6000 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 8:05pm Subject: Re: Howard on anatta and rebirth --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Sorry , > I just reread the article and see right at the end that he says > Nibbana is not anatta. This contradicts the Theravada tradition. The second Majhima is one I find very interesting. It reads: "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self ...or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self ...or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self ...or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine -- the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions -- is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. --------------- First of all, the view "I have no self" arises inappropriately. I have already explained why thinking "I have a self" is equally futile. I also find the sixth view interesting, in the sense that the "constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, which will endure as long as eternity" -self is not actually negated. BTW, am I the only one who finds it odd that the Buddha refers to himself as the "Rightly Self-awakened" one? Also, I don't think I have ever heard him say that there is categorically no self. he has aid that there is no self in this world (Samsara), but wouldn't it just be easier for him to state there is categorically no self, if that was really true? Also, if there is no self, why did the Buddha label such a view as annihilation? Is there anyone here, who can explain to me, how it is not holding the view of annihilation to say that there is no self? So far, the only thing I have seen in the scriptures that could in any way indicate that the deathless is *not* self, is the statement that all dhammas are annatta. But the article which I linked to, shows that 'dhammas' don't necessarily include Nibbana in such a context. 6001 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 8:10pm Subject: Re: Hello --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Anders > Nibbana is "unconditioned released awareness" you say. Could you > explain what it is aware of? It wouldn't be correct to say that it is really aware of anything, as it doesn't dwell on anything. There is just awareness. and that includes Samsara of course. > > When I say 'real consciousness' I mean released awareness). > ------ > By this released awareness you mean Nibbana? Are you now > composed of Nibbana since your enlightenment (thus nibbana is > self as you said earlier)? You don't have to quote scripture > just tell us as best you can. To say that 'I' am composed of Nibbana would not be correct either, as this would entail self-identity view. Perhaps the most exact description (although it still misses the mark by a mile) is to say that Nibbana *is*. 6002 From: Herman Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 8:13pm Subject: Re: Hello Robert, How will a blind man verify the light? One man keeps the precepts Another keeps a library And a third sits, smiling In conventional terms, I find your behaviour in this thread to be somewhere between offensive and disgusting. Will you go somewhere else or will I? Herman --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Anders, > > Thanks for replying, even though it may seem disagreeable to you. The > purpose of these questions is frankly to gain confidence in your claim to > enlightenment (and your transmission of dhammas) or (personally) > disregard your claim (not to discredit, but to determine if you have gained > insights according to what the Buddha has taught). > > I am one of those people who benefits from listening to the teachings in > the practical sense. For example, you quoted "Nissaraniya Sutta", Means > of Escape, when I listen to it, I become more motivated to develop such > qualities which I do not have. So, I think some people (definitely myself) > will benefit if you bear with me. > > > --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > > > Well, the kandha of consciousness which the Buddha refers to as > > not- > > > > self, refers to the grasping consciousness, ie, that which dwells > > on > > > > the objects of the objects. > > > > > > I don't think this is quite right. The kandha of consciousness > > > (presumably Vinnana kandha) refers to all consciousness, regardless > > > whether or not it is the grasping consciousness. An arahat would > > also > > > have consciousness, and hence the vinnana kandha, even though they > > > no longer have any grasping consciousness. > > The original objection is to illustrate that you are quoting a Buddha's > teaching that is not matching your own experiences. Since we are > establishing what you are experiencing, we can do this two ways (at > least). One is to use the Buddha's teaching, which I don't think matches > your experience in this specific circumstance, or the other way is to > explain in your own words, which may be less or more troublesome for me. > > > But that consciousness would have been "transformed" > > This I agree, since the conciousness of an arahat no longer have any > defilement tendencies. > > > (one cannot > > really speak of transforming of that which is unmoving. > > If you refer to nibbana here, I also agree, as Nibbana is unconditioned. > > > Rather the grasping consciousness is seen trhough as illusionary) > > I would like an elaboration of why you are saying that grasping > consciousness is illusionary. > > > But that consciousness (...) would have been "transformed" into the > > deathless, which dwells nowhere, so it is beyond grasping. The fifth > > Here again, how you are explaining the deathless (nibbana) is not > matching the scripture. In the scripture, nibbana is an unconditioned > element, but the consciousness is conditioned. A conditioned element > doesn't get transformed into an unconditioned element. > > (Given that most people do not yet experience nibbana, do you think they > should use the Buddha's teachings as the basic model, or some specific > individual's? I remember a chant similar to this in a non- theravadan > tradition: the buddha's dhamma is profound and subtle, and rare in even > 1,000 million kalapas. Are our conducts in studying the dhamma [in > theory and in practice] in congruent with this chant?). > > > aggregate is illusionary. I think I can find some scripture to > > underline this. > > > The Nissaraniya Sutta says: > > "Furthermore, there is the case where a monk might say, 'Although the > > signless [Nibbana, anders] has been developed, pursued, given a means > > of transport, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well- > > undertaken by me as my release of awareness, still my consciousness > > follows the drift of signs.' He should be told, 'Don't say that. You > > shouldn't speak in that way. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One, for > > it's not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One > > wouldn't say that. It's impossible, there is no way that -- when the > > signless has been developed, pursued, given a means of transport, > > given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as a > > release of awareness -- consciousness would follow the drift of > > signs. That possibility doesn't exist, for this is the escape from > > all signs: the signless as a release of awareness.' > > ---------------- > > There, Nibbana is referred as the release of awareness, in which one > > no longer dwells on objects, and thus the grasping consciousness > > (which is not-self and impermanent) is dissolved. > > Thanks again for quoting the scripture. My first impression after reading > this sutta is that the signless here refers to the sense object of the arupa- > jhana, and not nibbana. Therefore, your interpretation of how this works > is different from mine (and your experience is not that of nibbana, > according to my interpretation.) I am researching other textual references > to re-confirm/refute both interpretations. > > > How can the sense objects ever be unconditioned realities, since they > > are by natue, conditioned? > > This we are in agreement. > > > > bound? In the sense of being conditioned? In the sense of > > grasping? > > > > Yes. > > I think we are still not in sync here. Again, the Buddha taught that all > consciousness is conditioned and thus is bound by its conditioning > elements. I interpret your explanation of your experience to be that your > awareness and consciousness are transformed into the unconditioned > element. Am I saying this right? > > > New topic: Maybe this is too personal, but the group guidelines said > > that it was aimed at the practical aspects, so I'll go ahead. I would > > like to know why you would like some scriptural back-up for this. It > > seems to me that you are gathering conceptual knowledge in this > > regard. > > Again, as I have mentioned at the top. We are (or at least I am!) > establishing what you are experiencing, whether or not it matches the > scriptures or not. There are different claims about how things are, just in > the theravadan traditions alone, not counting other claims from other > traditions. For example, there was a "sect" in Thailand (claiming > Theravadan traditions) that claimed the fixation on the "nimita" of a > spherical, bright object is a sign of being on the path to reach nibbana. > This is an exagerated example not matching the scriptures, but there are > even more subtle claims, not matching the scriptures, about what the path > is and what enlightenment means. > > > If that is so, then what is the point? It's quite simple: > > Wherever there are concepts, Panna cannot be. > > I agree with you that Panna that leads to the eradication of all kilesa > cannot rise by conceptualization. > > > Concepts merely install > > a false sense of knowing and can never lead to liberation. > > I disagree with this as this depends on one person to another. Rahula, > the Buddha's son, was instructed by the Buddha and his disciples for more > than 13 years about the proper conducts, things that should be focussed > upon, and the *conceptual* noble truths before he becomes enlightened. > I have no doubt that the teachings, despite its being conceptual, aided his > practice. > > > It's not that I don't want to answer your question, but unless it has > > any actual practical appliance in daily life for you, I would prefer > > not to, since any sort of conceptualising will obstruct your progress. > > I hope my answers above have attenuated your fear that your taking time > to answer wouldn't benefit me. > > kom 6003 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 8:26pm Subject: Re: unconditioned awareness(anders) --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Anders, > I thought we could look at some practical issues. On your > website you write that: > ""Do not imagine that this unconditioned awareness is somehow > apart from the world and daily life. On the contrary, it could > be said that one is even more closer to life than ever before, > because there is no separation between you and the world. When > caught up in dualism, one creates the illusion of someone being > aware (subject) and something to be aware of (object). Yet there > is just this awareness, there is nothing to be aware of. > Conditioned phenomena are not apart from awareness in any way, > yet they not really awareness either.''''' > ____________ > You say that this unconditioned awareness has nothing to be > aware of. Could you explain this as it pertains to our lives. > When there is seeing what is occuring for instance? > I notice on one of your websites where you mention having > champagne on your 18th birthday a few weeks ago. Could you > describe the type of awareness that occured when you had the > intention to drink. Intention arising depending on object, sustained by presence of object, object of intention ceasing, intention ceasing. I was not being mindful at the time though. I think it says somewhere that a stream-entrant can never kill, some other things, but also never lie nor drink alcoholic substances. On account of this, I am not. Maybe I am wrong about this, but it seems to me that you are somehow taking up the role of the hunter. Watching out for any mistakes I might make, to try to verify or falsify any potential enlightenment. I have already stated that 'enlightenment' means nothing to me, so why should it to you? I've also said that you shouldn't rely on anything I say to be true or false. I get the impression that some people here make the mistake of comparing what they are debating with the scriptures, rather than their own understanding. thus, they remove themselves from it, by taking the message of the scriptures as something apart from themselves, to be examined. The thing is that the scriptures were never written to be understood in any way. They were written for you to *become* that understanding so to speak. 