4400 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 3:44am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cybele, the dynamic meditator - Erik Dear Erik >--- "cybele chiodi" >wrote: > > > And in the Tibetan path plus Abhidhamma you found the sinergy of >factors for > > it. > >For the record, the Abhidharma is an integral part of the Tibetan >canon, and is studied by all schools. Perhaps studying the Tipitaka's >version as well as the Tibetan Abhidharmakosa is somewhat unorthodox, >but then again, this sort of comparative analysis hasn't been this >easy until now, either (I am lucky enough to have one of three extant >translations of the Tibetan recension of the Abhidharmakosa in >English). To me this presents an unusual opportunity I have found >difficult to pass up. Good for you being openminded and interested in a comparative study of Tipitaka's version and the Tibetan Adhidharmakosa. You are 'breaking the rules' with your unorthodox approach!!! ;-) Notice the smile Erik, even in this media we can reinforce as soften up words with a virtual smile. > > > I never, ever attempted to criticize the Tibetan path or in the >least was > > trying to 'knock' anything of your convictions but again only get >you to > >share about your practice and not only discuss theory. > >Honestly, I wasn't even thinking of the Tibetan path here; I was >referring to scholasticism as a practice in and of itself, which >includes all the discussions on Dhamma going on here. It's a very >powerful practice, so long as the concepts don't become stand-ins for >what they're pointing at. Discussing theory IS practice if approached >the right way, if we're not attached to the words, but are instead >concerned with what the words point at (I think I've been >unmistakably clear this is my approach). Likewise, ANY practice can >become poison if approached the wrong way, study, "dynamic >meditation," etc. The Middle Way is not so easy. Is there anything EASY Erik? We all strive in this Middle Way as in the radical ways for that matter. We strive anyway and it's called dukkha. Indeed what I was trying to point out was exactly this very common attitude of shielding ourselves behind words and concepts and attaching to them defending extrenuously our positions, getting stuck in erudition instead of learning the fresh, invigorating lesson of the present moment. When you affirm things about your convictions chosing words like 'unmistakable' I wonder Erik; what can we be so secure about our beliefs and our skills of living in coeherence with them? And above all our capacity of communicating them in a clear, nitid, 'unmistakable' way? I change mind every second as you as everybody else, therefore all this perpetual values do not exist for me. Nothing can ever be 'unmistakable' unless we are enlightened. I 'awake' day after day to another reality and 'study it' and learn from it getting my fresh insights. The journey is so long and tiring my dhamma brother and grasping to our 'convictions' doesn't make it easier at all. The only thing that soothes our burning pain is loving kindness and compassion. Love and respect Cybele 4401 From: Erik Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 6:01am Subject: Re: Concepts - nature of --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I am not familiar with this idea of a concept `taking > on the characteristic' of what it's pointing to. If > one thinks of, for example, a number (say, 9), exactly > what `characteristic' does that thought `take on'? It takes on a characteristic that distinguishes 9 from 10, for example. Perhaps a quote from Khun Sujim would clarify, because it's the closest I can find to what I've been trying to say: "Even though [pannatti] are not paramattha-dhamma, they are arammana of the cittuppada by their signs or the shadow of meanings (the parallel of paramattha) designated in such a manner because it parallels or compares by making known [with language] the sign or features so that people can say, understand one another, call, make known the meanings." > > Even if we speak > > of pannatti in relation paramattha > > dhammas--especially in relation to > > paramattha dhammas. How can a pannatti lack a > > distinguishing > > characteristic and still perform the function of > > "pointing to" the > > arammana? > > This is another aspect of pannatti that I have not > come across before. Could you give an example of how > pannatti `points to an arammana'? Perhaps "points to" is a poor choice of words. "Represents" is better, I think. See above on this, anyway. Jon, thanks for your other comments on the "tree falling in the forest" question. I see it another way at the moment, namely, that even if there is rupa in theory that rises and falls, since it isn't happening now as direct experience, it hardly matters; the question's academic. Or, more to the point, there's nothing "real" apart from what's being cognized at any given instant, so the question doesn't even apply. 4402 From: Amara Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 11:11am Subject: Re: cognize nibbana Dear Des, I sent this out sometime ago but it didn't seem to show in the list messages, so please ignore if there is duplication: While you are waiting for Robert's book you might want to take a look at the chapter on pannatti in the 'Summary of Paramatthadhama' in the advanced section of , Amara 4404 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 1:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana Howard, Thanks for your comments. I should reread the whole thread on "cognizing nibbbana". It has thrown up interesting perspectives. Speaking of which, how would the concept of "should" or "must" (as in a moral imperative) be translated into the syntax of not-self? I often wonder what is meant when it is written, for example : "you should study the dhamma" . Who or what is being addressed? Kind Regards Herman -----Original Message----- From: Howard Date: Wednesday, 28 March 2001 3:40 Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana >Hi, Herman - > >In a message dated 3/27/01 2:16:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, >Herman H writes: > > >> Kom, >> >> I know the question was not directed to me, but I couldn't resist the >> temptation to put in my two bits worth. :-) >> >> >> There is no tree and there is no forest without nama/rupa. There is rupa >> without nama/rupa. but rupa does not know itself or anything else for that >> matter ( :-) ). I am sure there is rupa falling over all over the place all >> the time, but the forms this takes, and the qualities this has, are shaped >> by nama/rupa. What something would be without it being known is ......... >> unknowable. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> >> Herman >> 4405 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 3:03pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Mana :pride and esteem Dear Erik, Num & Howard, Erik, I thought all your additional comments on this subject below were 'spot on'. Thankyou. You've obviously read and considered a lot about mana. I'll add just one more quote that Nina VG refers to in 'Cetasikas'*: Nina writes: 'So long as conceit has not been eradicated there are many opportunities for its arising. It arises more often than we would think. The Book of Analysis (Vibhanga,Ch 17, 832) gives a very reveling list of the objects on account of which pride and conceit can aise: "Pride of birth; pride of clan; pride of health; pride of youth; pride of life; pride of gain; pride of being honoured; pride of being respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride of wealth; pride of appearance; pride of erudition; pride of intelligence; pride of being a knowledgeable authority; pride of being (a regular) alms collector; accomplishment; pride of popularity; pride of being moral; pride of jhana; pride of dexterity; pride of being tall; pride of (bodily) proportion; pride of form; pride of (bodily) perfection..." 'end quotes As Erik reminds us, it can be any comparing with another- superior, inferior or equal with regard to these prides above. Hmm.... I've just checked the reference in the Vibhanga and there's a lot more detail. it discusses just this point above and further conceits included with 'thinking associated with sympathy for others; thinking associated with gain, being honoured, fame; thinking associated with being not despised'. Really almost any thinking about ourselves or others can be accompanied by mana! Howard & Erik, following on yr discussion on theory and practice, for me this kind of study and consideration is a very useful condition for reminders and moments of awareness to occur during my rather hectic daily life. During the last year, the list in particular, has meant I've done a lot more writing, considering and pulling out of texts than usual. This has all been invaluable to my 'dynamic meditation' (thanks Cybele) in daily life. Even as I sit here writing about mana, there are moments when mana is apparent! Thanks again, Erik. regards, Sarah * Howard, You mentioned in another post about interactions of cetasikas without the tables and dry lists...you'll really appreciate Nina VG's 'Cetasikas' when you get a copy or when it goes on line. --- Erik wrote: > There is actually another side to mana, and that's > false modesty. So > I think the dustrag analogy is also mana if taken > the wrong way, > though this form is subtler and certainly not as > offensive to others! > In all cases mana, at root, is based on comparing > self & other, no > matter how innocuous that comparison may appear. > > Here's are some other categories of mana I'm > familiar with: > > Pride--a puffing up of the mind, thinking that one > is superior > to lower persons > > Excessive pride--a puffing up of the mind, thinking > that one > is superior to equal persons > > Pride beyond pride--a puffing up of the mind, > thinking that > one is greatly superior even to persons who are > superior to > others > > Pride of thinking I--a puffing up of the mind, > observing the > appropriated aggregates of mind and body and > thinking, 'I' > > Pride of conceit--a puffing up of the mind, thinking > that one > has attained what has not been attained, such as > clairvoyance > or meditative stabilization > > Pride of slight inferiority--a puffing up of the > mind, thinking > that one is just a little lower than others who are > actually > greatly superior > > Wrongful pride--a puffing up the mind, thinking that > one has > attained auspicious qualities when one has actually > deviated > from the path, such as claiming high attainments > when one > has actually been carried away by a spirit. > > On that note, I find it interesting that the > Polynesian languages > have the word "Mana" (pride, power) as well, and > it's wide enough to > connote the meaning of the Pali term. > 4406 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 3:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Back To Observing Consciousness Dear Alex & Des, Alex, I have to say that after all the discussion, I'm not quite sure what you mean by observing consciousness. (I probably missed something vital at the start). Do you just mean 'citta'? --- Desmond Chiong wrote: > Observing consciousness does not work. > It is worked on. > Every time a conciousness [citta + cetasika + rupa] > happens, the observing > consciousness is awakened. Now if Alex means a 'citta', I'm even more confused here. Citta can either experience an object (through sense and mind doors) or be experienced (through the mind door). Your definition to include citta, cetasika and rupa must be something quite different. Do you mean paramattha dhamma? Sorry, I'm lost. > In ordinary language, we say observing > consciousness, as though it is a > subject. Actually it is an object. Pls explain. > It is always very tricky to use the ordinary > language to describe extra > ordinary events. > All our understanding may all be the same, at a > certain advanced level. ..or it may be very different! We can only know if we discuss and clarify. > But to use ordinary language to agree that we > understand the same may not be > that easy. > The best way two people understand one another is > when they sit side by side > and one understand the other with no talking. I'm not so sure that we'd get very far....unless we have mind-reading abilities! > Just like when Buddha held a flower, Mahakasapa > smiled. Well, there is no doubt about their abilities, but I sugggest we have a way to go, Des! Thanks for your interesting and stimulating contributions! best regards, Sarah p.s. I just saw yr address brifely..did I note that you were in California? (maybe my sanna's playing tricks with old age..) If so, hope you get to visit Kom one day in S.F. 4407 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 3:40pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View :metta and secret Dear Num, (& Rob at the end) Num said: > Hmmmm. When I said that to Cybele I meant adosa > cetasika has it's immediate > action as well as it's consequence in kusula-vipaka > to the one who had done > the action with adosa cetasika. So the fruit is > not only outward effect to > the entities or people as but also give both > immediate and future effects to > a person who had done any actions with metta. > Anyway, you made me > think. At times I am mad or angry at myself, or > really give myself a hard > time. At times I can aware of my sense of self and > just that moment of > awareness gave me sense of calm and peace, feeling > of friendliness even to > myself. Can I call that metta? May be just call it > adosa moment. Hmm.... Sounds like some useful reflection anyway at those times, probably with adosa as you say, but not metta. There are many kinds and degrees of alobha. Metta (loving kindness) is only directed to (other) living beings. Adosa (non aversion) can even be directed to an object such as when there is patience with bodily poin such as when we have a toothache or any other unpleasant sense-door experience. I do agree with you about the beneficial results of metta to others and oneself, but of course at moments of concern about the benefits to oneself, there is no metta! Hope this clarifies, though I think you know this already! Sorry for the delays, it's really hard for me to keep up with your running pace! metta (at least a few moments anyway!), Sarah > > < learn from animals and trees??!??>> > > :) there is no secret, Sarah. What I've learned is > they are the same as > other dhamma, just a aggregation of rupa or rupa and > nama. The frogs with > fast life cycles egg, tadpole,..., adult. They lay > eggs and die. Rob, you said in this context: 'About contemplating the external mental objects. i assume this is a type of inferential contemplation. Any ideas?" Yes, this is how I understand it and have also read it..was just looking for a com. note i came across recently in Maj Nik on just this oint, but have lost 'my marker'..but it said just this. 4408 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 3:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cybele, the dynamic meditator - Erik/Herman Dear Amara, I've appreciated all your posts to Cybele and I think it's very helpful to point out the different shades of dosa (aversion). You may just wish to re-do this paragraph below because I think in your haste you mixed up dosa (aversion) with dukkha vedana (unpleasant bodily feeling). For others, they are both nama (mental phenomena), but they arise at different moments and under different conditions. Dukkha vedana is vipakka (result of kamma) while dosa is akusala (unwholesome). Sarah --- Amara wrote: > > Dosa however is a very common cetasika that can be > very subtle, as in > each time the body sense is in contact with > something that is not > causing lobha, since through the bodysense there can > only be lobha or > dosa as vedana, and no upekkha. Or it can be very > strong aversion to > something, as you are feeling now, or, the crudest > form, a thundering > anger. 