can happen 
only to 
> people who are enlightened. Since we have a group of very near 
enlightened 
> people, I thought I would go ahead and share with you.
> 
> Remeber a rupa lasts 17 times longer than a citta.
> When a observing citta [e.g. 1 second] looks at the observed citta 
[e.g. 17 
> seconds], then the observed citta ends up looking back at the 
observing 
> citta for 16 seconds more.
> 
> Wishing you all the shortest way to Nirvana. Practice, practice and 
practice 
> more.........


Dear Des,

Sounds super, can you give us some references?  Preferably from the 
Tipitaka or Commentaries?

Personally I have always thought of it as Howard explained, from the 
memory angle, but am open to other views.

Amara

 
4175 From: Amara   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Very brief (Sarah)

 
  > I've missed what it's all about too. Maybe it's akusala vipaka for 
> writing such sharp posts recently! (or not...) 
> 
> Unfortunately, my wife is not a doctor yet, but she is working on 
her 
> PhD in statistics. I don't think she'll finish in time to help me 
> though.


Dear Dan,

How are you feeling, any better?  What did the doctor say, why such 
high fever?  (I don't mean your future PhD wife, who must be so 
worried too!)  Do take care of yourself,

All the best,

Amara

 
4176 From: teng kee ong   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 8:00pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight

 
  -----Original Message-----
From: Robert Kirkpatrick  
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 04:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concentration acompanying insight
Dear Robert,
You said when the insight are insighted is consider as having jhana and its factors yet is close to access jhana.You must check out in detail the sankhara for each citta in book like visuddhimagga.The cittavithi of jhana object javana is the same like earth,earth etc but the insight (khanika) cittavithi will be among the 8 kinds of kusala javana which don't have the same jhana factors.In dhammadayada sutta tika mention the upacara have to put behind during that insight-this prove that insight is not having a samadhi level same as access.That access have the same jhana sankhara with the appana.It is only those  people read  in Visuddhimagga --without jhana there will not be nibbana.This means we need jhana factor for any yogi.
Looking at yuganaddha sutta where ananda said every one attain nibbana by one or among these fours  ,if we put four satipattha object on each four of them,it will be kaya (inferior samathayanika)for the first  -emerge from one jhana.Vedana(better samathayanika) for the emerge one jhana after  going to higher jhana.Citta(inferior sukka)going by insight follow by lokiya jhana while the better sukkha vipasaka eill be the one who have jhana and insight then thinking that his already arahant etc.I have no canon support because the com.only said the first is samatha and the secone is sukha.That last of it prove that sukhavipasaka(dhamaupasana) did practice jhana but some like sakhadeva and visakha really don't have jhana practising but the access jhana object will occur with buddhaausati etc. 
I think we still can find the lost tika like petavatthu,suttanipata tika theragatha tika etc.It can be done by monks with devine eye or pray to deva Because it is in some old temple in thailand-chieng mai etc.
From Teng Kee