6004 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 9:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetasikas : ? Panna (understanding) ? op 07-07-2001 14:27 Num: > Dear Nina, new members and all. > 1) what are the differences between panna in lokiya (mahakusala, mahakiriya, > mahavipaka, and all 27 kind of jhanacittas) and lokuttara citta? They do > have the same character, penetrating, but I guess it penetrates at different > level and objects. When it said that there is panna in doing smathi, what > does panna penetrate in this case? In case of Pra-Devadhatta, the Buddha's > cousin, even though he attained jhana and abhinna (from my reading), he still > committed two greatest kamma, did schism in sankha and made a bruise on the > Buddha by trying to kill him. Someone said about miccha-smathi, I don't > know much about it, but how far can miccha-smathi develop. I guess it cannot > get up to jhana level. > Dear Num, you are right that there are many levels of understanding, pa~n~naa, there can be panna with generosity, with observing sila (panna knows what is kusala), with the development of samatha, with theoretical understanding of the Dhamma, on the level of listening, and with satipatthana. In samatha panna knows exactly when the citta is akusala and when it is kusala, it knows how to develop kusala citta with calm by means of a suitable meditation subject. It knows the conditions for the growth of calm so that jhana can be attained. The objective is not penetrating the true characteristics of reality, impermanence, dukkha and anatta. The objective in samatha is being free from attachment to sense objects, by the development of a meditation subject, temporarily free from the hindrances. As to wrong concentration, this cannot go together with panna. By wrong concentration jhana cannot be attained, but there may be extraordinary experiences one takes for jhana. Someone may attain jhana and after that commit crimes, because by jhana defilements are not eradicated. Num: 2) in Cuti, Patisandhi and Bhavanga-citta, if a person born with three > sobhana hetus, he will always has panna in his bhavanga moment, right? What > does panna do in this case? I am still not clear by what does panna do in > vipaka-citta as well. Nina: Yes, when you are born with panna, panna accompanies all bhavangacittas in that life and the dying-consciousness. Those are the same types of citta in that life. In that case panna is result, vipaka, result of kusala kamma with panna. Being born with panna means that one has the potentiality to develop it more. It conditions one's whole life, because if one develops samatha one is able to attain jhana, and if one develops panna of insight, vipassana, one can attain enlightenment. However, panna has to be developed on and on during one's life, the result will not come true without its development. If one is not born with panna, jhana cannot be attained, nor can enlightenment be attained. Num: Let me digress a little bit, phassa in these three kinds of cittas, cuti, > patisandhi and bhavanga, as you mentioned, experience (contact) the same > object as the last javana cittas which arose before the cuti-citta in > previous life. May I ask what kind of object is that? Just curious, so > every bhavanga-citta in this life can still experiences (contacts) that > object. Nina: It is as you say, these types of citta experience the same object. Since we are born humans, it was kusala kamma that conditioned the last javana cittas to be kusala cittas and to experience a pleasant object. That kusala kamma produced birth as a human, which is a happy rebirth. The object experienced shortly before dying in the previous life is an object which can appear through one of the six doors, it can be a symbol or sign of the kusala kamma one performed, or of one's future destiny. We cannot know what kind of object it is, but it is pleasant. It does not matter if we do not know, but we can remember that this birth is the right opportunity to develop understanding. We still have the opportunity to listen to true Dhamma. Even if we are not born with panna, understanding can still be developed. We should not cling to a result such as rapid progress or an idea we might have of enlightenment. Some people may doubt about it whether they have attained enlightenment, but if there is doubt, there is no panna. One can check oneself: what does panna know now? If there is no understanding of seeing or visible object now it is not real panna. The panna of a person who is sotapanna knows precisely the realities appearing naturally through the six doors in his daily life. If these are not known in daily life as non-self it is not panna. Num: I mean to ask about Sati (mindfulness) as well but I think I better put it in another mail. Nina: Yes that is OK. It is a pleasure to correspond with you. > >Num:Thanks everyone for your patience, kindness, energy and willing to share your > wisdom with me. Dhamma for me is difficult and hard to see and penetrate. Nina: Yes it is for me too difficult and hard to see. How can panna be fully developed in the course of only one life. Let us be grateful that we can still listen to the teachings. There will be a time that they disappear. Num: Have to go for a tennis match. Nina: Right you are, but how difficult to be aware of just hardness or sound, when we are absorbed in something like a game. Nobody says that it is easy. Still panna has to be developed in daily life, if it is not in daily life it is not panna of vipassana. Nina. 6005 From: bruce Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 9:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello herman, you are kidding, right? robert has been making his usual calm and rational inquiries into a situation that is most certainly not usual: not only do we have someone claiming to this group to be at least a sotapanna, but also someone who is proclaiming it to the world from a website....don't you think that something like this needs to be looked into as thoroughly as possible? what could robert have possibly said in this thread to engender so much lobha? bruce At 12:13 2001/07/08 -0000, you wrote: > Robert, > > How will a blind man verify the light? > > One man keeps the precepts > Another keeps a library > And a third sits, smiling > > In conventional terms, I find your behaviour in this thread to be > somewhere between offensive and disgusting. > > Will you go somewhere else or will I? > > Herman > > > --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > Dear Anders, > > > > Thanks for replying, even though it may seem disagreeable to you. > The > > purpose of these questions is frankly to gain confidence in your > claim to > > enlightenment (and your transmission of dhammas) or (personally) > > disregard your claim (not to discredit, but to determine if you > have gained > > insights according to what the Buddha has taught). > > > > I am one of those people who benefits from listening to the > teachings in > > the practical sense. For example, you quoted "Nissaraniya Sutta", > Means > > of Escape, when I listen to it, I become more motivated to develop > such > > qualities which I do not have. So, I think some people (definitely > myself) > > will benefit if you bear with me. > > 6006 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 9:43pm Subject: Re: Hello --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Actually, I am mistaken here (in both agreement and meaning!). The > sense object (aramana of the cittas) can be both conditioned and > unconditioned. Nibbana, an unconditioned object, can be the sense object > (aramana) of the consciousness, which is also true with the conditioned > object. If there is one thing I can ever tell you for certain (and there isn't much else), it is that Nibbana can never ever be an object of any of the senses. Where did you get that idea? 6007 From: Howard Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 6:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Pali and tipitaka and translations JOE Hi, Erik - In a message dated 7/8/01 7:51:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Erik writes: > Even > more important, silabbataparamasa also includes wrongly believing > that, for example, ascetic practices alone lead to liberation, or > giving up meat leads to liberation, or even giving up drugs that do > NOT lead to heedlessness or condition any of the hindrances is > necessary for wisdom, and, silabbataparamasa would also wrongly > believe that drugs MUST always act as a hindrance, totally ignoring > the intention, wisdom, and accumulations and circumstances of the > person taking them. > ================================ I agree with what you write here, especially including what you say about substances that do NOT lead to heedlessness. I would add just one caveat here: All of us, I presume, are vulnerable to our subtle desires and inclinations, and are always in danger of fooling ourselves, of being mislead by our tanha, including desires for useful and wonderful things, into misunderstanding. Thus, we must be very cautious, most vigilant, and humble enough to recognize the *possibility* of being fooled. But please note that I am NOT claiming or assuming that you are being fooled. I'm just encouraging caution. 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) 6008 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 10:44pm Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, Through the 5 sense doors (seeing, hearing, smelling, physical contact, tasting) only the 7 physical elements are known. Through the 6th sense doors, all the possible paramatha elements (realities) are known, plus the concepts. The paramatha elements include all citta (consciousness), cetasikas (mental factors), rupas (physical elements), and nibbana. What I want to know is, since you have already experience Nibbana, what experiences nibbana? You mention it is the released awareness. Is released awareness the same element as nibbana? kom --- "Anders Honore" > If there is one thing I can ever tell you for certain (and there > isn't much else), it is that Nibbana can never ever be an object of > any of the senses. Where did you get that idea? 6009 From: Derek Cameron Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 10:47pm Subject: Re: Pali and tipitaka and translations JOE Hi, rikpa21, --- <> wrote: > Without reference to Suttas (I have no time now), silabbataparamasa > is, most simply, confusing the letter for the spirit of the Law. Just as a footnote to your lucid explanation of the word silabbata- paramasa, some relevent references are these. The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary defines "silabbata" as "good works and ceremonial observances." For example, in the Dhammapada verses 271-272 we read: "Not only with mere morality [i.e silabbata] ... should you rest content ..." The PTS dictionary then defines "silabbata-paramasa" as "the contagion of mere rule and ritual, the infatuation of good works, the delusion that they will suffice." The dictionary gives several references, including Majjima Nikaya 64, were we read: "An untaught, orindary person ... abides with a mind enslaved by adherence to rules and observances [silabbata-paramasa-pariyutthitena cetasa viharati]." > Once I get settled into my new digs in BKK > in the next couple of weeks What are you doing in BKK? I am going there at the end of August. Derek. 6010 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 11:20pm Subject: Re: Hello --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Anders, > > Through the 5 sense doors (seeing, hearing, smelling, physical contact, > tasting) only the 7 physical elements are known. Yes. > Through the 6th sense doors, all the possible paramatha elements > (realities) are known, plus the concepts. The paramatha elements include > all citta (consciousness), cetasikas (mental factors), rupas (physical > elements), and nibbana. Let me get this straight. Through a conditioned, impermanent, and stressful faculty, the unconditioned can be discerned? Furthermore, that sixth faculty is experienced trhough the sixth sense-door consciousness, so Nibbana goes through two conditioned philters in order for the unconditioned to be manifest? > What I want to know is, since you have already experience Nibbana, what > experiences nibbana? You mention it is the released awareness. Is > released awareness the same element as nibbana? There is no one, or nothing to experience Nibbana. Nibbana *is* released awareness. 