4409 From: Amara Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 5:55pm Subject: Re: Cybele, the dynamic meditator - Erik/Herman > You may just wish to re-do this paragraph below > because I think in your haste you mixed up dosa > (aversion) with dukkha vedana (unpleasant bodily > feeling). > > For others, they are both nama (mental phenomena), but > they arise at different moments and under different > conditions. Dukkha vedana is vipakka (result of kamma) > while dosa is akusala (unwholesome). > Sarah Dear Sarah, You're right, of course, they are totally different and one does not entail the other (though most of the time they do), absolutely my mistake, thanks for pointing that out! Amara > > Dosa however is a very common cetasika that can be > > very subtle, as in > > each time the body sense is in contact with > > something that is not > > causing lobha, since through the bodysense there can > > only be lobha or > > dosa as vedana, and no upekkha. Or it can be very > > strong aversion to > > something, as you are feeling now, or, the crudest > > form, a thundering > > anger. > > 4410 From: Herman Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 7:34pm Subject: Dogma or experience? Hi all, I have read on numerous occasions, that cittas arise in sequence, one after the other. I wonder whether this is being said because it has been experienced, or whether it has been read and recycled as experience. And if cittas arise singularly, in sequence, what is the locus of a citta, if any? Nama? And what is the locus of Nama, if any? Is there one Nama per citta? One Nama per Rupa? How many cittas arise simultaneously in siamese twins? (The recent case in UK where one half was sacrificed to maintain the life of the other comes to mind) Similarly, I have read many a time that rupas last 17 times longer than a cita. Again, when this is written, is it because it has been experienced, or read about and rebadged as ultimate reality (without references to whoever experienced this)? It seems to me that either there is counting or experiencing. How can it be a quality of a citta that it is x times longer, shorter , whatever , than another citta which cannot be being referenced at the same time, given that there is only ever one citta? Any insights would be appreciated. Kind Regards Herman 4411 From: teng kee ong Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 7:43pm Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana Dear Robert, I know about this .For a long time I can't be sure that 5 kinds vijjamanapannatti(besides that asankhata pannatti) for khandha,sacca,dhatu,ayatana,indriya pannatti,the words is another thing from the sabhava paramattha dhamma that been referred to-the word is concept only?.I think this apply only to avijjamanapannatti but not to vijjamana pannatti.This is why we must use two different english words for both kinds plus third kind for those two been combine into.Modern Myanamar think that there are two uncondition -one is nibbana ,the second is all pannatti.But there are a special pannatti named asankhata pannatti like nirodha ,nibbana etc which will not occur if all pannatti is uncondition.No reason to think like that because I think the vijjamana pannatti is the word used and taught by Buddha sasana only but not for other religion. I will come out with more notes based on kathavathu . From Teng Kee -----Original Message----- From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:58:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana > dear teng, > I am not sure if I follow you on this matter. > the Abhidhammattha Vibhavani (Book 8) distinguishes between six > kinds of concepts that are names, nama-pannatti > "1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what > is real, for example the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or > sanna (perception) 10. > > 2. Avijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what > is not real, such as the words Thai or foreigner. These concepts > do not represent absolute realities, citta and cetasika which > are nama, and rupa. Thai or foreigner are not real in the > absolute sense, they are conventional realities, sammutti > dhammas. Could akusala citta11 (unwholesome consciousness) be > Thai or foreign? Akusala citta is a paramattha dhamma (a > reality), it is a dhamma which has its own characteristic, it is > not Thai or foreign. > > 3. Vijjamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of the > non-existent based on the existent. There is the expression "the > person with the six abhinnas."12 The six abhinnas are real but > person is not real. Thus this concept stands for what is real > and for what is not real. > > 4. Avijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of the > existent based on the non-existent. There is the expression > "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the woman is not real. > > 5. Vijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is > real based on what is real. There is the term cakkhu-vinnana > (eye-consciousness). Cakkhu (eye) is a reality, namely the > cakkhu-pasada-rupa (eyesense, a reality sensitive to colour or > visible object), and vinnana (consciousness) is also a reality, > namely the reality which experiences. > > 6. Avija amanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of what > is not real based on what is not real. There is the expression > "the kings son". Both king and son are not real, they are > sammutti dhammas, conventional realities"" > ___ > > > Note that #1 vijamma pannati refers to concepts about elements > that are real. The words used to decribe them are of course > concepts and are thus classified as pannatti but the actual > paramattha dhammas refered to such as the khandas, ayatanas and > dhatus - which have sabhava- are not themselves pannatti. > > > robert > > > > --- teng kee ong wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Kom Tukovinit" > > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:57:26 -0800 > > > > Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana > > Dear Kom, > > There should be two english translation (or for other > > languages too)for pannatti.The vijjamana pannatti(sabhava-with > > individual essence-khandha,sacca,dhatu,ayatana,indriya and > > asankhata pannatti)as appellation while the avijjamana > > pannatti (asabhava-without individual essence)as concept.But I > > still can't decide which should the word be used for both > > kinds combine like tevijja,chalabhinna etc(a combination of > > avijjamana and vijjamanapannatti). > > Nyanamoli used the word produce for nipphanna and positively > > produce for parinipphanna.I think it is good enough.From this > > you can see our text book didn't put the > > avijjamanapannatti(concept) as uncondition because it is still > > positively produce besides anipphanna.Asankhata > > pannatti(nibbana,nirodha etc)is anipphanna and aparinipphanna. > > I can't do anything if the other members in this list for > > still having the wrong view that pannatti are all without > > individual essence.See puggala pannatti text for > > khandhapannatti ,sacca pannatti etc. > > From Teng Kee > > > > > > > > Dear Teng Kee, > > > > > > Given Roberts' suggestions, I am not sure if you want to > > > discuss this further (until you have a copy of the mentined > > > book). Since I don't have a copy of Visuddhamagga (in > > > English), here's a relevent comment from the book Roberts > > > mentioned: > > > > > > The Abhidhammattha Vibhåvaní (Book 8) distinguishes > > > between six kinds of concepts that are names, nåma-paññatti > > > (see Visuddhimagga VIII, note 11). > > > > > > 1. Vijjamåna paññattis, concepts which make known > > > what is real, for example the words rúpa, nåma, vedanå > > > (feeling), or saññå (perception)10 . > > > > > > 2. Avijjamåna paññattis, concepts which make known > > > what is not real, such as the words Thai or foreigner. > > > These concepts do not represent absolute realities, citta > > > and cetasika which are nåma, and rúpa. Thai or for-eigner > > > are not real in the absolute sense, they are con-ventional > > > realities, sammutti dhammas. Could akusala > > > citta 11 (unwholesome consciousness) be Thai or foreign? > > > Akusala citta is a paramattha dhamma (a reality), it is a > > > dhamma which has its own characteristic, it is not Thai > > > or foreign. > > > > > > 3...6 skipped here. (http://www.zolag.co.uk/cone.pdf) > > > 4412 From: Amara Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 7:48pm Subject: Re: Dogma or experience? Dear Herman, Does being 'experienced' by a Buddha count? Because he also said that there were countless other worlds over 2500 years before men were able to build telescopes powerful enough to 'see' other planets than those in our solar system. Amara > I have read on numerous occasions, that cittas arise in sequence, one > after the other. I wonder whether this is being said because it has > been experienced, or whether it has been read and recycled as > experience. And if cittas arise singularly, in sequence, what is the > locus of a citta, if any? Nama? And what is the locus of Nama, if > any? Is there one Nama per citta? One Nama per Rupa? How many cittas > arise simultaneously in siamese twins? (The recent case in UK where > one half was sacrificed to maintain the life of the other comes to > mind) > > > Similarly, I have read many a time that rupas last 17 times longer > than a cita. Again, when this is written, is it because it has been > experienced, or read about and rebadged as ultimate reality (without > references to whoever experienced this)? > > It seems to me that either there is counting or experiencing. How can > it be a quality of a citta that it is x times longer, shorter , > whatever , than another citta which cannot be being referenced at the > same time, given that there is only ever one citta? > > Any insights would be appreciated. > > Kind Regards > > > Herman 4413 From: Num Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 3:08pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Mana :pride and esteem Thanks always Sarah for your detailed and careful response. <<<< I've just checked the reference in the Vibhanga and there's a lot more detail. it discusses just this point above and further conceits included with 'thinking associated with sympathy for others; thinking associated with gain, being honoured, fame; thinking associated with being not despised'. Really almost any thinking about ourselves or others can be accompanied by mana! >> I have Vibhanga by PTS with me. I could not find where is the above quote in the book. If you have time, could you tell me what par. no. is it in. Thanks in advance. I totally agree with you that mana occur very very often, at times hard to see b/c it arises with lobha and satisfaction. But it can cause dosa to arise later. Mana cannot arise with adosa cetasika or metta. We compare ourselves with other or even with ourselves quite often. Have to run to my tennis lesson before go into work. You caught me Sarah, I am the runner :) Until later. Appreciate, Num 4414 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 9:34pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Mana :pride and esteem Hi Num, --- Num wrote: > Thanks always Sarah for your detailed and careful > response. > > <<<< > I've just checked the reference in the Vibhanga and > there's a lot more detail. it discusses just this > point above and further conceits included with > 'thinking associated with sympathy for others; > thinking associated with gain, being honoured, > fame; > thinking associated with being not despised'. > > Really almost any thinking about ourselves or > others > can be accompanied by mana! >> > > I have Vibhanga by PTS with me. I could not find > where is the above quote in > the book. If you have time, could you tell me what > par. no. is it in. Thanks > in advance. same ref as for the earlier quote, except now para 346. PTS copy, p.452, very bottom of the page...I left out some, just the last few examples... S. 4415 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 10:59pm Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana dear Teng, I sent Realities and Concepts today to both you and Des. It is somewhat terse so doesn't give all the details we would like but still clarifies a great deal. Pannatti can be a condition - there is no doubt about this, but there are differences in the way it conditions (compared to paramattha dhamma). The Patthana has something about this too. I have discussed this at times with Acharn Sujin and find her explanations very helpful and directly related to how we experience dhammas now. And of course I look forward very much to any writing and translation you do on the topic. robert --- teng kee ong wrote: > Dear Robert, > I know about this .For a long time I can't be sure that 5 > kinds vijjamanapannatti(besides that asankhata pannatti) for > khandha,sacca,dhatu,ayatana,indriya pannatti,the words is > another thing from the sabhava paramattha dhamma that been > referred to-the word is concept only?.I think this apply only > to avijjamanapannatti but not to vijjamana pannatti.This is > why we must use two different english words for both kinds > plus third kind for those two been combine into.Modern > Myanamar think that there are two uncondition -one is nibbana > ,the second is all pannatti.But there are a special pannatti > named asankhata pannatti like nirodha ,nibbana etc which will > not occur if all pannatti is uncondition.No reason to think > like that because I think the vijjamana pannatti is the word > used and taught by Buddha sasana only but not for other > religion. > I will come out with more notes based on kathavathu . > From Teng Kee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Kirkpatrick > Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:58:28 -0800 (PST) > Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana > > > > dear teng, > > I am not sure if I follow you on this matter. > > the Abhidhammattha Vibhavani (Book 8) distinguishes between > six > > kinds of concepts that are names, nama-pannatti > > "1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known > what > > is real, for example the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), > or > > sanna (perception) 10. > > > > 2. Avijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known > what > > is not real, such as the words Thai or foreigner. These > concepts > > do not represent absolute realities, citta and cetasika > which > > are nama, and rupa. Thai or foreigner are not real in the > > absolute sense, they are conventional realities, sammutti > > dhammas. Could akusala citta11 (unwholesome consciousness) > be > > Thai or foreign? Akusala citta is a paramattha dhamma (a > > reality), it is a dhamma which has its own characteristic, > it is > > not Thai or foreign. > > > > 3. Vijjamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of > the > > non-existent based on the existent. There is the expression > "the > > person with the six abhinnas."12 The six abhinnas are real > but > > person is not real. Thus this concept stands for what is > real > > and for what is not real. > > > > 4. Avijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of > the > > existent based