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 
an