6011 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 11:26pm Subject: silabataparamasa Derek, Thanks for this excellent material. I am going to be in bangkok in the first week of August (and will be meeting with Erik) but plan to be back sometime in september also. If you are going to still be there I'd love to meet up . best wishes robert --- Derek Cameron wrote: > Hi, rikpa21, > > --- <> wrote: > > Without reference to Suttas (I have no time now), > silabbataparamasa > > is, most simply, confusing the letter for the spirit of the > Law. > > Just as a footnote to your lucid explanation of the word > silabbata- > paramasa, some relevent references are these. > > The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary defines > "silabbata" > as "good works and ceremonial observances." For example, in > the > Dhammapada verses 271-272 we read: "Not only with mere > morality [i.e > silabbata] ... should you rest content ..." > > The PTS dictionary then defines "silabbata-paramasa" as "the > contagion of mere rule and ritual, the infatuation of good > works, the > delusion that they will suffice." The dictionary gives several > > references, including Majjima Nikaya 64, were we read: "An > untaught, > orindary person ... abides with a mind enslaved by adherence > to rules > and observances [silabbata-paramasa-pariyutthitena cetasa > viharati]." > > > Once I get settled into my new digs in BKK > > in the next couple of weeks > > What are you doing in BKK? I am going there at the end of > August. > > Derek. > > 6012 From: Anders Honore Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:11am Subject: Re: Hello --- bruce wrote: > herman, you are kidding, right? robert has been making his usual calm and > rational inquiries into a situation that is most certainly not usual: not > only do we have someone claiming to this group to be at least a sotapanna, > but also someone who is proclaiming it to the world from a website....don't > you think that something like this needs to be looked into as thoroughly as > possible? what could robert have possibly said in this thread to engender > so much lobha? I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I've made it quite clear that none of the crap I might spill out should be taken for granted, especially in the light that it might not accord with the scirptures, because I simply don't rely much on them. So in terms of validity of anything I say, it should be irrelevant. In terms of your own understanding, it should also be irrelevant. How will knowing about any other's enlightenment help you to get there? I don't care about enlightenment, and I am quite comfortable saying that I don't know anything about the Dhamma, so that others won't be mislead by anyone else than themselves. The inquiries that Robert has been making has been to fashion an impermanent belief system labeled 'the Dhamma', not to know his own mind, which is all Buddhism is about. I must admit that I am a bit surprised by the amount of scriptural addiction present among some people here. I am not making any accusations here, just stating my own perception of things. Even if you were able to correctly interprete the written Dhamma 100%, it wouldn't matter one bit. knowing about the *concept* of Nibbana in detail won't do you much good, if you aren't beginning to discover the marks of existence intuitively. Concepts are needed, but one has to examine if those concepts have any practical appliance for you. If they don't, there is no reason for you to pursue them any further, as they will just add more attachments to views, rather than using them as actual tools to know their own minds. The view of enlightenment vs. actual enlightenment is analogous to a seeing a picture of the Eiffel Tower, and actually standing in front of the Eiffel Tower. If you keep walking holding the picture in front of your eyes to check it, you'll walk right past the real deal without noticing. What I am getting at, is that one should try to look aside from the pictures, and start examining what is around you, in terms of mental phenomena. What good is the Dhamma, if you cannot apply it in your own practise so that you may know your own mind? 6013 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:44am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- Anders Honore wrote: > I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I've made > it quite clear > that none of the crap I might spill out should be > taken for granted, > especially in the light that it might not accord > with the scirptures, > because I simply don't rely much on them. In his last discourse, the Buddha explicitly and unequivocally encouraged us to verify what we've heard from the Dhammavinaya. "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu -- or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu -- or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve." Digha Nikaya 16 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta Last Days of the Buddha Translated from the Pali by Sister Vajira & Francis Story http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html > I must admit that I am a bit surprised by the amount > of scriptural > addiction present among some people here. I am not > making any > accusations here, just stating my own perception of > things. Exactly--sorting out your own (and my own) perception of things from the teachings of the Buddha, as far as we're able to determine them, is exactly what this is about. > What good is the Dhamma, if you cannot > apply it in your > own practise so that you may know your own mind? I'd be surprised to hear anyone here dispute this. Best wishes, mike 6014 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:50am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honore" > > For example, this differs from the scripture because kandha of > > consciousness refers to *all* consciousness, not just the grasping > > consciousness. > > Of course there is only one consciousness (being the fith aggregate). > What I am saying is, that what *characterises* consciousness, is > dwelling/grasping at objects. All consciousness grasps at objects > ("following the drifts of signs"), whether it be mental or physical > ones. You appear to be saying that all consciousness follow signs and clings to them. Although it is true that all consciousness cognizes an object, it is not true that all consciouness clings to the object it cognizes. It is also not true that all consciousness follows a sign. It is possible for a lay person, not being enlightened, to have moments of consciousness where no clinging/grasping occurs. Our understandings differ. > Well, ultimately, it is beyond unattachment or attachment, because it > never took part in the circle of attachment. Thus, there's nothing > for it to be attached to. I believe you are implying that at the moment of your enlightenment experience, your awareness become unbounded [unconditioned], it becomes one and the same with nibbana. I think you are driving the points that at that point, "dualism betwen the subject/object ceases to exist". If you are thinking along this line, you may want to examine how Zen concept of dualism can be mapped into a theravadan system. Although Dualism can be interpretted to fit in with the Theravadan teachings, I don't think you can map this so literally. There would always remain some separation between what is cognizing, and what is being cognized, even at the point of enlightenment. The consciousness is always conditioned, even at the enlightenment moment. The object (nibbana) being cognized at enlightenment is not conditioned. What they share is the common characteristic of being anatta. > Sure, I can wait. Interesting how the translation I read didn't even > hint at the jhanas. The translations of the Pali into English are difficult and can be easily mistaken. Not only they differ from Pali in the meaning of the word (literal translations), the different translators don't use the same English words for the same Pali words. You can imagine the havoc it wreaks trying to understand the meanings of the words, leaving alone the meaning of the teaching itself. Some pointers that I can give you (keeping in mind that I am not an expert in Pali): 1) good will, compassion, appreciation, and equanimity are the 4 brahma vihara. In the scripture, when these 4 are mentioned, it more often (in my experience) refers to Jhana development than the non-jhana brahma vihara. 2) Those 4 combinations, when translated from the pali words associated with Cetovimutti, would certainly refers to jhana. Again, I will get back to you on the 5th point. > > What you are describing sounds a lot like the explanation of > Dependent- > > origination, except for the last part. The dependent origination > explains > > the third link (consciousness, vinanna) as any non-path > consciousness, not > > just grasping consciousness. > > "non-path"? You are gonna have to explain that term to me. First of all, I think we have already established the differences that you believe all consciousness, before the englightenment, are "grasping". In your understanding, there is no moment of ungrasping consciousness before englightenment. So, I think you were attempting to use the concept of Dependent Origination to explain why you say the consciousness prior to enlightenment is illusionary and not real. When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness accumulates causes that continues the cycles. The path consciousness certainly doesn't grasp, but it cognizes a reality as it truly is. This path consciousness *must* arise *prior* to enlightenment. > > Let me say how I understand your saying here; maybe this would help > you > > explain more: > > 1) You are talking about two types of consciousness: > > a) illusionary one and b) "release" consciousness, i.e., one > without > > grasping, without bound, and without condition. > > Yes, although intrinsically, there is only one. > > > 2) You mentioned that you have reached this level of state, i.e., > you are > > now living without the illusionary one. > > I did? I think it's important to remember that habitual tendencies > still remain, even though they have been seen through. > But even I I really did, what would that mean to you? It would mean nothing to me, because I cannot prove it one way or another. It would be beneficial for people, however, when you describe how this process works. For example, you appear to be implying that you are now living with only "unbounded" awareness which is unconditioned. Now, that is truly different from the Theravadan teaching... > > 3) The illusionary consciousness doesn't exist; they are not really > there, > > but we think they are there. They have no characteristics that > can be > > experienced. > > Well, the illusionary consciousness exists in the sense that it's > there. We just perceive it as something else than what it really is > (perceiving it as real consciousness, when it is just mental factors). This we somewhat agree, but not exactly (maybe only differences in the use of words). The consciousness exists infinitesmally briefly, with its own fundamental characteristics, but we perceive it in a distorted way because of ignorance, craving, conceits, and wrong views. > > Is the consciousness of nibbana and nibbanna itself one of the same? > > Obviously, there can be no consciousness of Nibbana, when the > consciousness characterised as dwelling on objects, is dissolved. The is another point of difference that we have established. There can be no actual knowledge of nibbana unless there is a consciousness that cognizes it, even if nibbana may be described as the disolution of all conditioned realities. If this discussion was all based in purely conceptual understanding on both your and my part, I would say to you that you are using a concept which are not mentioned in the scripture to describe some events that are referred to (but cannot be fully described) in the scripture. Although this may work, it has the inherent danger of looking at realities through a distorted glass and not even knowing it. I am presently satisfied with the results of our discussions. However, I do hope you stay around for other interesting (to me!) discussions. I am convinced that there are differences between the teachings in the theravadan traditions and the understandings that you have of realities, and therefore, I urge you to stay around long enough to learn what the differences are, and then you would at least understand what all these objections to your enlightenment (even if it is true) and your understandings of realities are all about. kom 6015 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:59am Subject: Self Self... Let us try and examine what it really means. I think it has been established beyond any doubt that anything that is impermanent, in short he kandhas, are categorically no self. But, in order to know what the hell we are talking, we should know just what is inferred from the word self, at the very basic, as the ground for which spiritual seekers go out to discover their true self (whether it be illusionary or not), in order that we may negate or affirm the existence of a self. Since it is established that the kandhas aren't self, we'll examine the definition based on the possibility of Nibbana being the self. There are a number of possible definitions: 1. Self is free will; the creative source. On this account there is no self. Nibbana for one, doesn't interact in any way, so this cannot be self, under this definition. 