on the non-existent. There is the expression > > "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the woman is not > real. > > > > 5. Vijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of > what is > > real based on what is real. There is the term cakkhu-vinnana > > (eye-consciousness). Cakkhu (eye) is a reality, namely the > > cakkhu-pasada-rupa (eyesense, a reality sensitive to colour > or > > visible object), and vinnana (consciousness) is also a > reality, > > namely the reality which experiences. > > > > 6. Avija amanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of > what > > is not real based on what is not real. There is the > expression > > "the kings son". Both king and son are not real, they are > > sammutti dhammas, conventional realities"" > > ___ > > > > > > Note that #1 vijamma pannati refers to concepts about > elements > > that are real. The words used to decribe them are of course > > concepts and are thus classified as pannatti but the actual > > paramattha dhammas refered to such as the khandas, ayatanas > and > > dhatus - which have sabhava- are not themselves pannatti. > > > > > > robert > > 4416 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 11:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cybele, the dynamic meditator - sarah and venerable D. dear venerable, I'm a bit worried to hear of your health problems - please take good care. I wish a speedy recovery. dear sarah, great comments below. However, I also felt venerable Dhammapiyo came in with his post in a timely manner when I too wondered if it was starting to get a little heated between Erik and Cybele. It may have been just the reminder we all need - we are not here to debate but to learn and help. Since then I have much appreciated the excellent exchange between cybele and Erik. robert --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > Dear Ven Dhammapiyo, > > May I also say how sorry I was to hear about the > passing away of your friend, but how fortunate it was > that he was able to appreciate the dhamma until the > end. > > --- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" > wrote: > > > > > I am really having a bit of a paradoxical time here. > > On one hand there is > > great scholarship going on so much wonderful sharing > > of deep Dhamma but on > > the other hand, where is the practical application? > > On the other hand, I thought the dialogue you refer to > was rather a useful (but difficult) one and that there > was a lot of 'practical application'. Both Erik and > Cybele were very sincere and honest with their > comments, I thought, and were genuinely trying to > share their different undrstandings of the Teachings. > > > There is something of a > > kind of dukkha here that I think is unnecessary. > > Something seems to be > > missing. > > May I ask what you mean by dukkha? > > > > Yes, "real life". Yes, "study, study, study". > > > > But how about a bit more practice like there was > > only 5 minutes or less left > > for each of us to be alive? > > May I also know what you mean by practice? Can we tell > when another is practising? > > > > Something is not right here. There is a lot of > > clinging and grasping I see > > in the writing. > > > > Life is too short and precious. If we cannot apply > > this Dhamma and not just > > relieve dukkha but release ourselves and others > > (including non-sentient > > beings) then what is the point? > > Isn't there a lot of clinging and grasping for us all, > all day long anyway? Is the aim really to 'relieve > dukkha'? Perhaps I should also ask what you mean by > 'apply Dhamma' and how we release ourselves and > OTHERS? > > Ven Sir, I'm just trying to understand your comments > which are a little perplexing to me. I would > appreciate a brief elaboration. > > With Regards, > > Sarah > 4417 From: Howard Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 7:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dogma or experience? Hi, Herman - In a message dated 3/28/01 6:36:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, Herman writes: > Hi all, > > I have read on numerous occasions, that cittas arise in sequence, one > after the other. I wonder whether this is being said because it has > been experienced, or whether it has been read and recycled as > experience. And if cittas arise singularly, in sequence, what is the > locus of a citta, if any? Nama? And what is the locus of Nama, if > any? Is there one Nama per citta? One Nama per Rupa? How many cittas > arise simultaneously in siamese twins? (The recent case in UK where > one half was sacrificed to maintain the life of the other comes to > mind) > > > Similarly, I have read many a time that rupas last 17 times longer > than a cita. Again, when this is written, is it because it has been > experienced, or read about and rebadged as ultimate reality (without > references to whoever experienced this)? > > It seems to me that either there is counting or experiencing. How can > it be a quality of a citta that it is x times longer, shorter , > whatever , than another citta which cannot be being referenced at the > same time, given that there is only ever one citta? > > Any insights would be appreciated. > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > ================================= I think these are very important questions. I particularly am interested by your pointing out that there must be either experiencing or counting, and there is also the whole matter of one citta at a time, each lasting for "moment". The whole ksanavada (sp?) theory of moments, originated by the Sautrantikas, I believe, strikes me as problematical, and as possibly leading to a form of annihilationism. This is an issue addressed by Kalupahana in his book NAGARJUNA. In this same regard, a thought which comes to mind (to *my* mind! ;-), is a thought-model introduced in artificial intelligence in which the "basic unit' of time is not a point, but, instead, is a fuzzy interval. 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) 4418 From: Num Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 8:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: On Right View :metta and secret Hi again Sarah, > Rob, you said in this context: 'About contemplating > the external mental objects. i assume this is a type > of inferential contemplation. Any ideas?" > > Yes, this is how I understand it and have also read > it..was just looking for a com. note i came across > recently in Maj Nik on just this oint, but have lost > 'my marker'..but it said just this. > I'd like to see what the comment says as well. From my understanding, we cannot read a person's mind. The thing we do all the time is reading by interpreting facial expression, verbal, paraverbal and nonverbal language. I think they are all rupa that can come to contact with nama and then I use my past and personal experience to interprete the meaning as well as the hidden meaning of the expression. There are some limitation in this process, culture. Different culture at time has different meaning of the same expression. I've read that Pra. Anuruddha could read the moment of lord Buddha in mahaparinibhana sutta. I don't know how to call that ability. And the point that Pannatti come in is that we need to have an inference for communication. I have read 2 books a while ago, Mind Blindness by Simon Baron-Cohen, et al, I think he's from Denmark Hill. This book is talking about autistic kid and how to develop early screening instrument for Autism for prompt and early treatment and rehab. As you know, autistic kid has severe impairment both in verbal and nonverbal communication. In this book, it mentions some interesting theory of how man communicates and shows that how much we base our communication in nonverbal clue. The second one is, The Symbolic Species : The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain by Terrence W. Deacon. He's from Harvard. This one is a little bit hard to read. But as I can recall, he said that we cannot read another person's mind. Definitely, he talked about concept and symbols which we use in communication. These two books are similar in the way that they are very evidence based writing. Well, that my personal opinion and background. To me awareness is very individual experience. Rupa and nama arise and fall away extremely fast. A lot of things I think I know are actually and speculation and assumption. Well, that why the Buddha called the ultimate truth, Abhidhamma. What do you think? Num 4419 From: Howard Date: Wed Mar 28, 2001 8:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Dogma or experience? Hi, Amara - In a message dated 3/28/01 6:49:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, Amara writes: > Dear Herman, > > Does being 'experienced' by a Buddha count? Because he also said that > there were countless other worlds over 2500 years before men were able > to build telescopes powerful enough to 'see' other planets than those > in our solar system. > > Amara > > > > I have read on numerous occasions, that cittas arise in sequence, > one > > after the other. I wonder whether this is being said because it has > > been experienced, or whether it has been read and recycled as > > experience. And if cittas arise singularly, in sequence, what is the > > locus of a citta, if any? Nama? And what is the locus of Nama, if > > any? Is there one Nama per citta? One Nama per Rupa? How many cittas > > arise simultaneously in siamese twins? (The recent case in UK where > > one half was sacrificed to maintain the life of the other comes to > > mind) > > > > > > Similarly, I have read many a time that rupas last 17 times longer > > than a cita. Again, when this is written, is it because it has been > > experienced, or read about and rebadged as ultimate reality (without > > references to whoever experienced this)? > > > > It seems to me that either there is counting or experiencing. How > can > > it be a quality of a citta that it is x times longer, shorter , > > whatever , than another citta which cannot be being referenced at > the > > same time, given that there is only ever one citta? > > > > Any insights would be appreciated. > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > > Herman > > ================================== A few points: (1) Certainly in the suttas the Buddha said that mind changes far more rapidly than matter. Did he give such exact values there? Or were they only given in the books of the Abhidhamma? Or were they only given in the commentaries? I think it was in the Abhidhamma. But there isn't strong evidence that the Abhidhamma came from the Buddha in the same sense that the other two pitaka did. (2) Didn't the Buddha himself say not to assume the truth of a matter solely on the basis of authority? The Buddha also spoke of Mt. Meru being at the center of the universe. The Buddha said that. So, it is to be accepted as true? (3) Do you really think that folks developed telescopes "because" the Buddha spoke of other worlds? I do think that it is possible to rely a bit too strongly on authority and scripture. The Buddha never said to *believe*. He presented a program for release from suffering, and he invited us to check it out for ourselves. The more we follow that program, I believe, the greater will our confidence increase that, indeed, the Buddhamagga truly is the way to liberation. 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) 4420 From: Alex T Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 2:25am Subject: Re: Back To Observing Consciousness --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > Dear Alex & Des, > > Alex, I have to say that after all the discussion, I'm > not quite sure what you mean by observing > consciousness. (I probably missed something vital at > the start). Do you just mean 'citta'? Dear Sarah, Last week, I posted the below message in another list originally: ---------- Dear friends, From: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tdaing1.htm in Chapter 3 (Khanda Paticcasamuppada), there's a paragraph that says: "When there is impact of 'eye' and 'visible object' there arises 'eye consciousness'. Yogis are advised to observe the 'eye consciousness' whether it still remains, passes away, or vanishes. It will be seen after observation that the same eye consciousness has already passed away or disappeared when it was observed by the observing consciousness. It will be obvious to the observer that the eye consciousness was no more to be found because its arising was momentary." The part that interests me the most is the last two statements. What does the author mean by "observing consciousness"? Thank you, Alex Tran --------- Then, one of our friends here encouraged me to ask the same question in DSG. Like you, I guess the authors meant citta when he said "consciousness". The problem is that each citta has its own object. That's why I don't know how we can have an observing citta. Of course, the subsequent citta has some common conditions with the previous one, but still, the two cittas are not the same. If we say that we can observe the previous one, then we only can observe part of it, which are the common conditions between the two. The only more or less confusing answer I can give to myself is that since we are living in the world of concepts, do your best in this world: observe the common conditions. Gradually, with more panna developed, we may advance to more subtle aspects of citta. I understand that I'm not doing a very good job in stating my question clearly. With Metta, Alex Tran 4422 From: Erik Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 2:42am Subject: Re: Dogma or experience? --- Howard wrote: > But there isn't strong > evidence that the Abhidhamma came from the Buddha in the same sense that the > other two pitaka did. I don't subscribe to the idea the historical Shakyamuni Buddha uttered the words found in the Abhidhamma based on what I've read of its history, though it has become quite clear to me that nearly everything in the Abhidhamma has a direct support from the suttas. On that note, I have no idea if the historical Shakyamuni actually spoke the words in the Suttas. The only "proof" to me is in their ability to help bring about liberation from suffering. So to me it hardly matters if the historical Shakyamuni actually taught Abhidhamma. What matters to me is how beneficial understanding these things is to the goal. It has obviously served many people well and will continue to do so. Certainly in terms of a system for clearly explaining the Dhamma, Abhidhamma is hard to beat. > (2) Didn't the Buddha himself say not to assume the truth of a matter > solely on the basis of authority? The Buddha also spoke of Mt. Meru being at > the center of the universe. The Buddha said that. So, it is to be accepted as > true? The way I see it is it's "true enough." In other words, I see it as a helpful myth, like the Jataka tales. I imagine it was very useful to those steeped in the Indian cosmology of the Buddha's day. It may be less useful to those raised with telescopes and quantum physics, though perhaps not. It is also possible to view this description of the universe in allegorical terms, and that's how I see it these days, as a 3-D representation NOT of cosmological space/time, but as a helpful way to visualize the various realms of existence. > I do think that it is possible to rely a bit too strongly on authority > and scripture. The Buddha never said to *believe*. He presented a program for > release from suffering, and he invited us to check it out for ourselves. I think emphasizing the letter of texts at the expense unpacking their inmost meaning chokes the Buddhadhamma, and turns it from a dynamic system of liberation into another set of sterile and unbeneficial dogmas having nothing to do with freedom. The one thing I love most about the Dhamma is it's truly ehipassika. That, and the fact it is a "raft," were the two most important characteristics of the Dhamma when I began exploring it, and are what made it stand (head & shoulders) above other sysems of thought I'd investigated. Another impressive feature of the Dhamma is how it's managed to evolve to suit the various accumulations of its adherents. Few systems could appear more dissimilar on surface than certain flavors of Buddhism, and yet all contain the identical essence. That this problem can be solved from so many different perspectives is, to me, a testament to the accuracy of the Buddha's central insight into suffering, its origins, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation. What I have seen is that it all holds true, no matter how you slice it. What really amazes me is the integrity of this essence (4NT, tilakkhana, the need for lokuttara nana to abandon the kilesas, for example) across superficially dissimilar schools widely separated by both geography and time. > The > more we follow that program, I believe, the greater will our confidence > increase that, indeed, the Buddhamagga truly is the way to liberation. I could not have said it any better myself. Thank you once again for your insights, Howard. 