> Dear teng,
> My comments are between yours:
> --- teng kee ong  wrote:
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Dear Robert,
> > I will do it in pts book but not in here because it have too
> > many things to mention,
> 
> I will be looking forward to it. If you could send me your notes
> beforehand this would be much appreciated.
> 
> not just like mahasi method of anyone
> > can be a sukkhavipassaka and his method is mainly kaya
> > anupassana(for samathayanika inferior type only)etc.
> 
> Yes, Although the mahasi people do mention other doors they seem
> to emphasise mainly on kaya or the four elements. 
> 
> I have to
> > mention that we can't read the lost anguttara tika (not the
> > one by sariputta )because it was lost.That book might have
> > some helpful comments.
> 
> OK. Sad news indeed- the ancient tikas are very useful.
> 
> Why 2 samathayanika (tanha type-see
> > satipatthana sutta english translation online in
> > www.accesstoinsight.org )have to emerge from jhana ?Maybe is
> > because they are lacking of samadhi and having too much
> > nivarana.
> 
> Isn't it because in jhana because of the fixed concentration 
> awreness of rise and fall is practically unattainable. it is
> immediately after leaving jhana that insight can understand the
> ephemeral nature of the jhana factors?
> 
> Maybe sukkhavipassaka are having not enough insight?I
> > have to read that comment in anguttara purana tika because i
> > can only find it in netti and petakopadesa which is not
> > helpful enough.Maybe the reverse is true -that samathayanika 
> > is lacking of insight etc(see yuganaddha sutta in anugattara
> > nikaya book 2.Petakopadesa and netti even said samathayanika
> > will have dukkhapatipada but sukkhavipassaka will have sukkha
> > patipada.I can 't agree on it because anguttara nikaya com
> > said emerge from jhana will have sukkhapatipada.
> 
> This is very interesting. In the netti it indicates that
> neyya(slow ones) need to be  taught many  details and go via
> insight rather than samatha. This seems to show that the
> sukkhavipassaka is for the less developed among us (neyya).I can
> find exact references if this is useful.
> 
> 
> > The  only sure word i can say is that mahasi sayadaw is surely
> > wrong.Doing insight (without coming out from jhana)with 8
> > kusala javana(khanika samadhi )will not have jhana factors and
> > the samadhi bala(power).But emerge from jhana for
> > samathayanika will have jhana factors because it will be
> > khanika samadhi with the jhana javana.sukhavipassaka will have
> > the samadhi like this(lokiya jhana)after almost completing his
> > insight.
> 
> OK. You may be  right here.  I would maintain that during
> initial stages of insight, (i.e. preceeding the first
> vipassana-nana (nama-rupaparicchedda -nana) and onwards up until
> the later stages of vipassana, but before actual path moments)
> that only khanika samadhi is needed. During actual moments of
> vipassana this samadhi, although momentary is very strong -
> close to upacara (access) but less than full jhana. Now in the
> moments just preceeding penetration of nibbana it may be that
> all the jhana factors are present and the power of samadhi is
> equivalent to that of jhana. Certainly, the moments when nibbana
> is insighted are considered as jhana, even for the
> sukkhavipassaka.
> Can you agree with this?
> 
> I think it would be useful to discuss this with people like Nina
> van gorkom or some of the pali experts at the foundation in
> Bangkok. They would have translators available for such a
> discussion.
> 
> 
> Robert
> 


 
4177 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 8:47pm
Subject: Fwd: Hello!

 
  Dear All

I am forwarding a message from our latest member,
Stephen, which was meant for the list.  

--- Stephen Roehrig  wrote: >
From: Stephen Roehrig 
> Subject: Hello!
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:48:39 -0700
> 
> 
> Greeting to the Group;
> 
> My name is Stephen Roehrig.  My wife Diane and I
> have been studying and 
> practicing the Buddhas teachings since 1982 (and
> obviously beyond) We have 
> travelled to Thailand back in 1987 Sarah and
> Jonothan Abbott and Khun 
> Sujin.  Our teachers have also included Anagarika
> Dhamma Dinna, Achan 
> Sobin, Venerable Ananda Maitreya, Venerable
> Piyadassi, Sister Ayya Khema, 
> Venerable Punnaji, Venerable Bhante Gunaratana, &
> Venerable Sona.
> Most recently, Diane and I have sold our two
> businesses and are happily 
> adjusting to a less hectic lifestyle.  Immediately
> following our consulting 
> period, I participated in a 7 week Buddhist
> Pilgrimage throughout India and 
> Nepal.  I was given the name of Dhammabodhi by a
> senior Thai Monk during 
> this time.
> My practice follows the cultivation of mindfulness
> as taught by the Buddha. 
>  I have found different perspectives to be
> invaluable in investigating my 
> own nature. My hope is to learn from and to
> contribute to this groups 
> dialogue.
> 
> Metta,
> 
> Stephen

Stephen, Sarah and I are delighted to be in touch with
you and Diane after a lapse of so many years.  Looking
forward to hearing some more from you on the list.