2. Self is the sense of self Under this, there is no self. Sense of self is created by perception of self, which falls under the kandha of perception. 3. Self is knowing self. Under this definition, there is no self either. For Nibbana to know Nibbana, it would have to take it as an object, and since Nibbana doesn't dwell anywhere, this cannot be the self. 4. Self is knowing what is not the self. If this were true, once Parinibbana had been completed then there would be nothing for the self, Nibbana, to stand in contradistinction to, and since self is knowing what it is not, it would dissolve since it could no longer discern what is not self. Thus, under this definition, no self either. So, if self is Nibbana, how could it possibly be defined? Since any sense or perception of self is categorically not the self, it would be futile to even talk of self. The moment we affirm a self, we are off the track, because that cannot possibly be the self! So self would have to be beyond affirmation or denial, which, at least in that regard, fits with Nibbana. One could say that self is sentience. But that would indicate someone being sentient, and once again we have the perception of self. If it should be said that there is a self, it would have to be just defined as just *this*. It's not any 'this' that you can think of, since it defies perception. It is not anything, yet not not-existent, not existent. On the very account that Nibbana *is*, this could be said to be self. yet since it is beyond perception, it would be futile to call it self, since this perception of self. On the other hand, it cannot be said to not be the self. Hence, I said in one mail, that the Buddha's silence might hint at more than just a ploy, but actually as a way of understanding self. Just this not- defining it, affirming or denying it. Nargarjuna, in Mahayana circles acknowledged by many as the "second Buddha", once said that the Buddha did teach self to those who understood the derived implication of the word. Thus this implication should be understood before any negation might take place. And the derived implication is: It is not something that can be implicated! So what is the point of discussing the existence of self or not? Just work at uprooting your own habituated beliefs of what self is. Anders Honore ************************************************* Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ ************************************************* 6016 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:13am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honore" > Let me get this straight. Through a conditioned, impermanent, and > stressful faculty, the unconditioned can be discerned? Yes. Let me explain in this way. 1) The buddha separates all conditioned realities into two categories: a) Rupa - the materiality. b) Nama - the consciousness that cognizes a sense object. 2) Nibbana is categorized as an unconditioned nama, it is an element that is not rupa, but yet it doesn't cognize any sense object. We are a stream of nama and rupa, rising and falling away rapidly. When we say we "experience", it is the nama that cognizes the sense objects. There is no other thing that experiences except these conditioned realities which are rising and fallign away rapidly (conditioned, impermanent, stressful, and anatta). I repeat as before, the consciousness through the mind door (6th faculty?) can cognize all rupa (28), nama (89 cittas + 52 cetasikas + 1 nibbana), and concepts. > Furthermore, > that sixth faculty is experienced trhough the sixth sense-door > consciousness, so Nibbana goes through two conditioned philters in > order for the unconditioned to be manifest? There are a number of cittas that can cognize nibbana: two of those are magga (path at lokuttara level) and phala (result of that path) citta, both appearing in the mind door process. The unconditioned appears (and conditions) the conditioned pheonena, although the unconditioned itself is not condiioned. I do not understand what you mean by nibbana going through the mind door. Without the minddoor (the bhavanga citta before the mano-dvara- vajjana), the lokuttara magga and phala cannot arise. The minddoor clearly conditions (indirectly?) the magga and phala citta. > > What I want to know is, since you have already experience Nibbana, > what > > experiences nibbana? You mention it is the released awareness. Is > > released awareness the same element as nibbana? > > There is no one, or nothing to experience Nibbana. Nibbana *is* > released awareness. Hence, the difference in your understandings and the theravadan system both in the meanings of the words, and the meanings of the teachings (as I understand it, obviously, since I cannot be said to represent the Buddha!). kom 6017 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:26am Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:50 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Dear Anders, > You appear to be saying that all consciousness follow signs and clings to > them. Although it is true that all consciousness cognizes an object, it is > not true that all consciouness clings to the object it cognizes. It is also > not true that all consciousness follows a sign. It is possible for a lay > person, not being enlightened, to have moments of consciousness where > no clinging/grasping occurs. Our understandings differ. How is it possible for a lay person to a have moment of absolutely no clinging or grasping? I'd say that there is still some grasping active, although at a very subtle level. > I believe you are implying that at the moment of your enlightenment > experience, your awareness become unbounded [unconditioned], it > becomes one and the same with nibbana. I think you are driving the > points that at that point, "dualism betwen the subject/object ceases to > exist". You could say that. > If you are thinking along this line, you may want to examine how Zen > concept of dualism can be mapped into a theravadan system. Although > Dualism can be interpretted to fit in with the Theravadan teachings, I > don't think you can map this so literally. There would always remain some > separation between what is cognizing, and what is being cognized, even > at the point of enlightenment. The consciousness is always conditioned, > even at the enlightenment moment. 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' S XXII.87 Established means that it is conditioned (and this discernable). Because it is unestablished, it is unconditioned. > The object (nibbana) being cognized > at enlightenment is not conditioned. What they share is the common > characteristic of being anatta. How can you cognize that which is not-cognizeable? For something to be congnizeable, it has to be conditioned, hence mara could not find the consciousness of Vakkali because it was now unconditioned, and hence it is not possible to read the mind of an arahant because there is nothing to be read. One sutta names, among others, Nibbana as the 'featureless'. > > "non-path"? You are gonna have to explain that term to me. > > First of all, I think we have already established the differences that you > believe all consciousness, before the englightenment, are "grasping". Or dwelling on some object, yes. > In > your understanding, there is no moment of ungrasping consciousness > before englightenment. So, I think you were attempting to use the > concept of Dependent Origination to explain why you say the > consciousness prior to enlightenment is illusionary and not real. > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. The path consciousness > certainly doesn't grasp, but it cognizes a reality as it truly is. This path > consciousness *must* arise *prior* to enlightenment. Why? > It would mean nothing to me, because I cannot prove it one way or > another. It would be beneficial for people, however, when you describe > how this process works. For example, you appear to be implying that you > are now living with only "unbounded" awareness which is unconditioned. No, that would make me an Arahant. > > Obviously, there can be no consciousness of Nibbana, when the > > consciousness characterised as dwelling on objects, is dissolved. > > The is another point of difference that we have established. There can be > no actual knowledge of nibbana unless there is a consciousness that > cognizes it, even if nibbana may be described as the disolution of all > conditioned realities. The Sutta I quoted above explicitly stated that it is because it is not established anywhere, not even "Nibbana". > I am presently satisfied with the results of our discussions. However, I > do hope you stay around for other interesting (to me!) discussions. I am > convinced that there are differences between the teachings in the > theravadan traditions and the understandings that you have of realities, I am not, but such is the difference of opinion. I know that my knowledge is incomplete, but most I don't think is contradictory. > and therefore, I urge you to stay around long enough to learn what the > differences are, and then you would at least understand what all these > objections to your enlightenment (even if it is true) and your > understandings of realities are all about. True. But as someone else asked here, how can the blind verify the light? If verification is an issue to some people here, then it would be better call upon the aid of someone who is a verified teacher, and who is (at least) a stream-entrant, if such a person is available. 6018 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:31am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: m. nease Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Dear Anders, > > --- Anders Honore wrote: > > > I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I've made > > it quite clear > > that none of the crap I might spill out should be > > taken for granted, > > especially in the light that it might not accord > > with the scirptures, > > because I simply don't rely much on them. > > In his last discourse, the Buddha explicitly and > unequivocally encouraged us to verify what we've heard > from the Dhammavinaya. > > "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a > bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor > with scorn. Yup, that was my intent. > But if the sentences concerned are > traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the > Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, > this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been > well understood by that bhikkhu -- or by that > community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And > in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, > second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, > are the four great references for you to preserve." Well, it all depends on interpreation, doesn't it? One interpretes a sentence to mean, one thing, another to mean something different. In the end, the only one to mislead you, is yourself. But feel free to accept or reject anything I say. > > What good is the Dhamma, if you cannot > > apply it in your > > own practise so that you may know your own mind? > > I'd be surprised to hear anyone here dispute this. Words aren't always shown in action... 