4423 From: Amara Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 2:49am Subject: Re: Dogma or experience? > > Dear Herman, > > > > Does being 'experienced' by a Buddha count? Because he also said that > > there were countless other worlds over 2500 years before men were able > > to build telescopes powerful enough to 'see' other planets than those > > in our solar system. > ================================== > A few points: > > (1) Certainly in the suttas the Buddha said that mind changes far more > rapidly than matter. Did he give such exact values there? Or were they only > given in the books of the Abhidhamma? Or were they only given in the > commentaries? I think it was in the Abhidhamma. But there isn't strong > evidence that the Abhidhamma came from the Buddha in the same sense that the > other two pitaka did. Dear Howard, I'm glad I caught this message just as I was signing off, tomorrow I am off on another trip and won't be back til very late if at all. But I will get the exact reference for you when I get back. About the Abhidhamma's authenticity if you searched our group's achives you will find some discussions on that also. > (2) Didn't the Buddha himself say not to assume the truth of a matter > solely on the basis of authority? The Buddha also spoke of Mt. Meru being at > the center of the universe. The Buddha said that. So, it is to be accepted as > true? He not only said that but he also said that each universe had a 'Sineru' if I remember correctly. But if you looked at a galaxy from the side doesn't it look like it has a bulge in the middle, maybe hill shaped? Of course he never said to believe even what he taught without proving it first, which is the crux for us, did what he teach about seeing and visible object true at this moment? Hearing and sound? Bodysense and 'hardness' or 'motion' at the tip of our fingers? He also said there are things experienced only through the mind, for example the subtle rupa. And things one should not ponder because it could never bring wisdom in the Buddhist sense and preoccupation with it without awareness of the present does not condone to bhavana. But I personally have never seen anyone able to prove anything he taught was wrong, allowing for mistranslation and such, of course. > (3) Do you really think that folks developed telescopes "because" the > Buddha spoke of other worlds? Did I say that? Although according to some sources people like Einstein said, if there is a religion that goes with science it is Buddhism. I simply meant to say that he KNEW even without teliscopes that there are other planetary systems all through the universe. > > I do think that it is possible to rely a bit too strongly on authority > and scripture. The Buddha never said to *believe*. He presented a program for > release from suffering, and he invited us to check it out for ourselves. The > more we follow that program, I believe, the greater will our confidence > increase that, indeed, the Buddhamagga truly is the way to liberation. I agree entirely. But the more you realize how deep the dhamma is, how exact and true it is, one is more and more amazed at his wisdom and the more confidence one has that the rest must be true too, unlike any other sciences where a theory is continually being revised, annotated and corrected and even annulled by more recent ones. Nothing like that has happened to his teachings for over 2500+ years, and doesn't look likely to happen, especially the parts he teaches us about ourselves. Amara 4424 From: Desmond Chiong Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 3:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Back To Observing Consciousness When a moment of consciousness [17 cittas] arises out of interactions of [nama + rupa] or [citta + cetasika + rupa], (as a result of impingement of a stimulus on any of the five sense organs), the mind sense is stimulated or impinged as the fifth order of citta [1st= past bhavanga, 2nd= vibrating bhavanga, 3rd= arresting bhavanga, 4th sense door citta]in the normal sequence of 17 cittas. Once the mind sense is stimulated, the mind then becomes the subject as the observing consciousness, for an extremely short period of time, if one's mind is concentrated or one has the vipassana nana. I don't know how to say it more in words. Wishing you the best in your practice. with metta, des >From: Alex T >Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Back To Observing Consciousness >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:25:09 -0000 > >--- Sarah Procter Abbott >wrote: > > Dear Alex & Des, > > > > Alex, I have to say that after all the discussion, I'm > > not quite sure what you mean by observing > > consciousness. (I probably missed something vital at > > the start). Do you just mean 'citta'? > >Dear Sarah, > > Last week, I posted the below message in another list originally: >---------- >Dear friends, > > From: >http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tdaing1.htm > >in Chapter 3 (Khanda Paticcasamuppada), there's a paragraph that says: > >"When there is impact of 'eye' and 'visible object' there arises 'eye >consciousness'. Yogis are advised to observe the 'eye consciousness' >whether it still remains, passes away, or vanishes. It will be seen >after observation that the same eye consciousness has already passed >away or disappeared when it was observed by the observing >consciousness. It will be obvious to the observer that the eye >consciousness was no more to be found because its arising was >momentary." > >The part that interests me the most is the last two statements. What >does the author mean by "observing consciousness"? > >Thank you, >Alex Tran >--------- > Then, one of our friends here encouraged me to ask the same >question in DSG. > > Like you, I guess the authors meant citta when he >said "consciousness". The problem is that each citta has its own >object. That's why I don't know how we can have an observing citta. >Of course, the subsequent citta has some common conditions with the >previous one, but still, the two cittas are not the same. If we say >that we can observe the previous one, then we only can observe part >of it, which are the common conditions between the two. > > The only more or less confusing answer I can give to myself is >that since we are living in the world of concepts, do your best in >this world: observe the common conditions. Gradually, with more >panna developed, we may advance to more subtle aspects of citta. > > I understand that I'm not doing a very good job in stating my >question clearly. > >With Metta, >Alex Tran > 4425 From: Alex T Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 4:02am Subject: Re: Back To Observing Consciousness Dear Des, Once again, thank you for your compassionate answer. With Metta, Alex Tran 4426 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 5:37am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cybele, the dynamic meditator - sarah and venerable D. Dear Rob >However, I also felt venerable Dhammapiyo came in with his post >in a timely manner when I too wondered if it was starting to get >a little heated between Erik and Cybele. It may have been just >the reminder we all need - we are not here to debate but to >learn and help. >Since then I have much appreciated the excellent exchange >between cybele and Erik. >robert Well Robert Just to clarify, all my posts to Erik have been written and delivered before bhante intervention that nevertheless I very much appreciated. Love and respect Cybele >--- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > > Dear Ven Dhammapiyo, > > > > May I also say how sorry I was to hear about the > > passing away of your friend, but how fortunate it was > > that he was able to appreciate the dhamma until the > > end. > > > > --- "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am really having a bit of a paradoxical time here. > > > On one hand there is > > > great scholarship going on so much wonderful sharing > > > of deep Dhamma but on > > > the other hand, where is the practical application? > > > > On the other hand, I thought the dialogue you refer to > > was rather a useful (but difficult) one and that there > > was a lot of 'practical application'. Both Erik and > > Cybele were very sincere and honest with their > > comments, I thought, and were genuinely trying to > > share their different undrstandings of the Teachings. > > > > > There is something of a > > > kind of dukkha here that I think is unnecessary. > > > Something seems to be > > > missing. > > > > May I ask what you mean by dukkha? > > > > > > Yes, "real life". Yes, "study, study, study". > > > > > > But how about a bit more practice like there was > > > only 5 minutes or less left > > > for each of us to be alive? > > > > May I also know what you mean by practice? Can we tell > > when another is practising? > > > > > > Something is not right here. There is a lot of > > > clinging and grasping I see > > > in the writing. > > > > > > Life is too short and precious. If we cannot apply > > > this Dhamma and not just > > > relieve dukkha but release ourselves and others > > > (including non-sentient > > > beings) then what is the point? > > > > Isn't there a lot of clinging and grasping for us all, > > all day long anyway? Is the aim really to 'relieve > > dukkha'? Perhaps I should also ask what you mean by > > 'apply Dhamma' and how we release ourselves and > > OTHERS? > > > > Ven Sir, I'm just trying to understand your comments > > which are a little perplexing to me. I would > > appreciate a brief elaboration. > > > > With Regards, > > > > Sarah > > > 4427 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 7:15am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Thank you Dear Ven Dhammapiyo, Please have a good trip to the States and may I wish you well with your health problems. Best regards, Sarah 4428 From: Howard Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 5:59am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Back To Observing Consciousness Hi Alex, Des, Sarah, and all - In a message dated 3/28/01 1:27:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, Alex T writes: > --- Sarah Procter Abbott > wrote: > > Dear Alex & Des, > > > > Alex, I have to say that after all the discussion, I'm > > not quite sure what you mean by observing > > consciousness. (I probably missed something vital at > > the start). Do you just mean 'citta'? > > Dear Sarah, > > Last week, I posted the below message in another list originally: > ---------- > Dear friends, > > From: > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tdaing1.htm > > in Chapter 3 (Khanda Paticcasamuppada), there's a paragraph that says: > > "When there is impact of 'eye' and 'visible object' there arises 'eye > consciousness'. Yogis are advised to observe the 'eye consciousness' > whether it still remains, passes away, or vanishes. It will be seen > after observation that the same eye consciousness has already passed > away or disappeared when it was observed by the observing > consciousness. It will be obvious to the observer that the eye > consciousness was no more to be found because its arising was > momentary." > > The part that interests me the most is the last two statements. What > does the author mean by "observing consciousness"? > > Thank you, > Alex Tran > --------- > Then, one of our friends here encouraged me to ask the same > question in DSG. > > Like you, I guess the authors meant citta when he > said "consciousness". The problem is that each citta has its own > object. That's why I don't know how we can have an observing citta. > Of course, the subsequent citta has some common conditions with the > previous one, but still, the two cittas are not the same. If we say > that we can observe the previous one, then we only can observe part > of it, which are the common conditions between the two. > > The only more or less confusing answer I can give to myself is > that since we are living in the world of concepts, do your best in > this world: observe the common conditions. Gradually, with more > panna developed, we may advance to more subtle aspects of citta. > > I understand that I'm not doing a very good job in stating my > question clearly. > > With Metta, > Alex Tran > > ================================ I suppose that what might be going on is a rapid succession of cittas, first a visual discernment (vi~n~nana), second a subsequent visual (or other than visual) discernment, and then a third, mental discernment which recalls the previous two discernments and recognizes that object of the second discernment is different from the object of the first. Does this make any sense? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 4429 From: Howard Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 6:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Dogma or experience? Hi, Amara - In a message dated 3/28/01 1:59:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, Amara writes: > Dear Howard, > > I'm glad I caught this message just as I was signing off, tomorrow I > am off on another trip and won't be back til very late if at all. But > I will get the exact reference for you when I get back. About the > Abhidhamma's authenticity if you searched our group's achives you will > find some discussions on that also. > > > > (2) Didn't the Buddha himself say not to assume the truth of > a matter > > solely on the basis of authority? The Buddha also spoke of Mt. Meru > being at > > the center of the universe. The Buddha said that. So, it is to be > accepted as > > true? > > He not only said that but he also said that each universe had a > 'Sineru' if I remember correctly. But if you looked at a galaxy from > the side doesn't it look like it has a bulge in the middle, maybe hill > shaped? Of course he never said to believe even what he taught > without proving it first, which is the crux for us, did what he teach > about seeing and visible object true at this moment? Hearing and > sound? Bodysense and 'hardness' or 'motion' at the tip of our > fingers? He also said there are things experienced only through the > mind, for example the subtle rupa. And things one should not ponder > because it could never bring wisdom in the Buddhist sense and > preoccupation with it without awareness of the present does not > condone to bhavana. But I personally have never seen anyone able to > prove anything he taught was wrong, allowing for mistranslation and > such, of course. > > > > (3) Do you really think that folks developed telescopes > "because" the > > Buddha spoke of other worlds? > > > Did I say that? Although according to some sources people like > Einstein said, if there is a religion that goes with science it is > Buddhism. I simply meant to say that he KNEW even without teliscopes > that there are other planetary systems all through the universe. > > > > > I do think that it is possible to rely a bit too strongly on > authority > > and scripture. The Buddha never said to *believe*. He presented a > program for > > release from suffering, and he invited us to check it out for > ourselves. The > > more we follow that program, I believe, the greater will our > confidence > > increase that, indeed, the Buddhamagga truly is the way to > liberation. > > > I agree entirely. But the more you realize how deep the dhamma is, > how exact and true it is, one is more and more amazed at his wisdom > and the more confidence one has that the rest must be true too, unlike > any other sciences where a theory is continually being revised, > annotated and corrected and even annulled by more recent ones. > Nothing like that has happened to his teachings for over 2500+ years, > and doesn't look likely to happen, especially the parts he teaches us > about ourselves. > > Amara > ================================== This is a really good reply, fair and balanced, to a post of mine that was a bit of a challenge to you. Excellent! I particularly think that your pointing out "He not only said that but he also said that each universe had a 'Sineru' if I remember correctly. But if you looked at a galaxy from the side doesn't it look like it has a bulge in the middle, maybe hill shaped? " is neat!! It may be a bit of a stretch - I don't know - but it is *very* clever and very interesting! Definitely food for thought! :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 4430 From: Desmond Chiong Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 0:14am Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana Thanks a lot Robert. metta, des >From: Robert Kirkpatrick >Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 06:59:36 -0800 (PST) > >dear Teng, >I sent Realities and Concepts today to both you and Des. >It is somewhat terse so doesn't give all the details we would >like but still clarifies a great deal. Pannatti can be a >condition - there is no doubt about this, but there are >differences in the way it conditions (compared to paramattha >dhamma). The Patthana has something about this too. >I have discussed this at times with Acharn Sujin and find her >explanations very helpful and directly related to how we >experience dhammas now. >And of course I look forward very much to any writing and >translation you do on the topic. >robert 4431 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 0:08pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Back To Observing Consciousness Dear Alex, Howard, Des, Mike and all the others who've been participating in this long thread, Alex, I was aware that somehow we were all missing something in our attempts to give detailed responses to you and Mike (with details of sense and mind door processes which you are already familiar with) and think this was partly because we didn't have the original quote you were referring to, which is part and parcel of the question..yes/no? Anyway, now the questions seem clearer to me, but I think I need to look at the passage in this case first. Now I know nothing about the writer or rest of the chapter. My comments are just based on the extract and your questions only. Because we've been in a few circles here, I hope no one will take any offence if I'm rather direct this time: --- Alex T wrote: > > From: > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tdaing1.htm > > in Chapter 3 (Khanda Paticcasamuppada), there's a > paragraph that says: > > "When there is impact of 'eye' and 'visible object' > there arises 'eye > consciousness'. all agreed Yogis are advised to observe the > 'eye consciousness' > whether it still remains, passes away, or vanishes. This sounds like thinking with an idea of self that can observe > It will be seen > after observation that the same eye consciousness > has already passed > away or disappeared when it was observed by the > observing > consciousness. This is thinking, not sati (awareness). It will be obvious to the observer > that the eye > consciousness was no more to be found because its > arising was > momentary." It's only obvious at a conceptual level and then of course there is no observer. Sati is aware and panna understands. > > The part that interests me the most is the last two > statements. What > does the author mean by "observing consciousness"? The writer might wish it to mean panna, but it sounds just like thinking to me. > > Like you, I guess the authors meant citta when he > > said "consciousness". The problem is that each > citta has its own > object. That's why I don't know how we can have an > observing citta. You're right. > Of course, the subsequent citta has some common > conditions with the > previous one, but still, the two cittas are not the > same. If we say > that we can observe the previous one, then we only > can observe part > of it, which are the common conditions between the > two. yes, this is just thinking...no we to observe or do anything. > > The only more or less confusing answer I can give > to myself is > that since we are living in the world of concepts, > do your best in > this world: observe the common conditions. > Gradually, with more > panna developed, we may advance to more subtle > aspects of citta. Alex, may I say that I think the quote is somewhat confusing and there seems to be an idea of self doing the observing. It's true that we live in the world of concepts, but it's the task of panna to understand the realities and to know that while thinking is real, the concepts thought about are not. It's not a matter of thinking and thinking about the arising and falling away of seeing (eye consciousness) or thinking about the common conditions, but more a matter of developing understanding (or rather ofunderstanding developing) to know the characteristic or nature or sabhava of seeing at this moment. If there is no understanding of seeing, of sati or of panna, how can there be deeper and higher levels of understanding? Ther has been a lot of discussion recently about whether it's useful to study and consider the details. The danger of not considering the details at all, is that it is easy to imagine that the observer is attaining levels of realization when really it may all just be thinking. Alex, it seems to me that your inital concerns about what was said were well-founded. I sincerely apologise if unwittingly I have stepped on any toes here. I haven't followed the link and my response is based just on what I read here. Very best wishes, Sarah 4432 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 0:52pm Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana My pleasure Des and thanks for the interest, robert --- Desmond Chiong wrote: > Thanks a lot Robert. > > metta, > des > > > >From: Robert Kirkpatrick > >> > > >dear Teng, > >I sent Realities and Concepts today to both you and Des. > >It is somewhat terse so doesn't give all the details we would > >like but still clarifies a great deal 4433 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 1:38pm Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana All, before I start, a simple glossary is now on the files page to give a little quick relief to the Pali challenged (many thanks, Kom): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/glossary_of_pali_terms.htm Dear Teng, Kom & Rob, --- teng kee ong wrote: > > There should be two english translation (or for > other languages too)for pannatti.The vijjamana > pannatti(sabhava-with individual > essence-khandha,sacca,dhatu,ayatana,indriya and > asankhata pannatti)as appellation while the > avijjamana pannatti (asabhava-without individual > essence)as concept.But I still can't decide which > should the word be used for both kinds combine like > tevijja,chalabhinna etc(a combination of avijjamana > and vijjamanapannatti). Teng Kee, I agree that one word concept hardly gives justice to pannatti and certainly doesn't give any indication without more detail of the complexities and varieties of concepts that are used ...this is the same problem we have with most translations of pali terms however (eg citta, sanna) and it is only the development of panna (understanding) that can ppreciate the true meanings. Even pali speakers in the Buddha's time could not understand the meaning without panna. > I can't do anything if the other members in this > list for still having the wrong view that pannatti > are all without individual essence.See puggala > pannatti text for khandhapannatti ,sacca pannatti > etc. > From Teng Kee > Well if we have wrong views, we look forward to having them corrected! Now I read through Puggala pannatti (Human Types) without finding anything of relevance. Teng, your references are rather confusing, if I may say so!!! (I'm still waiting for that one in the Soma Satipatthana Sutta which I couldn't find!;-)). Anway, while I was looking for another reference, I did find Nanamoli's commentary and his own notes on pannatti in Vis, ch V111, note 11 which are very detailed and helpful. Many of the references are to notes from the COMMENTARY to Puggala Pannatti, so now I know where I went wrong anyway - it's like a jigsaw puzzle! All the different kinds of pannatti which Kom and Rob referred to are mentioned here in detail and the kinds you have referred to as well, i.e concepts of the 'existent and non-existent' and all the shades between. In fact there is a lot more detail here and it's really very interesting in itself. As we have discussed, many kinds refer to paramattha dhammas and tajja-pannatti even refers 'to the individual essence of a given dhamma e.g. 'earth', 'fire', 'hardness', 'heat'.' Some refer to the 'formed' (sankhata-pannatti) and asankhata-pannatti (concept of the unformed) refers to nibbana. It makes the 'unformed dhamma known' and in this sense is referred to as an 'existent concept'. 'All this shows that the word pannatti carries the meanings of either appellation or concept or both together, and that no English word quite corresponds.' However, a concept is 'a dhamma without individual essence (asabhava -dhamma)' note 12. I think the confusion lies in the fact that in pali concepts perhaps can be referred to as sabhava or asabhava pannatti or sankhata or asankhata pannatti. However, it is not the concepts themselves that are with/without essence or are conditioned/unconditioned, but the 'objects' they are pointing at. This may be a language issue, Teng, I'm not sure. When you talk about 'uncondition and condition pannatti' or even about pannatti with sabhava, maybe we misunderstand you to be referring to the concept itself rather than what it represents. Does this clarify at all? Teng, are you going to join us in Bkk? You certainly provide the MOST challenging posts on the list!! Regards, Sarah 4434 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 1:54pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Dogma or experience? Dear Erik and Howard, You raise some good points. Erik, you may not know that Robert had an interesting discussion on this topic which is contained in a single post in the 'useful posts' under 'abhidhamma.....': http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/USEFUL%20POSTS%2003-24-01-00-06-54.htm The proof of the Teachings is in the testing and understanding, but these doubts about the origins can be a sticking point for some, I know. Sarah --- Erik wrote: > --- Howard wrote: > > But there isn't strong > > evidence that the Abhidhamma came from the Buddha > in the same sense > that the > > other two pitaka did. > > I don't subscribe to the idea the historical > Shakyamuni Buddha > uttered the words found in the Abhidhamma based on > what I've read of > its history, though it has become quite clear to me > that nearly > everything in the Abhidhamma has a direct support > from the suttas. On > that note, I have no idea if the historical > Shakyamuni actually spoke > the words in the Suttas. The only "proof" to me is > in their ability > to help bring about liberation from suffering. > > So to me it hardly matters if the historical > Shakyamuni actually > taught Abhidhamma. What matters to me is how > beneficial understanding > these things is to the goal. It has obviously served > many people well > and will continue to do so. Certainly in terms of a > system for > clearly explaining the Dhamma, Abhidhamma is hard to > beat. 4435 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 2:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana Dear Herman, I'm very impressed by your keen interest and consideration of dhamma and particularly of abhidhamma, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Howard, > > Speaking of which, how would the concept of "should" > or "must" (as in a > moral imperative) be translated into the syntax of > not-self? > > I often wonder what is meant when it is written, for > example : "you should > study the dhamma" . Who or what is being addressed? Herman, sometimes we may say to a child 'share your sweets' or 'don't touch the cooker' when really we mean 'generosity is kusala and I'd like to encourage you to share in order to develop good qualities' or 'please realise that the cooker is hot and if you touch it you'll burn yourself which will be a condition for akusala vipaka'..yes? So when we say 'you should study the dhamma' it will depend on the speaker's understanding what is meant. What I understand the Buddha to mean here would be 'hear, read, consider what I have said in order for right understanding and the other factors of the eightfold path to do their jobs. Furthermore, realise there are 2 kinds of study- intellectual and direct study of characteristics. I'm not talking about book study here, but the kind of study that leads to the eradication of defilements. Remember it's not self!' If the Buddha says 'You must strive' or 'You should make an effort' or 'You should be mindful', we need to understand these comments (or translations) in the light of the understanding gained from the abhidhamma too. Listeners in the Buddha's time understood that all relities are not self, that there is no self to strive and that effort is a conditioned mental factor arising under the right conditions. So the meaning depends on the understanding with which the Teachings are read. Rob made the point that he recently re-read the whole of the Visuddhimagga and how different it was from when he read it more than 10yrs ago. What the Buddha said hadn't changed. This is rather 'wordy' Herman, but I thought it was a good question. I forget how it relates to the 'cognizing nibbana' thread you referred to, but you're welcome to remind me of course! Keep up your useful contributions, Sarah > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard > Date: Wednesday, 28 March 2001 3:40 > Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana > > > >Hi, Herman - > > > >In a message dated 3/27/01 2:16:23 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > >Herman H writes: > > > > > >> Kom, > >> > >> I know the question was not directed to me, but I > couldn't resist the > >> temptation to put in my two bits worth. :-) > >> > >> > >> There is no tree and there is no forest without > nama/rupa. There is rupa > >> without nama/rupa. but rupa does not know itself > or anything else for > that > >> matter ( :-) ). I am sure there is rupa falling > over all over the place > all > >> the time, but the forms this takes, and the > qualities this has, are > shaped > >> by nama/rupa. What something would be without it > being known is ......... > >> unknowable. > >> > >> Kind Regards > >> > >> > >> Herman > >> > >================================ > >This is almost exactly my position as well. Your > last sentence, "What > >something would be without it being known is > ......... unknowable.," is > >quintessential phenomenalism! > > > >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) > > 4436 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 2:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Human State Hi, Wyn, I think the problem here is that it is just thinking about a 'story'. If there are conditions to have a child now, it will happen anyway. What we learn about from the Buddha's Teachings is what life consists of at this moment. Is there a living being near us in need? Is there compassion when we try to relieve the suffering? Does compassion last or just appear for a moment only, to be replaced by ignorance and sadness? Compassion is a mental state that arises just for a moment. What we consider to be an act of compassion consists of many different realities, good and bad with moments of seeing and hearing in between. I'm not at all sure we can talk about compassion for a being that doesn't exist. I'm not sure if this helps, Wyn! Please let me know what you think about this thinking and why you raised the question. Sorry for the delay. Best regards, Sarah - <> wrote: > Hi, > > > The Buddha said that the human state is the best (os > is it ONLY??) > state for achieving enlightenment (do you have the > Sutta reference > handy?) > > No sex, no babies, no human state. In this sense, > isn't having > children an act of compassion to all living beings? 