Jon




 
4178 From: Amara   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 9:09pm
Subject: Re: Fwd: Hello!

 
  A doubly warm welcome to Stephen and Diane!!

Looking forward very much to your contributions,

Amara


> > Greeting to the Group;
> > 
> > My name is Stephen Roehrig.  My wife Diane and I
> > have been studying and 
> > practicing the Buddhas teachings since 1982 (and
> > obviously beyond) We have 
> > travelled to Thailand back in 1987 Sarah and
> > Jonothan Abbott and Khun 
> > Sujin.  Our teachers have also included Anagarika
> > Dhamma Dinna, Achan 
> > Sobin, Venerable Ananda Maitreya, Venerable
> > Piyadassi, Sister Ayya Khema, 
> > Venerable Punnaji, Venerable Bhante Gunaratana, &
> > Venerable Sona.
> > Most recently, Diane and I have sold our two
> > businesses and are happily 
> > adjusting to a less hectic lifestyle.  Immediately
> > following our consulting 
> > period, I participated in a 7 week Buddhist
> > Pilgrimage throughout India and 
> > Nepal.  I was given the name of Dhammabodhi by a
> > senior Thai Monk during 
> > this time.
> > My practice follows the cultivation of mindfulness
> > as taught by the Buddha. 
> >  I have found different perspectives to be
> > invaluable in investigating my 
> > own nature. My hope is to learn from and to
> > contribute to this groups 
> > dialogue.
> > 
> > Metta,
> > 
> > Stephen
> 
> Stephen, Sarah and I are delighted to be in touch with
> you and Diane after a lapse of so many years.  Looking
> forward to hearing some more from you on the list.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 

 
4179 From: wynn   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 9:44pm
Subject: Human State

 
  Has anyone ever noticed the contradiction inherent in saying that, on the
one hand, the human state is the best state for achieving enlightenment, and
on the other, advocating celibate monasticism as the superior lifestyle?

If the human state was so precious, wouldn't having as many children as
possible be the most compassionate thing a good Buddhist could do, to
provide superior vehicles for more sentient beings? If everyone aspired to
celibate monasticism the human race would die out in one generation. Would
this end the possibility of enlightenment in this world system?




 
4181 From: Amara   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 10:10pm
Subject: Re: Human State

 
  --- wynn  wrote:
> Has anyone ever noticed the contradiction inherent in saying that, 
on the
> one hand, the human state is the best state for achieving 
enlightenment, and
> on the other, advocating celibate monasticism as the superior 
lifestyle?
> 
> If the human state was so precious, wouldn't having as many children 
as
> possible be the most compassionate thing a good Buddhist could do, 
to
> provide superior vehicles for more sentient beings? If everyone 
aspired to
> celibate monasticism the human race would die out in one generation. 
Would
> this end the possibility of enlightenment in this world system?


I wonder if this is worth discussing, seeing the percentage of 
Buddhists who are actually celibate these days, even among the 
'sankha' in several countries, and the teachings have been around for 
over 25 centuries, with world population constantly on the rise, even 
in Buddhist countries.

 
4182 From: Alex T 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:14pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  --- "Amara"  wrote:
> Personally I have always thought of it as Howard explained, from 
> the memory angle, but am open to other views.

Dear Amara and Howard,

   I don't think that we can observe a citta from memory, because 
it'll be our imagination.

With Appreciation,
Alex Tran

 
4183 From: Alex T 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:20pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  --- "Desmond Chiong"  
wrote:
> Yes, a citta can actually "see" another citta.
> This is probably the highest level of explanation, and can happen 
> only to people who are enlightened. 

   Dear Des,

   You have my total attention for this explanation.

> Since we have a group of very near enlightened 
> people, 

   Ha ha ha ... Good humor.  Thank you.

> I thought I would go ahead and share with you.

   Yes, please.

> Remeber a rupa lasts 17 times longer than a citta.
> When a observing citta [e.g. 1 second] looks at the observed citta 
[e.g. 17 
> seconds], then the observed citta ends up looking back at the 
observing 
> citta for 16 seconds more.