6019 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:53am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > > How is it possible for a lay person to a have moment of absolutely no > clinging or grasping? I'd say that there is still some grasping active, > although at a very subtle level. At the moment that there is a penetrating knowledge of reality, there is no= observerable clinging or grasping of the reality. There is also no additio= nal accumulations of clinging or grasping. However, since the person is not an= arahant, there is still *latent* tendencies for this clinging and grasping = to arise in the future, but the latent tendency is not observable. > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 I am sorry; you will need to include an HTML link for that reference. I cannot respond as I cannot find the sutta... kom 6020 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello --- Anders Honoré wrote: > > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the > consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali > the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished > consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 > > Established means that it is conditioned (and this > discernable). Because it > is unestablished, it is unconditioned. > > > The object (nibbana) being cognized > > at enlightenment is not conditioned. What they share is the > common > > characteristic of being anatta. > > How can you cognize that which is not-cognizeable? For > something to be > congnizeable, it has to be conditioned, hence mara could not > find the > consciousness of Vakkali because it was now unconditioned, and > hence it is > not possible to read the mind of an arahant because there is > nothing to be > read. _________________ Dear Anders, Perhaps you didn't realise that Vakkali in the sutta you quote above was already dead at the time that Mara was searching for his conciousness. Upon the death of an arahant or a buddha(parinibbana) there is no more arising of any citta (consciousness). robert 6021 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:25am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:13 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Yes. Let me explain in this way. > 1) The buddha separates all conditioned realities into two categories: > a) Rupa - the materiality. > b) Nama - the consciousness that cognizes a sense object. > 2) Nibbana is categorized as an unconditioned nama, it is an element that > is not rupa, but yet it doesn't cognize any sense object. > > We are a stream of nama and rupa, rising and falling away rapidly. When > we say we "experience", it is the nama that cognizes the sense objects. > There is no other thing that experiences except these conditioned realities > which are rising and fallign away rapidly (conditioned, impermanent, > stressful, and anatta). > > I repeat as before, the consciousness through the mind door (6th faculty?) > can cognize all rupa (28), nama (89 cittas + 52 cetasikas + 1 nibbana), > and concepts. > There are a number of cittas that can cognize nibbana: two of those are > magga (path at lokuttara level) and phala (result of that path) citta, both > appearing in the mind door process. The unconditioned appears (and > conditions) the conditioned pheonena, although the unconditioned itself is > not condiioned. > > I do not understand what you mean by nibbana going through the mind > door. Without the minddoor (the bhavanga citta before the mano-dvara- > vajjana), the lokuttara magga and phala cannot arise. The minddoor > clearly conditions (indirectly?) the magga and phala citta. > Hence, the difference in your understandings and the theravadan system > both in the meanings of the words, and the meanings of the teachings (as > I understand it, obviously, since I cannot be said to represent the > Buddha!). All I have to say is that to truly know the meaning of unconditioned, means that it doesn't participate in any conditioning processes (which you seem to think it does). When you say it conditions the conditioned, that is not entirely true. Rather, the conditioned process is no longer sustained, and from a lack of clinging/sustenance, it ends. Likewise, the unconditioned can never be 'philtered' through any conditioned doors, as this would mean that it takes part in the conditioned process. I shall stand by my claim that consciousness is released, and that released consciousness, is Nibbana: ------------------- Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around, does not partake of the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas (and so on through a list of the various levels of godhood to) the allness of the All. M 49 ------------------- Consciousness without feature, without end luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the stopping of [the activity of] consciousness, each is here brought to an end. D 11 ----------------- 'Without feature', and one of the names of Nibbana is 'the featureless'. The elements (meaning conditioned phenomena) have no footing (meaning it is not conditioned). A striking resemblance that the stopping of consciousness has to Nibbana, wouldn't you say so? ------------- If a monk abandons passion for the property of form... feeling... perception... mental processes... consciousness, then owing to the abandoning of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he [the monk] is totally 'nibbana-ed' right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' S XXII.53 One question. 1. According to you, what happens after Parinibbana. Annihilation? 6022 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:24am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 In this sutta, Vakkali has achieved pari-nibbana, the cessation of all conditions for rebirth as well as the continuance of the 5 kandhas. The buddha is just commenting that there is no rebirth for him. > > > The object (nibbana) being cognized > > at enlightenment is not conditioned. What they share is the common > > characteristic of being anatta. > > How can you cognize that which is not-cognizeable? For something to be Why would you say nibbana is not cognizable? > congnizeable, it has to be conditioned, hence mara could not find the That is different from my understanding, even something that is unreal (doesn't exist) is still cognizable. Nibbana is definitely cognizable. > consciousness of Vakkali because it was now unconditioned, and hence it is > not possible to read the mind of an arahant because there is nothing to be > read. His mind was unreadable because there was no longer any: he was dead in the most permanent sense. > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, i= t > is > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. The path consciousness > > certainly doesn't grasp, but it cognizes a reality as it truly is. Th= is > path > > consciousness *must* arise *prior* to enlightenment. > > Why? Because this (non-lokkutara) path conciousness accumulates panna, seeing realities as they truly are, as elements, as impermanent, as non- lasting, as anatta. It is this path conciousness that leads to the magga and phala citta, the lokuttara path consciousness, that eliminates the latent defilement tendencies. > The Sutta I quoted above explicitly stated that it is because it is not > established anywhere, not even "Nibbana". This point has been refuted... > True. But as someone else asked here, how can the blind verify the light? If > verification is an issue to some people here, then it would be better cal= l > upon the aid of someone who is a verified teacher, and who is (at least) = a > stream-entrant, if such a person is available. Do you know, not just think or believe, of anybody who is a stream- enterer? All that is verifiable now is the dhamma arising now that the consciousness is experiecing. Does your experience match with what the Buddha has taught, or does it match what you think it should be? When this conditioned consciousness stopped, we achieve pari-nibbana and stops to exist. Like I mention to you before, my questions and your answers cannot conclusively determine whether or not you (or anybody) has achieved this state. However, my satisfaction comes from the establishment of the differences and similarities in our understanding. kom 6023 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:31am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Kirkpatrick Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > --- Anders Honoré wrote: > > > > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the > > consciousness of > > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali > > the Clansman > > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished > > consciousness that > > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > > S XXII.87 > _________________ > Dear Anders, > Perhaps you didn't realise that Vakkali in the sutta you quote > above was already dead at the time that Mara was searching for > his conciousness. Upon the death of an arahant or a > buddha(parinibbana) there is no more arising of any citta > (consciousness). Perhaps you notice (but then again, this could be attributed to faulted translation) that he speaks of the unestablished consciousness in the present tense? Through unconditioned/undying ("Nibbana'ed") consciousness, he is released, and thus, no more citta. 6024 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:34am Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:53 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > > How is it possible for a lay person to a have moment of absolutely no > clinging or grasping? I'd say that there is still some grasping active, > although at a very subtle level. >At the moment that there is a penetrating knowledge of reality, there is no= observerable clinging or grasping of the reality. There is also no additio= nal accumulations of clinging or grasping. However, since the person is not an= arahant, there is still *latent* tendencies for this clinging and grasping = to arise in the future, but the latent tendency is not observable. Oh, stream-entry. Then we are in agreement, that is possible. Nonetheless, that moment of no clinging causes a knowledge of the deathless as well (enlightenment). But agreed, the habitual tendencies remain. > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 >I am sorry; you will need to include an HTML link for that reference. I cannot respond as I cannot find the sutta... It's a sutta extract from the book "Mind, like fire unbound." 6025 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:49am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 8:24 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello --- "Anders Honoré" > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 >in this sutta, Vakkali has achieved pari-nibbana, the cessation of all conditions for rebirth as well as the continuance of the 5 kandhas. The buddha is just commenting that there is no rebirth for him. I would say he is commenting that his unbound/undying consciousness is unestablished. > How can you cognize that which is not-cognizeable? For something to be >Why would you say nibbana is not cognizable? It is signless, featureless. How can you cognize that? In order for anything conditioned to relate to something else (simple cause and effect) that also has to be conditioned, as one cannot have cause and uneffect, or uncause and effect. Hence conditioned cognising cannot cognise the unconditioned, simply because it violates the laws of cause and effect, at it's most basic level. > congnizeable, it has to be conditioned, hence mara could not find the > consciousness of Vakkali because it was now unconditioned, and hence it is > not possible to read the mind of an arahant because there is nothing to be > read. >His mind was unreadable because there was no longer any: he was dead in the most permanent sense. True, I was unaware of that. However, other suttas also state that it is not possible to read the mind of an Arahant. Th= is > path > > consciousness *must* arise *prior* to enlightenment. > > Why? >Because this (non-lokkutara) path conciousness accumulates panna, seeing realities as they truly are, as elements, as impermanent, as non- lasting, as anatta. It is this path conciousness that leads to the magga and phala citta, the lokuttara path consciousness, that eliminates the latent defilement tendencies. Do you define enlightenment as ataining to the state of arahant-ship? Then we are in agreement. If you define it as stream-entry, we are not. > The Sutta I quoted above explicitly stated that it is because it is not > established anywhere, not even "Nibbana". >This point has been refuted... I wouldn't think so... > True. But as someone else asked here, how can the blind verify the light? If > verification is an issue to some people here, then it would be better cal= l > upon the aid of someone who is a verified teacher, and who is (at least) = a > stream-entrant, if such a person is available. >Do you know, not just think or believe, of anybody who is a stream- >enterer? Yes, I have been fortunate to know a few. Only one of them are Theravadins however, and he knows even less about the scriptures than I do (next to nothing really), so I don't think he'll be much help to you. His own teacher wanted him to start teaching Theravada himself, but he has stalled so far, as he would like some time to settle in it. > All that is verifiable now is the dhamma arising now that the consciousness is experiecing. Does your experience match with what the Buddha has taught, or does it match what you think it should be? When this conditioned consciousness stopped, we achieve pari-nibbana and stops to exist. That is one of the fallacious views which the Buddha denied on the basis of annihilation. >Like I mention to you before, my questions and your answers cannot conclusively determine whether or not you (or anybody) has achieved this state. However, my satisfaction comes from the establishment of the differences and similarities in our understanding. Very well.... 6026 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 3:00am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 8:24 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello >Do you know, not just think or believe, of anybody who is a stream- enterer? All that is verifiable now is the dhamma arising now that the consciousness is experiecing. Does your experience match with what the Buddha has taught, or does it match what you think it should be? When this conditioned consciousness stopped, we achieve pari-nibbana and stops to exist. Do you want some scripture to go with that argument (I feel like a waiter)? Here goes: ------------------------------ Sariputta: How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the Tathagata? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: ...perception...? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: ...mental processes...? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: ...consciousness...? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form? Elsewhere than form? In feeling? Elsewhere than feeling? In perception? Elsewhere than perception? In mental processes? Elsewhere than mental processes? In consciousness? Elsewhere than consciousness? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-mental processes-consciousness? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without mental processes, without consciousness? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: And so, my friend Yamaka -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Master, a monk with no more mental effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'? Yamaka: Previously, friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Teaching, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and the Teaching has become clear. Sariputta: Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents, what is he on the break-up of the body, after death? Yamaka: Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form...feeling... perception...mental processes...consciousness are inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has stopped and gone to its end.' S XXII.85 ------------- For me, this is quite clear. The kandhas disperse, but the "Nibbana'ed" undying consciousness remains (although it is not established anywhere, and thus cannot be found anywhere). 6027 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:14am Subject: To Kom (and also Robert) Dear Kom. I feel that the discussion we have has taken a wrong turn. For me at least, for Dhamma discussions to be fruitful, it is to expose attachments to concepts and help break them up. I feel that at the moment, concepts are being exposed and replaced with new ones, hence no gain in terms of liberation. The subjects we are discussing doesn't really have any practical appliance, as I think (and I get the impression you'll agree) that things such as Nibbana and so on, are hardly relevant in your own practise in terms of integrating that knowledge or actualising it. I hope you can see what I mean. Robert, although not quite as relevant, I think some traces of what I mentioned above might also apply to the discussions we have been having. Do you agree? If it is important for you to falsify or verify any "enlightenment", then I would advice you to find someone qualified to do so, and I'll be happy to comply, although such a test is irrelevant for me. I have made no claim to stream-entry, so there's nothing lost or gained from that. I practise according with what I know, and this works for me. If I later discover that what I was erring previously, then I will readily accept that. My knowledge is far from incomplete. But that knowledge cannot be expanded from the scriptures for me at least. It has to come from the inside. The scriptures can only alert me to the possibility that I am erring. then I have to set about discovering that error for myself afterwards. Let me tell you a brief little story from my own practise, about ten months ago. Back then, I used to study the scriptures (Mahayana as well as Theravada. ) and interpret them, trying to enforce an understanding of reality ( true understanding is never an act of volition) by changing my own belief system. Then one day, I woke up and realised that I was no longer seeking truth. I was seeking a belief of truth. It dawned on my that it didn't matter if I believed that "non-duality transcends Oneness" or "it's all bull". The fact is, that none of those beliefs made me any happier, none of them helped be equanimous in my daily, or further my Sati. Most importantly, it wasn't something I could use to know my own mind. So I dropped all the scriptures and all the debate of whether things were this, or that. None of it helped me cultivate my own mind. Instead, I started looking to my own mind for answers. Not to my own ideas and such. I just started observing what was happening inside my own mind without thinking "ah, this must be because of that or that". I just observed it. From that point on, I knew nothing about Buddhism. But as I observed, I gradually came to see how things worked. I didn't try to enforce it, I just observed and let cause and effect be cause and effect, without trying plaster it with my own belief system. Basically, I learned to have faith. Faith in the fact the less I knew, the more I discovered. Eventually I started reading a scripture regularly (specifically the Platform Sutra of Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Zen). There were tons of stuff I didn't understand, but whenever I came across such a passage I just thought to myself "well, beyond my capacity. No reason to linger on that," and I focused on what I did comprehend and could utilise in my own daily practise. Even if I did gain a minor glimpse of some new teaching from that scripture, I'd say "well, that's all I can get from that at this moment. The rest will come when it is ready to come." Basically, I allowed the teachings to enter my mind, but without any volitional action. I never tried to understand them conceptually in any way. I preferred 'not-knowing' over false knowing. In fact, not-knowing became a practise in itself, as I discovered old views and concepts arise, and let go of them as well. I hope you see the point of this story Anders Honore ************************************************* Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ ************************************************* 6028 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:35am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Kom (and also Robert) ----- Original Message ----- From: Anders Honoré Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:14 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Kom (and also Robert) > My knowledge is far from incomplete. Oops! That should have been "My knowledge is far from *complete*." 6029 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:37am Subject: Re: To Kom (and also Robert) Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" wrote: > Dear Kom. > I feel that the discussion we have has taken a wrong turn. For me at least, > for Dhamma discussions to be fruitful, it is to expose attachments to > concepts and help break them up. I feel that at the moment, concepts are > being exposed and replaced with new ones, hence no gain in terms of > liberation. The subjects we are discussing doesn't really have any practical > appliance, as I think (and I get the impression you'll agree) that things= > such as Nibbana and so on, are hardly relevant in your own practise in terms > of integrating that knowledge or actualising it. I hope you can see what = I > mean. I can see what you mean. Not doing anything for me either... kom 6030 From: Anders Honore Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:50am Subject: Re: Howard on anatta and rebirth --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Sorry , > I just reread the article and see right at the end that he says > Nibbana is not anatta. This contradicts the Theravada tradition. > > robert Did you read the second article? I only just read it now. It seems that me and him are in agreement after all... As are Nargajuna and Hui-neng, but these are both Mahayanists, so I'll leave them be (even though Ajahn Chah acknowledged Hui-neng's teaching as true. And he refers to Nirvana as 'self-nature'). 6031 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello . > > > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the > Clansman > > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > > S XXII.87 > > >I am sorry; you will need to include an HTML link for that reference. I > cannot respond as I cannot find the sutta... > > It's a sutta extract from the book "Mind, like fire unbound." In Bhikkhu Bodhi's new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, "The Connected Discourses of the Buddha," the paragraph is a bit different. " That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: "Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali been established?' However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbana." The term "unestablished consciousness" seems to imply some special type of consciousness while the term "consciousness unestablsihed" points to the non-arising of consciousness, which seems to me to be much more consistent with the rest of this section on the aggregates...Ray 6032 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:51am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Hi, Anders - > --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > Dear Anders, > > > > Through the 5 sense doors (seeing, hearing, smelling, physical > contact, > > tasting) only the 7 physical elements are known. > > Yes. > > > Through the 6th sense doors, all the possible paramatha elements > > (realities) are known, plus the concepts. The paramatha elements > include > > all citta (consciousness), cetasikas (mental factors), rupas > (physical > > elements), and nibbana. > > Let me get this straight. Through a conditioned, impermanent, and > stressful faculty, the unconditioned can be discerned? Furthermore, > that sixth faculty is experienced trhough the sixth sense-door > consciousness, so Nibbana goes through two conditioned philters in > order for the unconditioned to be manifest? > > > What I want to know is, since you have already experience Nibbana, > what > > experiences nibbana? You mention it is the released awareness. Is > > released awareness the same element as nibbana? > > There is no one, or nothing to experience Nibbana. Nibbana *is* > released awareness. > > =============================== This is very close to the way Peter Harvey, in his book The Selfless Mind, refers to nibbana. Quoting from certain Pali suttas, he calls it "unmanifest discernment". This is also discussed in Bhikkhu Nanananda's brilliant little book The Magic of the Mind: An Exposition of the Kalakarama Sutta. The sense of it seems to me to be that vi~n~nana is the discerning or separating out of objects and their parts/aspects/factors from the field of awareness, rather like separating out shadows from within an ocean of light. The objects discerned are limiting conditions/constraints, and the entry to nibbana consists of the dropping of these constraints, leaving a shining awareness, a luminosity ranging all around, encountering nothing, unrestricted, completely free. 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) 6033 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:58am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: To Kom (and also Robert) ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:37 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: To Kom (and also Robert) Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" wrote: > Dear Kom. > I feel that the discussion we have has taken a wrong turn. For me at least, > for Dhamma discussions to be fruitful, it is to expose attachments to > concepts and help break them up. I feel that at the moment, concepts are > being exposed and replaced with new ones, hence no gain in terms of > liberation. The subjects we are discussing doesn't really have any practical > appliance, as I think (and I get the impression you'll agree) that things= > such as Nibbana and so on, are hardly relevant in your own practise in terms > of integrating that knowledge or actualising it. I hope you can see what = I > mean. -------- >I can see what you mean. Not doing anything for me either... Thanks. 