4437 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 5:12pm Subject: Books for USA - kom, amara, shin, sukin, ..? Venerable Dhammapiyo has very kindly offered to distribute copies of realities and concepts on his tour of the states. I am almost out of stock and was wondering if anyone could send a package (about 40?) . I forget the email address of the person at the foundation who handles posting of books now. BTW i received the tapes - thank you sarah. Kom - if they have a big supply at the teemple in san francisco maybe they could be sent from there. Seamail is Ok as ven. D. will be there for several months. I have his contact address in America so just write to me off line and I will send it. robert 4438 From: teng kee ong Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 7:31pm Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cognize nibbana > > Well if we have wrong views, we look forward to having > them corrected! Now I read through Puggala pannatti > (Human Types) without finding anything of relevance. > Teng, your references are rather confusing, if I may > say so!!! (I'm still waiting for that one in the Soma > Satipatthana Sutta which I couldn't find!;-)). > > Anway, while I was looking for another reference, I > did find Nanamoli's commentary and his own notes on > pannatti in Vis, ch V111, note 11 which are very > detailed and helpful. Many of the references are to > notes from the COMMENTARY to Puggala Pannatti, so now > I know where I went wrong anyway - it's like a jigsaw > puzzle! > > All the different kinds of pannatti which Kom and Rob > referred to are mentioned here in detail and the kinds > you have referred to as well, i.e concepts of the > 'existent and non-existent' and all the shades > between. In fact there is a lot more detail here and > it's really very interesting in itself. As we have > discussed, many kinds refer to paramattha dhammas and > tajja-pannatti even refers 'to the individual essence > of a given dhamma e.g. 'earth', 'fire', 'hardness', > 'heat'.' Some refer to the 'formed' > (sankhata-pannatti) and asankhata-pannatti (concept of > the unformed) refers to nibbana. It makes the > 'unformed dhamma known' and in this sense is referred > to as an 'existent concept'. 'All this shows that the > word pannatti carries the meanings of either > appellation or concept or both together, and that no > English word quite corresponds.' > > However, a concept is 'a dhamma without individual > essence (asabhava -dhamma)' note 12. > > I think the confusion lies in the fact that in pali > concepts perhaps can be referred to as sabhava or > asabhava pannatti or sankhata or asankhata pannatti. > However, it is not the concepts themselves that are > with/without essence or are conditioned/unconditioned, > but the 'objects' they are pointing at. This may be a > language issue, Teng, I'm not sure. When you talk > about 'uncondition and condition pannatti' or even > about pannatti with sabhava, maybe we misunderstand > you to be referring to the concept itself rather than > what it represents. > > Does this clarify at all? > > Teng, are you going to join us in Bkk? > > You certainly provide the MOST challenging posts on > the list!! > > Regards, > Sarah > Dear Sarah, What edition of soma translation of satipatthana sutta you are having?Maybe you are having an edtion simply without com. and sub com but only plain text.Try again read the complete text in accesstoinsight.org--nidana part.It is only in com and sub com but not in text at all. I am not going to have dhamma talk with anyone because I find that I cannot help anyone and no one can help too.I am only pray that I can find a chance to read those lost texts like anguttara old tika ,suttanipata tika,theragatha-therigatha tika,visuddhimagga ganthipada etc during my trip to Laos and chieng Mai. Best Wishes From Teng Kee > > > -- 4439 From: Alex T Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 8:51pm Subject: Re: Back To Observing Consciousness --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > Dear Alex, Howard, Des, Mike and all the others who've > been participating in this long thread, > > Alex, I was aware that somehow we were all missing > something in our attempts to give detailed responses > to you and Mike (with details of sense and mind door > processes which you are already familiar with) and > think this was partly because we didn't have the > original quote you were referring to, which is part > and parcel of the question..yes/no? Dear Sarah, I see how important the quote is. I'll be more considerate in the future. Thank you for your answer. With appreciation, Alex 4440 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 11:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Books for USA - kom, amara, shin, sukin, ..? And just a note to add to Robert's kind message: I would be glad if anyone who is willing to donate any other Dhamma books would do so. Ask Robert for the contact address off list, please. Also, if you know of organizations beside the one in Taiwan who distribute books, please let me know! I am carrying a lot back with me, but there are many people who have requested books. Also, I would like to distribute books for youth centers for troubled youths, and there is a great need for them in prisons. Please help if you can! Metta, Bhante D. P.S. If anyone is interested in helping with any of Buddhadharma International Foundation's projects or would like us to help you with something you would like to do, please let me know. Back up email addresses are: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?protectID=114015113213038031171056164024114164134058066051209171188199 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?protectID=114015113213038031171056164024114187078230211009053176152006048067 I also use their messengers and ICQ (8863950). When I get to the US and Canada, anyone can contact me quickly that way or via the Foundation (http://www.buddhadharma.org/) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Kirkpatrick" Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 2:42 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Books for USA - kom, amara, shin, sukin, ..? > > Venerable Dhammapiyo has very kindly offered to distribute > copies of realities and concepts on his tour of the states. I am > almost out of stock and was wondering if anyone could send a > package (about 40?) . I forget the email address of the person > at the foundation who handles posting of books now. BTW i > received the tapes - thank you sarah. > Kom - if they have a big supply at the teemple in san francisco > maybe they could be sent from there. > Seamail is Ok as ven. D. will be there for several months. > I have his contact address in America so just write to me off > line and I will send it. > robert > > > 4441 From: Desmond Chiong Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 3:33am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Back To Observing Consciousness "A truly great man never puts away the simplicity of a child. " Chinese Proverb with metta, des >From: Alex T >Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Back To Observing Consciousness >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:25:09 -0000 > >--- Sarah Procter Abbott >wrote: > > Dear Alex & Des, > > > > Alex, I have to say that after all the discussion, I'm > > not quite sure what you mean by observing > > consciousness. (I probably missed something vital at > > the start). Do you just mean 'citta'? > >Dear Sarah, > > Last week, I posted the below message in another list originally: >---------- >Dear friends, > > From: >http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tdaing1.htm > >in Chapter 3 (Khanda Paticcasamuppada), there's a paragraph that says: > >"When there is impact of 'eye' and 'visible object' there arises 'eye >consciousness'. Yogis are advised to observe the 'eye consciousness' >whether it still remains, passes away, or vanishes. It will be seen >after observation that the same eye consciousness has already passed >away or disappeared when it was observed by the observing >consciousness. It will be obvious to the observer that the eye >consciousness was no more to be found because its arising was >momentary." > >The part that interests me the most is the last two statements. What >does the author mean by "observing consciousness"? > >Thank you, >Alex Tran >--------- > Then, one of our friends here encouraged me to ask the same >question in DSG. > > Like you, I guess the authors meant citta when he >said "consciousness". The problem is that each citta has its own >object. That's why I don't know how we can have an observing citta. >Of course, the subsequent citta has some common conditions with the >previous one, but still, the two cittas are not the same. If we say >that we can observe the previous one, then we only can observe part >of it, which are the common conditions between the two. > > The only more or less confusing answer I can give to myself is >that since we are living in the world of concepts, do your best in >this world: observe the common conditions. Gradually, with more >panna developed, we may advance to more subtle aspects of citta. > > I understand that I'm not doing a very good job in stating my >question clearly. > >With Metta, >Alex Tran > > > > > 4442 From: Amara Date: Fri Mar 30, 2001 0:03am Subject: Re: Dogma or experience? > I particularly think that your > pointing out "He not only said that but he also said that each universe had a > 'Sineru' if I remember correctly. But if you looked at a galaxy from the > side doesn't it look like it has a bulge in the middle, maybe hill shaped? " > is neat!! It may be a bit of a stretch - I don't know - but it is *very* > clever and very interesting! Definitely food for thought! :-) Dear Howard, Bon appetit, then, the Tipitaka is full of treats like this!!! I should still keep in mind that the main course is the study of the present realities as they truly are, the real 'food' for panna, though! Happy studying, Anumodana, Amara 4443 From: Desmond Chiong Date: Thu Mar 29, 2001 0:38am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dogma or experience? In Buddhism: One studies >>>>> practices >>>>> understands. To say that a virus does not exist just because one can't see with the naked eyes does not mean that one is correct. What is said in the dharma can't be seen readily, but can be experienced or understood, only if one practices. Short of practice, we can only say till we turn blue. A moment of consciousness [citta + cetasika + rupa] occurs in one trillionth of a second [1/ 10 to the power of 12]. That it why, practically speaking, we don't and can't live in the present. What we think of as present is already past. In the same way, what we speak of as the truth now, can no longer be true later [ as the conditions change ]. Therefore the best way to "see" the truth is to experience it at that moment as it happens, but not to say it. [Buddha says: he who sees dharma, sees me. ] I have always said it as a joke that, once I stop saying, then I will know, I am enlightened. May we all be enlightened. metta, des >From: Herman >Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dogma or experience? >Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:34:32 -0000 > >Hi all, > >I have read on numerous occasions, that cittas arise in sequence, one >after the other. I wonder whether this is being said because it has >been experienced, or whether it has been read and recycled as >experience. And if cittas arise singularly, in sequence, what is the >locus of a citta, if any? Nama? And what is the locus of Nama, if >any? Is there one Nama per citta? One Nama per Rupa? How many cittas >arise simultaneously in siamese twins? (The recent case in UK where >one half was sacrificed to maintain the life of the other comes to >mind) > > >Similarly, I have read many a time that rupas last 17 times longer >than a cita. Again, when this is written, is it because it has been >experienced, or read about and rebadged as ultimate reality (without >references to whoever experienced this)? > >It seems to me that either there is counting or experiencing. How can >it be a quality of a citta that it is x times longer, shorter , >whatever , than another citta which cannot be being referenced at the >same time, given that there is only ever one citta? > >Any insights would be appreciated. > >Kind Regards > > >Herman > > 4444 From: Amara Date: Fri Mar 30, 2001 10:47am Subject: Re: Books for USA - kom, amara, shin, *Please ignore any duplication of this message.