   Just say that we may observe the body, how about observing the 
feeling, the mind, and the consciousness?

With Metta,
Alex Tran

 
4184 From: Amara   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:30pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  >    I don't think that we can observe a citta from memory, because 
> it'll be our imagination.


Dear Alex,

Memory is a cetasika with very precise characteristics too, granted 
thoughts of memory is another citta entirely, but the characteristics 
of cetasikas such as anger is real, and so is memory.  So at different 
moments akusala citta can become object of study of sati through the 
mind dvara.  And at that moment, since the dosa also arises and falls 
away and although it usually arises again because the conditions are 
still there, sati could even condition other citta to arise instead, 
as opposed to not ever knowing the ugly characteristics of dosa.  
Memory (or sanna cetasika) arises with all citta, good or bad, 
therefore immediate memory of the characteristics of kilesa could give 
us knowledge of that reality as such, not only unpleasant and 
harmful but ipermanent nor the self either, adding to the panna of 
things as they really are.  

I think it is better to know than not, even without thinking of panna, 
don't you?

Amara

 
4185 From: Desmond Chiong   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:38pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  The best reference lies in our fanthom long body.

With all the knowledge that he gained from listening directly from the 
Buddha, Ananda himself did not attain enlightenment, until he "let go" of 
what he knew, while he was changing his body position from sitting to the 
lying position.

The follower of "Chan" meditation Buddhism are half right when they say what 
buddha left us is the method of meditation to attain enlightenment.
The follower of the theravada are half right when they say what Buddha left 
us is the scripture, to attain enlightment.
A well balanced middle path is what the Buddha actually left us, to attain 
enlightment.
No one becomes a good doctor just from reading books.
No one becomes a good doctor just from seeing patients.
A well balanced middle way doctor that reads books and sees patients is the 
good and enlightened doctor.

Wishing you all a speedy well balanced approach to enlightenment.
with metta,
des


>From: "Amara" 
>Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing 
>Consciousness
>Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:21:31 -0000
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, a citta can actually "see" another citta.
> > This is probably the highest level of explanation, and can happen
>only to
> > people who are enlightened. Since we have a group of very near
>enlightened
> > people, I thought I would go ahead and share with you.
> >
> > Remeber a rupa lasts 17 times longer than a citta.
> > When a observing citta [e.g. 1 second] looks at the observed citta
>[e.g. 17
> > seconds], then the observed citta ends up looking back at the
>observing
> > citta for 16 seconds more.
> >
> > Wishing you all the shortest way to Nirvana. Practice, practice and
>practice
> > more.........
>
>
>Dear Des,
>
>Sounds super, can you give us some references?  Preferably from the
>Tipitaka or Commentaries?
>
>Personally I have always thought of it as Howard explained, from the
>memory angle, but am open to other views.
>
>Amara
>


 
4186 From: Metta Jon 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:40pm
Subject: Re: Human State

 
  Dear Dhamma Friends:

IMHO, monastics (of various religions) have undertaken
celibacy not only because of self-discipline, or because they wanted 
to maintain a state of purity, or to overcome defilements (although 
these are all good reasons); but also because, as celibates, they 
are better able to focus on their practice and better able to serve
the community, if they are not hindered by the additional 
responsibilities of raising children, paying bills, taxes, etc. (as 
well as the obvious distractions of a marriage or other relationship
involving romantic and sexual attachment).

Monastics do not need to help produce more children, as the world
is already overpopulated as it is!  There is no shortage of human
beings--only a shortage of those who are seeking to liberate 
themselves from Samsara!  The human state is the best state for
realizing Enlightenment, but there is a Path that must be followed
by those humans...otherwise, we are not taking advantage of this
precious opportunity.  To quote the Blessed One from the Utthana
Sutta (Sutta Nipata): "Do not let the opportune moment pass."