* > I would be glad if anyone who is willing to donate any other Dhamma books > would do so. Ask Robert for the contact address off list, please. Also, if > you know of organizations beside the one in Taiwan who distribute books, > please let me know! > > I am carrying a lot back with me, but there are many people who have > requested books. Also, I would like to distribute books for youth centers > for troubled youths, and there is a great need for them in prisons. Please > help if you can! Venerable sir, Anumodana in your great kusala cetana to perform this greatest of dana, dhamma dana, I am sure many of us will join in, I will ask the Sat. EDG to help select some books tomorrow to send you. Unfortunately the English selection is not so large, and some books are too technical for the general audience, but there is at least one that is suitable for all audiences and available in large quantity, Nina's recently published 'Letters from Nina' which would be good for readers of any level of understanding. You can find the same book in the website, intermediate section. Our sponsor at the website is putting together a package for you and will send it probably on Monday. May I ask when you are leaving so that they may mail it in time? Perhaps you could send me the address also, on or off list, thank you very much in advance. Again, anumodana, Amara 4446 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 3:00pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Back To Observing Consciousness Des, > "A truly great man never puts away the simplicity of > a child. " > Chinese Proverb Interesting. But do you see this as having any truth to it? In Dhamma terms, the 'truly great' are those who have understood the teachings at the deepest level and penetrated the true characteristic of reality, tasks which the Buddha described as being exceedingly difficult. Jon 4447 From: Amara Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:07pm Subject: Quiz Dear friends, We had a fun session at the Sat ED today, where we talked about the khandha, among other things. As we know, nama and rupa are classified into the four paramatthadhamma, and the three paramatthadhamma that we can experience in samsara are citta, cetasika and rupa. These can be divided into 5 groups of khandha that are conditioned realities that arise and fall away at each instant: rupa, vedana (emotions), sanna (memory), sankhara (the rest of the 52-2 cetasika, the chief of which is the 'abhisankhara' which intends the cetana cetasika), and vinnana (citta). All five khandha are 'upadana khandha' or object of clinging or lobha. After detailed explanation KS asked us: What khandha are not objects of clinging? Betty, Sukin, Shin and Ivan, no favoritism and helping anyone find the answer, OK? We will have to find something for a prize to the correct answer!!! K. Num, what do you think? Happy pondering, all! Amara 4448 From: Erik Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:21pm Subject: Re: Quiz --- "Amara" wrote: > What khandha are not objects of clinging? I have no idea what the Tipitaka says on this, but I'd guess that since arahats have eradicated clinging that "their" khandas are not objects of clinging. 4449 From: selamat Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Quiz Dear Amara, Khandha-VIMUTTI is not the object of clinging and we can experience in samsara if we realize for the first moment as a Sotapana. metta, selamat rodjali ----- Original Message ----- From: Amara Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 9:07 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Quiz > Dear friends, > > We had a fun session at the Sat ED today, where we talked about the > khandha, among other things. As we know, nama and rupa are classified > into the four paramatthadhamma, and the three paramatthadhamma that we > can experience in samsara are citta, cetasika and rupa. These can be > divided into 5 groups of khandha that are conditioned realities that > arise and fall away at each instant: rupa, vedana (emotions), sanna > (memory), sankhara (the rest of the 52-2 cetasika, the chief of which > is the 'abhisankhara' which intends the cetana cetasika), and vinnana > (citta). All five khandha are 'upadana khandha' or object of clinging > or lobha. After detailed explanation KS asked us: > > What khandha are not objects of clinging? > > Betty, Sukin, Shin and Ivan, no favoritism and helping anyone find the > answer, OK? We will have to find something for a prize to the correct > answer!!! K. Num, what do you think? > > Happy pondering, all! > > Amara > 4450 From: Amara Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:44pm Subject: Re: Quiz --- Erik wrote: > --- "Amara" wrote: > > > What khandha are not objects of clinging? > > I have no idea what the Tipitaka says on this, but I'd guess that > since arahats have eradicated clinging that "their" khandas are not > objects of clinging. Dear Erik, Absolutely! But we are talking about those who have not experienced nibbana, here... Great reasoning, though!!! Amara 4451 From: Amara Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:49pm Subject: Re: Quiz Dear Selamat, You are certainly right, of course, but what about before we reach that point? Which Khandha are not objects of clinging even now? Have fun, Amara > Dear Amara, > > Khandha-VIMUTTI is not the object of clinging and we can experience in > samsara if we realize for the first moment as a Sotapana. > > metta, > selamat rodjali > 4452 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 11:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Quiz Ok, I'll take a punt. Could it be khanda that we have no experience of? Example: the khanda of some being, somewhere that I don't know of (e.g. an insect somewhere in Africa). --- Amara wrote: > Dear friends, > > We had a fun session at the Sat ED today, where we talked > about the > khandha, among other things. As we know, nama and rupa are > classified > into the four paramatthadhamma, and the three paramatthadhamma > that we > can experience in samsara are citta, cetasika and rupa. These > can be > divided into 5 groups of khandha that are conditioned > realities that > arise and fall away at each instant: rupa, vedana (emotions), > sanna > (memory), sankhara (the rest of the 52-2 cetasika, the chief > of which > is the 'abhisankhara' which intends the cetana cetasika), and > vinnana > (citta). All five khandha are 'upadana khandha' or object of > clinging > or lobha. After detailed explanation KS asked us: > > What khandha are not objects of clinging? > > Betty, Sukin, Shin and Ivan, no favoritism and helping anyone > find the > answer, OK? We will have to find something for a prize to the > correct > answer!!! K. Num, what do you think? > > Happy pondering, all! > > Amara > 4453 From: Amara Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 11:21pm Subject: Re: Quiz Dear Rob, Bravo!!! The idea is quite accurate; any khandha, not really the rupa since all the seven rupa of the respective dvara can be objects of clinging, but generally all the cetasika and citta that had never arisen, such as the citta of the brahma bhumi or any citta we have never experienced cannot be objects of lobha. It must be admitted we thought it was a trick question until KS gave the answer, the whole almost 20 of us today! Great brainwork, Rob!!! Amara --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Ok, I'll take a punt. Could it be khanda that we have no > experience of? Example: the khanda of some being, somewhere that > I don't know of (e.g. an insect somewhere in Africa). > --- Amara wrote: > > Dear friends, > > > > We had a fun session at the Sat ED today, where we talked > > about the > > khandha, among other things. As we know, nama and rupa are > > classified > > into the four paramatthadhamma, and the three paramatthadhamma > > that we > > can experience in samsara are citta, cetasika and rupa. These > > can be > > divided into 5 groups of khandha that are conditioned > > realities that > > arise and fall away at each instant: rupa, vedana (emotions), > > sanna > > (memory), sankhara (the rest of the 52-2 cetasika, the chief > > of which > > is the 'abhisankhara' which intends the cetana cetasika), and > > vinnana > > (citta). All five khandha are 'upadana khandha' or object of > > clinging > > or lobha. After detailed explanation KS asked us: > > > > What khandha are not objects of clinging? > > > > Betty, Sukin, Shin and Ivan, no favoritism and helping anyone > > find the > > answer, OK? We will have to find something for a prize to the > > correct > > answer!!! K. Num, what do you think? > > > > Happy pondering, all! > > > > Amara > > 4454 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 11:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Quiz Thanks Amara, What about the khandas of people we see everyday: my children or students? Since I don't experience directly the cittas or cetasikas that they experience I suppose those are not objects of clinging too? robert --- Amara wrote: > > Dear Rob, > > Bravo!!! The idea is quite accurate; any khandha, not really > the rupa > since all the seven rupa of the respective dvara can be > objects of > clinging, but generally all the cetasika and citta that had > never > arisen, such as the citta of the brahma bhumi or any citta we > have > never experienced cannot be objects of lobha. > > It must be admitted we thought it was a trick question until > KS gave > the answer, the whole almost 20 of us today! Great brainwork, > Rob!!! > > Amara > 4455 From: Amara Date: Sat Mar 31, 2001 11:48pm Subject: Re: Quiz Dear Rob, Which 'Khandha' of the five do you see? Amara --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Thanks Amara, > What about the khandas of people we see everyday: my children or > students? Since I don't experience directly the cittas or > cetasikas that they experience I suppose those are not objects > of clinging too? > > robert > --- Amara wrote: > > > > Dear Rob, > > > > Bravo!!! The idea is quite accurate; any khandha, not really > > the rupa > > since all the seven rupa of the respective dvara can be > > objects of > > clinging, but generally all the cetasika and citta that had > > never > > arisen, such as the citta of the brahma bhumi or any citta we > > have > > never experienced cannot be objects of lobha. > > > > It must be admitted we thought it was a trick question until > > KS gave > > the answer, the whole almost 20 of us today! Great brainwork, > > Rob!!! > > > > Amara > > > > 4456 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 2:23am Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Quiz How about dosa? Can dosa-related namas be objects of lobha? kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Amara > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 6:07 AM > Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Quiz > > > Dear friends, > > We had a fun session at the Sat ED today, where > we talked about the > khandha, among other things. As we know, nama > and rupa are classified > into the four paramatthadhamma, and the three > paramatthadhamma that we > can experience in samsara are citta, cetasika and > rupa. These can be > divided into 5 groups of khandha that are > conditioned realities that > arise and fall away at each instant: rupa, vedana > (emotions), sanna > (memory), sankhara (the rest of the 52-2 > cetasika, the chief of which > is the 'abhisankhara' which intends the cetana > cetasika), and vinnana > (citta). All five khandha are 'upadana khandha' > or object of clinging > or lobha. After detailed explanation KS asked us: > > What khandha are not objects of clinging? > > Betty, Sukin, Shin and Ivan, no favoritism and > helping anyone find the > answer, OK? We will have to find something for a > prize to the correct > answer!!! K. Num, what do you think? > > Happy pondering, all! > > Amara > 4457 From: Erik Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 5:20am Subject: Lamps Unto Ourselves? Hi all, I was hoping some of the erudite Pali scholars around here might be able to clarify a question for a friend of mine: "My question is about the translation of a phrase from the Mahaparinibbana sutta. I have read that the Buddha said make a lamp of yourself. In his book, What The Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula says that this in not what the phase means. He says that Attadipa viharatha, attasarana anannasarana, translates as "Dwell making yourselves your island (support) making yourselves your refuge and not anyone else as your refuge." He goes on the explain much more. But I am confussed and wonder what the difference is and if it is very important. Any help is most welcome." Can anyone shed light on this particular passage, and the intended meaning? One question that occurred to me is, what does this mean as far as taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha? Thanks, Erik 4458 From: Jim Anderson Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 9:11am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Lamps Unto Ourselves? Dear Erik, The source of the confusion is the homonym 'diipa' which represents two etymologically distinct words. One has the meaning of 'lamp' (Skt. diipa) and the other one has the meaning of 'island' (Skt. dviipa). The commentary (a.t.thakathaa) confirms 'island' while 'lamp' is simply a mistranslation in the passage. The commentary reading is: attadiipaa ti mahaasamuddagata.m diipa.m viya attaana.m diipa.m pati.t.tha.m katvaa viharatha. 'attadiipa': after making yourself an island (as) support like an island situated in the great ocean, abide. (a rough literal translation) 'Island' is a metaphor for 'support' (pati.t.thaa). I'm not familiar with what type of compound 'attadiipaa' really is and it looks quite peculiar to me. The word seems to be referring to the individuals addressed and is hard to translate literally. The subcommentary (.tiikaa) also seems to be interpreting 'atta' (?oneself) in a way not familiar to me. There is a shift from atta to dhamma in the second phrasing (dhammadiipa . . .) as if atta and dhamma were interchangeable (it's all very unclear to me). Best wishes, Jim >Hi all, I was hoping some of the erudite Pali scholars around here >might be able to clarify a question for a friend of mine: > >"My question is about the translation of a phrase from the >Mahaparinibbana sutta. I have read that the Buddha said make a lamp >of yourself. In his book, What The Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula says >that this in not what the phase means. He says that Attadipa >viharatha, attasarana anannasarana, translates as "Dwell making >yourselves your island (support) making yourselves your refuge and >not anyone else as your refuge." He goes on the explain much more. >But I am confussed and wonder what the difference is and if it is >very important. Any help is most welcome." > >Can anyone shed light on this particular passage, and the intended >meaning? One question that occurred to me is, what does this mean as >far as taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha? > >Thanks, >Erik 4459 From: Amara Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 9:47am Subject: Re: Quiz What do you think? Can anything that one has experienced not be the object of lobha, except perhaps moha, since I don't believe anyone could ever want to be stupid or to not know... Otherwise, haven't you ever met people who liked to pick quarrels, grumble all the time or talk only about malicious gossip, never of mudita? Amara --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > How about dosa? Can dosa-related namas be objects of lobha? > > kom > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Amara > > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 6:07 AM > > Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Quiz > > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > We had a fun session at the Sat ED today, where > > we talked about the > > khandha, among other things. As we know, nama > > and rupa are classified > > into the four paramatthadhamma, and the three > > paramatthadhamma that we > > can experience in samsara are citta, cetasika and > > rupa. These can be > > divided into 5 groups of khandha that are > > conditioned realities that > > arise and fall away at each instant: rupa, vedana > > (emotions), sanna > > (memory), sankhara (the rest of the 52-2 > > cetasika, the chief of which > > is the 'abhisankhara' which intends the cetana > > cetasika), and vinnana > > (citta). All five khandha are 'upadana khandha' > > or object of clinging > > or lobha. After detailed explanation KS asked us: > > > > What khandha are not objects of clinging? > > > > Betty, Sukin, Shin and Ivan, no favoritism and > > helping anyone find the > > answer, OK? We will have to find something for a > > prize to the correct > > answer!!! K. Num, what do you think? > > > > Happy pondering, all! > > > > Amara > > 4460 From: Amara Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 9:55am Subject: Re: Lamps Unto Ourselves? --- "Jim Anderson" wrote: > Dear Erik, > > The source of the confusion is the homonym 'diipa' which represents two > etymologically distinct words. One has the meaning of 'lamp' (Skt. diipa) > and the other one has the meaning of 'island' (Skt. dviipa). The commentary > (a.t.thakathaa) confirms 'island' while 'lamp' is simply a mistranslation in > the passage. The commentary reading is: > > attadiipaa ti mahaasamuddagata.m diipa.m viya attaana.m diipa.m pati.t.tha.m > katvaa viharatha. > > 'attadiipa': after making yourself an island (as) support like an island > situated in the great ocean, abide. (a rough literal translation) > > 'Island' is a metaphor for 'support' (pati.t.thaa). I'm not familiar with > what type of compound 'attadiipaa' really is and it looks quite peculiar to > me. The word seems to be referring to the individuals addressed and is hard > to translate literally. The subcommentary (.tiikaa) also seems to be > interpreting 'atta' (?oneself) in a way not familiar to me. There is a shift > from atta to dhamma in the second phrasing (dhammadiipa . . .) as if atta > and dhamma were interchangeable (it's all very unclear to me). > > Best wishes, > Jim Dear Jim and Erik, Jim, it's great to see you on the list! I am about to have difficulty contributing from Monday on, myself, through the entire month, but will try to check in from time to time. About the translation may I suggest that he was telling us to rely on ourselves and the dhamma he had established instead of some teacher after he is gone? Just a suggestion, Amara > >Hi all, I was hoping some of the erudite Pali scholars around here > >might be able to clarify a question for a friend of mine: > > > >"My question is about the translation of a phrase from the > >Mahaparinibbana sutta. I have read that the Buddha said make a lamp > >of yourself. In his book, What The Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula says > >that this in not what the phase means. He says that Attadipa > >viharatha, attasarana anannasarana, translates as "Dwell making > >yourselves your island (support) making yourselves your refuge and > >not anyone else as your refuge." He goes on the explain much more. > >But I am confussed and wonder what the difference is and if it is > >very important. Any help is most welcome." > > > >Can anyone shed light on this particular passage, and the intended > >meaning? One question that occurred to me is, what does this mean as > >far as taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha? > > > >Thanks, > >Erik 4461 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 10:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Lamps Unto Ourselves? dear Erik, B. Bodhi translates this phrase where it is duplicated in the Satipatthanasamyutta sutta (p1637-connected discourses) as "Dwell with yourselves as your own island..with no other refuge, dwell with the Dhamma as your island, with the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge" As Amara noted this is a encouragement not to take other teachers but to rely on the Dhamma as laid out by the Buddha. It carries on: "And how Ananda does a bhikkhu dwell with himself as an island..with no other refuge, dwell with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma as a refuge, with no other refuge. Here Ananda a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body..feelings in feelings..mind in mind...phenomena in phenomena" Thus a summary of satipatthana. robert --- Erik wrote: > > Hi all, I was hoping some of the erudite Pali scholars around > here > might be able to clarify a question for a friend of mine: > > "My question is about the translation of a phrase from the > Mahaparinibbana sutta. I have read that the Buddha said make a > lamp > of yourself. In his book, What The Buddha Taught, Walpola > Rahula says > that this in not what the phase means. He says that Attadipa > viharatha, attasarana anannasarana, translates as "Dwell > making > yourselves your island (support) making yourselves your refuge > and > not anyone else as your refuge." He goes on the explain much > more. > But I am confussed and wonder what the difference is and if it > is > very important. Any help is most welcome." > > Can anyone shed light on this particular passage, and the > intended > meaning? One question that occurred to me is, what does this > mean as > far as taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha? > > Thanks, > Erik > 4462 From: Num Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 5:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Quiz Hi Kom, I think some people like to be angry. Some people learn that if they express their anger at time they can get what they want and can get it their ways easier. Not everyone see the negative consequences of dosa, I think. Hi K.Amara, So I think Rob has already had a jackpot for a quiz show. What's a relief for me :) Thanks Rob. RGD Moha, I think one can have lobha in moha as well, like lobha in a wrong view. Thanks for a brainy exercise. Num 4463 From: Amara Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 11:13am Subject: Re: Quiz RGD Moha, I think one can have lobha in moha as well, > like lobha in a wrong view. Dear K. Num I think we must distinguish between moha annd ditthi, the former being ignorance and the latter wrong view. Do you really think people could enjoy being stupid?!? That's a little beyond me! Amara 4464 From: Num Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 6:39am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Quiz Hi K.Amara, Thanks for your point and clarification. I am looking at Kom's cetasika table. Dhiti cetasika always arises with lobha and moha cetasika. 4 lobha-mula-citta-dhiti-vippayutta have only moha and lobha cetasika. I don't know, can someone enjoy being stupid? Good question, may be not. I have to think about it more. Another brainy exercise :) My pleasure to learn and study dhamma. A plus tard, Num 4465 From: selamat Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 1:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Quiz Dear Amara, It's ok. None. metta, selamat ----- Original Message ----- From: Amara Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 9:49 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Quiz > > Dear Selamat, > > You are certainly right, of course, but what about before we reach > that point? Which Khandha are not objects of clinging even now? > > Have fun, > > Amara > > > > Dear Amara, > > > > Khandha-VIMUTTI is not the object of clinging and we can experience > in > > samsara if we realize for the first moment as a Sotapana. > > > > metta, > > selamat rodjali > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Amara > > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 9:07 PM > > Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Quiz > > > > > > > Dear friends, > > > > > > We had a fun session at the Sat ED today, where we talked about > the > > > khandha, among other things. As we know, nama and rupa are > classified > > > into the four paramatthadhamma, and the three paramatthadhamma > that we > > > can experience in samsara are citta, cetasika and rupa. These can > be > > > divided into 5 groups of khandha that are conditioned realities > that > > > arise and fall away at each instant: rupa, vedana (emotions), > sanna > > > (memory), sankhara (the rest of the 52-2 cetasika, the chief of > which > > > is the 'abhisankhara' which intends the cetana cetasika), and > vinnana > > > (citta). All five khandha are 'upadana khandha' or object of > clinging > > > or lobha. After detailed explanation KS asked us: > > > > > > What khandha are not objects of clinging? > > > > > > Betty, Sukin, Shin and Ivan, no favoritism and helping anyone find > the > > > answer, OK? We will have to find something for a prize to the > correct > > > answer!!! K. Num, what do you think? > > > > > > Happy pondering, all! > > > > > > Amara > > > 4466 From: selamat Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 1:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Lamps Unto Ourselves? Dear Erik, We depend on our actions in the Path. If we practise the Path we will be protected by our wholesome actions, not the Buddhas (as persons), not the Dhamma (as teachings) and the Sangha (as persons). metta, selamat rodjali ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 4:20 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Lamps Unto Ourselves? > > Hi all, I was hoping some of the erudite Pali scholars around here > might be able to clarify a question for a friend of mine: > > "My question is about the translation of a phrase from the > Mahaparinibbana sutta. I have read that the Buddha said make a lamp > of yourself. In his book, What The Buddha Taught, Walpola Rahula says > that this in not what the phase means. He says that Attadipa > viharatha, attasarana anannasarana, translates as "Dwell making > yourselves your island (support) making yourselves your refuge and > not anyone else as your refuge." He goes on the explain much more. > But I am confussed and wonder what the difference is and if it is > very important. Any help is most welcome." > > Can anyone shed light on this particular passage, and the intended > meaning? One question that occurred to me is, what does this mean as > far as taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha? > > Thanks, > Erik > 4467 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 2:43pm Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Quiz Dear K. Amara and Num, It doesn't appear to me that someone actually have lobha towards dosa. I always thought that "liking" to be angry is more of a chanda (which always arises with dosa) rather than lobha. I believe in the pacaya studying, dosa cannot be an aramanupanissaya for lobha-mula citta. It's unclear to me if this is equivalent to what we have been discussing or not. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Amara > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 5:48 PM > Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Quiz > > > > What do you think? Can anything that one has > experienced not be the > object of lobha, except perhaps moha, since I > don't believe anyone > could ever want to be stupid or to not know... > Otherwise, haven't you > ever met people who liked to pick quarrels, > grumble all the time or > talk only about malicious gossip, never of mudita? > > Amara > > > --- "Kom Tukovinit" > wrote: > > How about dosa? Can dosa-related namas be > objects of lobha? > > > > kom > > 4468 From: Erik Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 3:52pm Subject: Re: Lamps Unto Ourselves? --- "Jim Anderson" wrote: > Dear Erik, > > The source of the confusion is the homonym 'diipa' which represents two > etymologically distinct words. [...] Just wanted to say thank you for that great response, and thanks to all the other relies as well. 4469 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 11:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Silaa, Daana & Bhaavanaa (& Diññhujukamma) Mike I don't recall having seen a reply to this query (apologies for the repetition is there has been) > (1) reminding me of the 10 kusala kammapatha (by the > way, does anyone know if this list occurs explicitly > in the Suttanta or the Vinaya?); I believe these factors can be found at - A. X, 28, 176 M. 9 M. 114 Jon 4470 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 11:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Concepts - nature of Erik Thanks for these further comments. > > I am not familiar with this idea of a concept > `taking > > on the characteristic' of what it's pointing to. …. > Perhaps a quote from Khun Sujim would > clarify, because it's > the closest I can find to what I've been trying to > say: > > "Even though [pannatti] are not paramattha-dhamma, > they are arammana > of the cittuppada by their signs or the shadow of > meanings (the > parallel of paramattha) designated in such a manner > because it > parallels or compares by making known [with > language] the sign or > features so that people can say, understand one > another, call, make > known the meanings." This passage seems to me to be explaining how it is that concept can be object of citta (moment of consciousness), and how concept is used to make things known. I don’t read this as suggesting that concept ‘takes on the characteristic’ of what it’s pointing at. > Jon, thanks for your other comments on the "tree > falling in the > forest" question. I see it another way at the > moment, namely, that > even if there is rupa in theory that rises and > falls, since it isn't > happening now as direct experience, it hardly > matters; the question's > academic. Or, more to the point, there's nothing > "real" apart from > what's being cognized at any given instant, so the > question doesn't > even apply. Erik, I am always happy when a discussion is brought back to what is real at the present moment. But I don’t think you and Howard can be let off so easily on this one (you are both suggesting we drop the subject, on the grounds that the issue is of no relevance to the present moment!). It matters, and is relevant, to this extent. Rupas, like all other realities (except nibbana), are conditioned. This means not only that the necessary conditioning factors must be present in order for them to arise, but also that as long as those conditioning factors continue to be present the rupas must continue to arise. If rupas arise only at the moments they are experienced by citta (consciousness), what does that say about their conditioning factors? In this important respect, rupas and other realities are distinguished from concepts, which do indeed arise only with the moment of consciousness of which the concept is object. Come to think of it, perhaps that is why these 2 topics (concepts, rupas not being experienced) tend to come up together – I was struggling to make the connection until just now. Jon 4471 From: Amara Date: Mon Apr 2, 2001 0:21am Subject: Re: Quiz > Dear K. Amara and Num, > > It doesn't appear to me that someone actually have lobha > towards dosa. I always thought that "liking" to be angry is > more of a chanda (which always arises with dosa) rather than > lobha. > > I believe in the pacaya studying, dosa cannot be an > aramanupanissaya for lobha-mula citta. It's unclear to me > if this is equivalent to what we have been discussing or > not. Dear friends, From your comments I will try to find out all the implications of the arguments: 1. Is upadana a form of lobha? Since there are four upadana, are all of them different kinds of lobha? 2. Can all khandha be their object? 3. What are the khandha that can't ever be the objects of upadana even when they have arisen? (4. What are the khandha that can't be the objects of lobha, in case they turn out to be different, which I doubt.) If dosa can't be the object of lobha, I must have missed out on the third answer that any citta or cetasika that has not arisen can't be the object of upadana, which should include dosa and moha in the answer, in which case would it imply that we do not take dosa or moha for the self?