As far as laity are concerned, i don't think we can expect total
celibacy, but some self-restraint is good...monogamy is good...
restricting sexual intimacy to being a physical expression of
love (as opposed to a means of self-gratification) is good.  There
have even been happily married couples (Buddhist & non-Buddhist) who
have managed to go for lengthy periods of time without sex.  I am not
condemning those who engage in sex; i am saying that while it has its
place in committed relationships, it is not always necessary.  But,
bottom line--if a person really does not wish to be celibate, they
don't have to be (unless they are monks/nuns--but then, they have the
option to leave the Sangha if they wish).

I apologize for the wordiness of my post, and thank you for your 
patience.

Sukhita hotha,

Metta Jon 




--- "Amara"  wrote:
> --- wynn  wrote:
> > Has anyone ever noticed the contradiction inherent in saying 
that, 
> on the
> > one hand, the human state is the best state for achieving 
> enlightenment, and
> > on the other, advocating celibate monasticism as the superior 
> lifestyle?
> > 
> > If the human state was so precious, wouldn't having as many 
children 
> as
> > possible be the most compassionate thing a good Buddhist could 
do, 
> to
> > provide superior vehicles for more sentient beings? If everyone 
> aspired to
> > celibate monasticism the human race would die out in one 
generation. 
> Would
> > this end the possibility of enlightenment in this world system?
> 
> 
> I wonder if this is worth discussing, seeing the percentage of 
> Buddhists who are actually celibate these days, even among the 
> 'sankha' in several countries, and the teachings have been around 
for 
> over 25 centuries, with world population constantly on the rise, 
even 
> in Buddhist countries.

 
4187 From: Amara   
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:46pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  The middle path means the study of the present as opposed to the 
future and the past, not between the Tipitaka and some other 
tradition.  

> The best reference lies in our fanthom long body.
> 
> With all the knowledge that he gained from listening directly from 
the 
> Buddha, Ananda himself did not attain enlightenment, until he "let 
go" of 
> what he knew, while he was changing his body position from sitting 
to the 
> lying position.
> 
> The follower of "Chan" meditation Buddhism are half right when they 
say what 
> buddha left us is the method of meditation to attain enlightenment.
> The follower of the theravada are half right when they say what 
Buddha left 
> us is the scripture, to attain enlightment.
> A well balanced middle path is what the Buddha actually left us, to 
attain 
> enlightment.
> No one becomes a good doctor just from reading books.
> No one becomes a good doctor just from seeing patients.
> A well balanced middle way doctor that reads books and sees patients 
is the 
> good and enlightened doctor.
> 
> Wishing you all a speedy well balanced approach to enlightenment.
> with metta,
> des
> 
> 
> >From: "Amara" 
> >Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: 
Observing 
> >Consciousness
> >Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:21:31 -0000
> >
> > > Yes, a citta can actually "see" another citta.
> > > This is probably the highest level of explanation, and can 
happen
> >only to
> > > people who are enlightened. Since we have a group of very near
> >enlightened
> > > people, I thought I would go ahead and share with you.
> > >
> > > Remeber a rupa lasts 17 times longer than a citta.
> > > When a observing citta [e.g. 1 second] looks at the observed 
citta
> >[e.g. 17
> > > seconds], then the observed citta ends up looking back at the
> >observing
> > > citta for 16 seconds more.
> > >
> > > Wishing you all the shortest way to Nirvana. Practice, practice 
and
> >practice
> > > more.........
> >
> >
> >Dear Des,
> >
> >Sounds super, can you give us some references?  Preferably from the
> >Tipitaka or Commentaries?
> >
> >Personally I have always thought of it as Howard explained, from 
the
> >memory angle, but am open to other views.
> >
> >Amara
> >

 
4188 From: Metta Jon 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:54pm
Subject: defintions of "Tathagata"

 
  A friend of mine e-mailed me a few weeks ago, about Venerable 
Dhammapiyo...it seems that he was asking for people to offer
their definitions of the word "Tathagata".

When i am translating texts, or reading them to others, i usually
substitute the word "Buddha" for "Tathagata", as i consider them
to be virtually interchangeable.  But, if asked to define the word,
that requires some thought.

Traditionally, it has been translated as "the One who has thus gone"
or "the One who has thus come".  I take the former to mean "one who
has gone beyone suffering" or "one who has gone to the Other Shore
(Nibbana/Nirvana)."  I take the latter tradition to mean "one who has
come to realization of Dhamma".

Some other translations i have seen are "Wayfarer" (which sounds odd
to me), and "the Perfect One" which would sound egotistical to many
ears....although one might define "Tathagatha" as "one who has thus
come to perfection" (ie, one who has practiced the "Perfections"--
the Paramis) and who has arrived at the culmination of that practice:
namely, Buddhahood).

Just a few thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

Sukhita hotha,

Metta Jon

 
4189 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo   
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2001 0:39am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] defintions of "Tathagata"

 
  Thanks for your input.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Metta Jon>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:24 PM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] defintions of "Tathagata"


> A friend of mine e-mailed me a few weeks ago, about Venerable
> Dhammapiyo...it seems that he was asking for people to offer
> their definitions of the word "Tathagata".
>
> When i am translating texts, or reading them to others, i usually
> substitute the word "Buddha" for "Tathagata", as i consider them
> to be virtually interchangeable.  But, if asked to define the word,
> that requires some thought.
>
> Traditionally, it has been translated as "the One who has thus gone"
> or "the One who has thus come".  I take the former to mean "one who
> has gone beyone suffering" or "one who has gone to the Other Shore
> (Nibbana/Nirvana)."  I take the latter tradition to mean "one who has
> come to realization of Dhamma".
>
> Some other translations i have seen are "Wayfarer" (which sounds odd
> to me), and "the Perfect One" which would sound egotistical to many
> ears....although one might define "Tathagatha" as "one who has thus
> come to perfection" (ie, one who has practiced the "Perfections"--
> the Paramis) and who has arrived at the culmination of that practice:
> namely, Buddhahood).
>
> Just a few thoughts, for whatever they're worth.
>
> Sukhita hotha,
>
> Metta Jon
>

 
4190 From: Alex T 
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2001 1:09am
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  --- "Amara"  wrote:
> Memory is a cetasika with very precise characteristics too, granted 
> thoughts of memory is another citta entirely, but the 
characteristics 
> of cetasikas such as anger is real, and so is memory.  

Dear Amara,

   So memory (sanna) has its own object.  How can it observe another 
citta which had its object and already gone?

Thank you,
Alex

 
4191 From: Amara   
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2001 1:30am
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  >    So memory (sanna) has its own object.  How can it observe another 
> citta which had its object and already gone?

Dear Alex,

I think we can see it more clearly when we think of present 
situations, what we see as a moment of seeing is composed of 
innumerable instants of citta arising through not only the eyes and 
body sense, etc, but countless bhavanga as well, yet all is so fast 
there can also be sati arising with the seeing and thinking, 
accumulating panna even now.  The same with akusala citta that arises, 
they do not come singly, it wouldn't be noticeable, would it?  Why do 
some people get red or pale when anger arises?  If just one citta 
arises and falls away without conditioning others to arise too 
according to paccaya (causes).  Therefore what we can observe and 
study would usually be a train of citta as well and the when there 
happens to be conditions for sati to arise to accumulate panna, there 
could be instants of the peace of bhavana interposing in the midst of 
the train of anger and other citta such as seeing and hearing.  But 
let me check with someone more knowledgeable and get back to you about 
the details, and possible corrections!

Signing off for now, will get back to you,

Anumodana in your studies!

Amara

 
 
4192 From: Howard 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 8:33pm
Subject: On Second Thought (Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self)

 
  Hi, Erik and all -

In a message dated 3/20/01 11:36:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, Howard 
writes:


> My point - and I might be right, and I might be wrong - is that the 
> notion of 'anatta' (or 'sunya') in Theravada is a restriction of that in 
> Mahayana. 
>        When a Mahayanist says that all dharmas are empty he/she means that 
> they have no separate identity, but only are "things-in-relation". BECAUSE 
> OF 
> THIS, in particular, all dharmas are impersonal; that is, they are not, 
> individually, or in combination, a self in the sense of a (truly existent) 
> person nor are they owned or controlled by any self or related to any self. 
>        However, when a Theravadin says that all dhammas are empty, he/she 
> 
=================================
       I decided to check out this idea of mine a bit more carefully by 
seeing what Buddhaghosa had to say about anatta and sunya. It now seems to me 
that although the primary Theravadin sense of 'anatta' / 'sunya' is 
'impersonal', it is, in fact, not restricted to that. I give a couple quotes 
of material from the Visudhimagga to bear this out, the first on sunya, and 
the second on anatta:

       (1) In XXI, 56, there is the following: Having discerned voidness in 
the six modes in this way <This is a previous reference>, he discerns it 
again in eight modes, that is to say: 'Materiality has no core, is coreless, 
without core, as far as concerns (i) any core of permanence, or (ii) core of 
lastingness, or (iii) core of pleasure, or (iv)core of self, or as far as 
concerns (v) what is permanent, or (vi) what is lasting, or (vii) what is 
eternal, or (viii) what is not subject to change. <He continues to say the 
same things with regard to the other khandas, ayatanas, links in the chain of 
dependent origination etc.> Just as a reed has no core, is coreless, without 
core; just as a castor-oil plant, an udumbara (fig) tree, a setavaccha tree, 
a palibhaddaka tree, a lump of froth, a bubble on water, a mirage, a plantain 
trunk, a conjuring trick, has no core is coreless, without core, so too 
materiality etc.'

       (2) In XI, 104, there is the following, with the capitalization for 
emphasis being mine: ... They are states (dhamma) owing to bearing (dharana) 
for the length of the moment appropriate to them. They are impermanent in the 
sense of [liability to] destruction; they are painful in the sense of 
[causing] terror; THEY ARE NOT SELF IN THE SENSE OF HAVING NO CORE [OF 
PERMANENCE AND SO ON]. ...

       Thus it seems that the Theravadin sense of sunya/anatta, while having 
somewhat different emphasis from the Mahayana sense, with Theravada putting 
more emphasis on impersonality, does, indeed, span the same entire range of 
meaning. I stand corrected. Evidentally, both schools speak of a dhamma as 
being "anatta" or "not-self" in the sense of being coreless, the nonexistent 
"self" of a dhamma being an alleged core or unchanging, separate identity or 
own-being.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4193 From: Howard 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 8:41pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  Hi, Alex -

In a message dated 3/21/01 10:17:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Alex T writes:


> --- "Amara"  wrote:
> > Personally I have always thought of it as Howard explained, from 
> > the memory angle, but am open to other views.
> 
> Dear Amara and Howard,
> 
>    I don't think that we can observe a citta from memory, because 
> it'll be our imagination.
> 
> With Appreciation,
> Alex Tran
> 
=================================
       This was basically my point. Mindfulness of a citta must either be 
mindfulness of the memory of a citta (which is not the citta, itself) or just 
the accompaniment of the current citta by a simultaneous cetasika of 
heightened awareness. I see no third option.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         

 
4194 From: Howard 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 8:54pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  Hi, Amara -

In a message dated 3/21/01 10:33:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Amara writes:

> >    I don't think that we can observe a citta from memory, because 
> > it'll be our imagination.
> 
> 
> Dear Alex,
> 
> Memory is a cetasika with very precise characteristics too, granted 
> thoughts of memory is another citta entirely, but the characteristics 
> of cetasikas such as anger is real, and so is memory.  So at different 
> moments akusala citta can become object of study of sati through the 
> mind dvara.  And at that moment, since the dosa also arises and falls 
> away and although it usually arises again because the conditions are 
> still there, sati could even condition other citta to arise instead, 
> as opposed to not ever knowing the ugly characteristics of dosa.  
> Memory (or sanna cetasika) arises with all citta, good or bad, 
> therefore immediate memory of the characteristics of kilesa could give 
> us knowledge of that reality as such, not only unpleasant and 
> harmful but ipermanent nor the self either, adding to the panna of 
> things as they really are.  
> 
> I think it is better to know than not, even without thinking of panna, 
> don't you?
> 
> Amara
> 
================================
       Another argument, albeit a bit of a stretch, that one could make in 
favor of the discerning of a citta actually being a clear memory of that 
citta is the base meaning of 'sati', namely 'remembering', 'recollecting', 
'not forgetting', or 'keeping in mind'. This argument may be nonsense, of 
course. It's just a thought.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
4195 From: Erik 
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2001 2:32am
Subject: On Second Thought (Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self)

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> THEY ARE NOT SELF IN THE SENSE OF HAVING NO CORE [OF 
> PERMANENCE AND SO ON]. ...
> 
>        Thus it seems that the Theravadin sense of sunya/anatta, 
while having 
> somewhat different emphasis from the Mahayana sense, with Theravada 
putting 
> more emphasis on impersonality, does, indeed, span the same entire 
range of 
> meaning. I stand corrected. Evidentally, both schools speak of a 
dhamma as 
> being "anatta" or "not-self" in the sense of being coreless, the 
nonexistent 
> "self" of a dhamma being an alleged core or unchanging, separate 
identity or 
> own-being.

That's what I've been trying, in my unskilled way, to communicate all 
along. Also, I just wanted to add as a response to your last post 
that the idea of "self" is very important to define. As you show from 
Buddhagosa's quote, it's broader than mere "personality" and includes 
things like "core," or "essence." 

Also, what I think is interesting is to consider where all these 
various descriptions are pointing. Is it possible to "triangulate" 
(to a limited degree) from, say, the aspects of reality of the 
tilakkhana, and use that as an aid to understanding the deeper 
character of what's being pointed at?

 
4196 From: m. nease   
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2001 2:58am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Very brief (Sarah)

 
  Dan,

I hope you're well soon.  Still, better to be sick
with a little understanding than well with none (as
you know).

Santi, Bhaatu,

mike
 
--- Dan wrote:
> Dear Sarah,
> Thanks for the thoughtful post! I always enjoy your
> insights. I don't 
> always agree, but I do always learn something.
> Thanks. I'm sure I 
> don't have a lot of time before my fever climbs back
> up (it's been 
> running up and down from about 102 to 105.6 at its
> highest), so I 
> can't write a lot.
> 
> First, in you quote about right view being the
> forerunner (MN 117), I 
> noticed you clipped off what Buddha said was the
> mundane right view, 
> most importantly that it is a belief in kamma/vipaka
> and that there 
> are enlightened people. 
> 
> You write: "There are many, many opportunities for
> moments of metta 
> when one understands the value of friendliness and
> kindness to others. 
> I don't need to go looking for a corpse…." Good for
> you, Sarah. As for 
> me, I'm not so confident that attachment is such a
> small fetter for me 
> that I'd feel comfortable explicitly rejecting
> Buddha's exhortation to 
> meditate on foulness as a way to combat the taint of
> sense desire.
> 
> Dan
> 



 
4197 From: m. nease   
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2001 3:06am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Self / Not self

 
  Dear Kom and Erik:

This is really excellent hair-splitting--thanks.

mike


 
4198 From: Num 
Date: Wed Mar 21, 2001 10:12pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: [Triplegem] (Fwd) Re: Observing Consciousness

 
  Hi all,

Quick questions?

What does sanna cetasika recognize in 5 vinna-citta, in patisandhi, in cuti, 
in bhavanga citta??

Have to run again,

Num



 
4199 From: Dan 
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2001 3:24am
Subject: Re: Very brief (Sarah)

 
  > How are you feeling, any better?  What did the doctor say, why such 
> high fever?  (I don't mean your future PhD wife, who must be so 
> worried too!)  Do take care of yourself,
Pneumonia. I have antibiotics and supposedly all will be fine in a few 
days.