6034 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:01am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > > Do you want some scripture to go with that argument (I feel like a waiter)? > Here goes: > ------------------------------ > Sariputta: How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as > the Tathagata? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: ...perception...? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: ...mental processes...? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: ...consciousness...? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form? Elsewhere than > form? In feeling? Elsewhere than feeling? In perception? Elsewhere than > perception? In mental processes? Elsewhere than mental processes? In > consciousness? Elsewhere than consciousness? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception- mental > processes-consciousness? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, > without feeling, without perception, without mental processes, without > consciousness? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: And so, my friend Yamaka -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata > as a truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to= > declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Master, a monk with > no more mental effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, > perishes, & does not exist after death'? > Yamaka: Previously, friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil > supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Teaching, I have > abandoned that evil supposition, and the Teaching has become clear. > Sariputta: Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: > A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents, what is he on the > break-up of the body, after death? > Yamaka: Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form...feeling... perception...mental > processes...consciousness are inconstant. That which is inconstant is > stressful. That which is stressful has stopped and gone to its end.' > S XXII.85 I think the differences between our understanding are: 1) You understand that nibbana is a consciousness, and that the consciousness at enlightenment becomes one of the same with nibbana at enlightenment. Although nibbana cannot be identified as self, at some crude level, you can think of this as living on forever, but not as self, a= nd hence negating the idea of annihilationism at pari-nibbana. 2) I understand nibbana to be a non-conscious element, and it is distinct from consciousness. I understand that the 5 kandha ceases to continue, because there are no more conditions to continue. The sutta can have another interpretation which is that the Tathagata never existed as a reality because the tathagata cannot be experienced, and therefore, the tathagata as a concept cannot cease to exist because it didn't really exist= at the first place. Again, like you said, this is an exposition of understandings only. It wouldn't have an immediate impact in my daily practice... kom 6035 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:04am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Ray Hendrickson Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > . > > > > > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > > > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the > > Clansman > > > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > > > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > > > > It's a sutta extract from the book "Mind, like fire unbound." > > In Bhikkhu Bodhi's new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, "The Connected > Discourses of the Buddha," the paragraph is a bit different. > > " That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of > the clansman Vakkali, wondering: "Where now has the consciousness of the > clansman Vakkali been established?' However, bhikkhus, with consciousness > unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbana." > > The term "unestablished consciousness" seems to imply some special type of > consciousness while the term "consciousness unestablsihed" points to the > non-arising of consciousness, which seems to me to be much more consistent > with the rest of this section on the aggregates...Ray As I read it, Bodhi's translation doesn't indicate the cessation of that consciousness. To me, it indicates that it is no longer established in objects, and owing to that, non-dwelling Nibbana. But then again, I haven't read the entire Sutta, so I cannot say what the context is. 6036 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:08am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > > There is no one, or nothing to experience Nibbana. Nibbana *is* > > released awareness. > =============================== > This is very close to the way Peter Harvey, in his book The Selfless > Mind, refers to nibbana. Quoting from certain Pali suttas, he calls it > "unmanifest discernment". This is also discussed in Bhikkhu Nanananda's > brilliant little book The Magic of the Mind: An Exposition of the Kalakarama > Sutta. I haven't read either, unfortunately. > The sense of it seems to me to be that vi~n~nana is the discerning or > separating out of objects and their parts/aspects/factors from the field of > awareness, rather like separating out shadows from within an ocean of light. > The objects discerned are limiting conditions/constraints, and the entry to > nibbana consists of the dropping of these constraints, leaving a shining > awareness, a luminosity ranging all around, encountering nothing, > unrestricted, completely free. Yes, that is somewhat what I would say as well. > /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) I must admit, I am a huge fan of the Diamond Sutra. If there ever was anything to knock anyone who think they know off from their feet it is that Sutra. So deep, yet with many levels of understanding. 6037 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:14am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Self Hi, Anders (and all) - In a message dated 7/8/01 1:02:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > Self... Let us try and examine what it really means. I think it has been > established beyond any doubt that anything that is impermanent, in short he > kandhas, are categorically no self. But, in order to know what the hell we > are talking, we should know just what is inferred from the word self, at the > very basic, as the ground for which spiritual seekers go out to discover > their true self (whether it be illusionary or not), in order that we may > negate or affirm the existence of a self. Since it is established that the > kandhas aren't self, we'll examine the definition based on the possibility > of Nibbana being the self. There are a number of possible definitions: > > 1. Self is free will; the creative source. > On this account there is no self. Nibbana for one, doesn't interact in any > way, so this cannot be self, under this definition. > > 2. Self is the sense of self > Under this, there is no self. Sense of self is created by perception of > self, which falls under the kandha of perception. > > 3. Self is knowing self. > Under this definition, there is no self either. For Nibbana to know Nibbana, > it would have to take it as an object, and since Nibbana doesn't dwell > anywhere, this cannot be the self. > > 4. Self is knowing what is not the self. > If this were true, once Parinibbana had been completed then there would be > nothing for the self, Nibbana, to stand in contradistinction to, and since > self is knowing what it is not, it would dissolve since it could no longer > discern what is not self. Thus, under this definition, no self either. > > So, if self is Nibbana, how could it possibly be defined? Since any sense or > perception of self is categorically not the self, it would be futile to even > talk of self. The moment we affirm a self, we are off the track, because > that cannot possibly be the self! So self would have to be beyond > affirmation or denial, which, at least in that regard, fits with Nibbana. > One could say that self is sentience. But that would indicate someone being > sentient, and once again we have the perception of self. If it should be > said that there is a self, it would have to be just defined as just *this*. > It's not any 'this' that you can think of, since it defies perception. It is > not anything, yet not not-existent, not existent. On the very account that > Nibbana *is*, this could be said to be self. yet since it is beyond > perception, it would be futile to call it self, since this perception of > self. On the other hand, it cannot be said to not be the self. Hence, I said > in one mail, that the Buddha's silence might hint at more than just a ploy, > but actually as a way of understanding self. Just this not- defining it, > affirming or denying it. > Nargarjuna, in Mahayana circles acknowledged by many as the "second Buddha", > once said that the Buddha did teach self to those who understood the derived > implication of the word. Thus this implication should be understood before > any negation might take place. And the derived implication is: It is not > something that can be implicated! So what is the point of discussing the > existence of self or not? Just work at uprooting your own habituated beliefs > of what self is. > > Anders Honore > ================================ If I may add a point: A "self" of anything is a personal core/essence of that thing. Nibbana, however, just as all conditioned dhammas, is *impersonal*, and that impersonality makes it not self. Peter Harvey, in his book The Selfless Mind, points out several ways in which nibbana is like a self and several ways, including its impersonality, in which it differs from a self. (As you may find obvious, from this and other posts of mine, I really like that book! ;-) 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) 6038 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:17am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, Thanks for being so patient and thanks for introducing those suttas that you mentioned. They are very good reminders of many things I still don't know. kom 6039 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Hi, Kom - In a message dated 7/8/01 1:07:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes in part: > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. =============================== I am excited, Kom! Thank you for this! I have looked and looked in vain for a definition of 'path consciousness', and finally it is provided!! Now, if you can also define 'fruition consciousness' for me, I will be ecstatic!!! ;-)) 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) 6040 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:20am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:01 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > I think the differences between our understanding are: > 1) You understand that nibbana is a consciousness, and that the consciousness at enlightenment becomes one of the same with nibbana at enlightenment. Although nibbana cannot be identified as self, at some crude level, you can think of this as living on forever, but not as self, and hence negating the idea of annihilationism at pari-nibbana. Well, that's the crude exposition, but not far off. I would hesitate to say forever though. Past, present and future exist only in relation to change, and when there is no change, how can there be time? > 2) I understand nibbana to be a non-conscious element, and it is distinct from consciousness. I understand that the 5 kandha ceases to continue, because there are no more conditions to continue. The sutta can have another interpretation which is that the Tathagata never existed as a reality because the tathagata cannot be experienced, and therefore, the tathagata as a concept cannot cease to exist because it didn't really exist= at the first place. Possible. But not one I'd ever buy though. I agree with you about the five kandhas though. > Again, like you said, this is an exposition of understandings only. It > wouldn't have an immediate impact in my daily practice... It seems you are beginning to see the futility of such holding unto views that are remote from oneself. 6041 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Hi, Anders - With no offense to Kom at all - and please be assured that I mean this, Kom, I think this post oy yours, Anders, is wonderful. Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! With metta, Howard > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kom Tukovinit > > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:13 PM > Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > > Yes. Let me explain in this way. > > 1) The buddha separates all conditioned realities into two categories: > > a) Rupa - the materiality. > > b) Nama - the consciousness that cognizes a sense object. > > 2) Nibbana is categorized as an unconditioned nama, it is an element that > > is not rupa, but yet it doesn't cognize any sense object. > > > > We are a stream of nama and rupa, rising and falling away rapidly. When > > we say we "experience", it is the nama that cognizes the sense objects. > > There is no other thing that experiences except these conditioned > realities > > which are rising and fallign away rapidly (conditioned, impermanent, > > stressful, and anatta). > > > > I repeat as before, the consciousness through the mind door (6th faculty?) > > can cognize all rupa (28), nama (89 cittas + 52 cetasikas + 1 nibbana), > > and concepts. > > There are a number of cittas that can cognize nibbana: two of those are > > magga (path at lokuttara level) and phala (result of that path) citta, > both > > appearing in the mind door process. The unconditioned appears (and > > conditions) the conditioned pheonena, although the unconditioned itself is > > not condiioned. > > > > I do not understand what you mean by nibbana going through the mind > > door. Without the minddoor (the bhavanga citta before the mano-dvara- > > vajjana), the lokuttara magga and phala cannot arise. The minddoor > > clearly conditions (indirectly?) the magga and phala citta. > > Hence, the difference in your understandings and the theravadan system > > both in the meanings of the words, and the meanings of the teachings (as > > I understand it, obviously, since I cannot be said to represent the > > Buddha!). > > All I have to say is that to truly know the meaning of unconditioned, means > that it doesn't participate in any conditioning processes (which you seem to > think it does). When you say it conditions the conditioned, that is not > entirely true. Rather, the conditioned process is no longer sustained, and > from a lack of clinging/sustenance, it ends. Likewise, the unconditioned can > never be 'philtered' through any conditioned doors, as this would mean that > it takes part in the conditioned process. > I shall stand by my claim that consciousness is released, and that released > consciousness, is Nibbana: > ------------------- > Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around, does not > partake of the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of > fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas (and so on through a list > of the various levels of godhood to) the allness of the All. > M 49 > ------------------- > Consciousness without feature, without end > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end. > With the stopping > of [the activity of] consciousness, > each is here brought to an end. > D 11 > ----------------- > 'Without feature', and one of the names of Nibbana is 'the featureless'. The > elements (meaning conditioned phenomena) have no footing (meaning it is not > conditioned). A striking resemblance that the stopping of consciousness has > to Nibbana, wouldn't you say so? > ------------- > If a monk abandons passion for the property of form... feeling... > perception... mental processes... consciousness, then owing to the > abandoning of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for > consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not > performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. > Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not > agitated. Not agitated, he [the monk] is totally 'nibbana-ed' right within. > He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. > There is nothing further for this world.' > S XXII.53 > > One question. > 1. According to you, what happens after Parinibbana. Annihilation? > > /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) 6042 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:35am Subject: Re: Howard: Path Consciousness Dear Howard, If you were following that stream of conversation, you may have seen: --- <> wrote: > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. > =============================== > I am excited, Kom! Thank you for this! I have looked and looked in > vain for a definition of 'path consciousness', and finally it is provided!! > Now, if you can also define 'fruition consciousness' for me, I will be > ecstatic!!! ;-)) That I delimited this to be "non-lokuttara-path" consciousness. As you may also have picked up, I have not seen this defined anywhere in this particular manner either, although I have seen the explanation that the moment of satipathana (non-lokuttara path consciousness, as defined above) is not a link within the Dependent origination. For the definitions of lokkutara path consciousness, you can look at: http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat8.html kom 6043 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:45am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Self ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Self > Hi, Anders (and all) - > > In a message dated 7/8/01 1:02:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > Self... Let us try and examine what it really means. I think it has been > > established beyond any doubt that anything that is impermanent, in short he > > kandhas, are categorically no self. But, in order to know what the hell we > > are talking, we should know just what is inferred from the word self, at the > > very basic, as the ground for which spiritual seekers go out to discover > > their true self (whether it be illusionary or not), in order that we may > > negate or affirm the existence of a self. Since it is established that the > > kandhas aren't self, we'll examine the definition based on the possibility > > of Nibbana being the self. There are a number of possible definitions: > > > > 1. Self is free will; the creative source. > > On this account there is no self. Nibbana for one, doesn't interact in any > > way, so this cannot be self, under this definition. > > > > 2. Self is the sense of self > > Under this, there is no self. Sense of self is created by perception of > > self, which falls under the kandha of perception. > > > > 3. Self is knowing self. > > Under this definition, there is no self either. For Nibbana to know Nibbana, > > it would have to take it as an object, and since Nibbana doesn't dwell > > anywhere, this cannot be the self. > > > > 4. Self is knowing what is not the self. > > If this were true, once Parinibbana had been completed then there would be > > nothing for the self, Nibbana, to stand in contradistinction to, and since > > self is knowing what it is not, it would dissolve since it could no longer > > discern what is not self. Thus, under this definition, no self either. > > > > So, if self is Nibbana, how could it possibly be defined? Since any sense or > > perception of self is categorically not the self, it would be futile to even > > talk of self. The moment we affirm a self, we are off the track, because > > that cannot possibly be the self! So self would have to be beyond > > affirmation or denial, which, at least in that regard, fits with Nibbana. > > One could say that self is sentience. But that would indicate someone being > > sentient, and once again we have the perception of self. If it should be > > said that there is a self, it would have to be just defined as just *this*. > > It's not any 'this' that you can think of, since it defies perception. It is > > not anything, yet not not-existent, not existent. On the very account that > > Nibbana *is*, this could be said to be self. yet since it is beyond > > perception, it would be futile to call it self, since this perception of > > self. On the other hand, it cannot be said to not be the self. Hence, I said > > in one mail, that the Buddha's silence might hint at more than just a ploy, > > but actually as a way of understanding self. Just this not- defining it, > > affirming or denying it. > > Nargarjuna, in Mahayana circles acknowledged by many as the "second Buddha", > > once said that the Buddha did teach self to those who understood the derived > > implication of the word. Thus this implication should be understood before > > any negation might take place. And the derived implication is: It is not > > something that can be implicated! So what is the point of discussing the > > existence of self or not? Just work at uprooting your own habituated beliefs > > of what self is. > > > > Anders Honore > > > ================================ > If I may add a point: A "self" of anything is a personal core/essence > of that thing. Nibbana, however, just as all conditioned dhammas, is > *impersonal*, and that impersonality makes it not self. I agree that it is impersonal, and from that point of view, it can be said to be not-self, which I think falls under the category no self on the assumption of 'sense or perception of self'. But if you read the following article: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/nibban2.htm, it shows that the suttas do indeed point at the existence of a self (by engaging in a series of negations with regard to all conditioned existence rather than all-out denial of self), and that the only thing left un-negated is Nibbana. Again, it all boils down to the derived implication of the word 'self'. > Peter Harvey, in his > book The Selfless Mind, points out several ways in which nibbana is like a > self and several ways, including its impersonality, in which it differs from > a self. (As you may find obvious, from this and other posts of mine, I really > like that book! ;-) Haha, you are getting me curious now. I am gonna have to read that book at one point. 6044 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:46am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:17 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Dear Anders, > > Thanks for being so patient and thanks for introducing those suttas that > you mentioned. They are very good reminders of many things I still don't > know. I am always happy to be of assistance ;-) 6045 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:48am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:22 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. > =============================== > I am excited, Kom! Thank you for this! I have looked and looked in > vain for a definition of 'path consciousness', and finally it is provided!! > Now, if you can also define 'fruition consciousness' for me, I will be > ecstatic!!! ;-)) I think I can, but I'll wait and see if there are any others who have seen the word before (I haven't) and might be able to define it properly. 6046 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:46am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > It seems you are beginning to see the futility of such holding unto views= > that are remote from oneself. Not quite exactly... Otherwise, I wouldn't want to discuss all these views= , would I? I see these views as possible explanations, but am not convicted = that they are correct. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not. All but ariyans have incorrect views, so unless you can verify somehow that the speaker is at least sotapanna, they may be telling you subtly incorrect views. Only the actual enlightenment would prove things absolutely beyond doubt. And even that is (currently) a view... I see some values of having the right view in mind. Not being able to verify that completely, I do the best I can... kom 6047 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Howard: Path Consciousness Thanks very much, kom. With metta, Howard In a message dated 7/8/01 5:38:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > > Dear Howard, > > If you were following that stream of conversation, you may have seen: > > --- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?protectID=224154113112158182169218175036129208 wrote: > > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, > it > is > > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't > continue > > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. > > =============================== > > I am excited, Kom! Thank you for this! I have looked and looked in > > vain for a definition of 'path consciousness', and finally it is > provided!! > > Now, if you can also define 'fruition consciousness' for me, I will be > > ecstatic!!! ;-)) > > That I delimited this to be "non-lokuttara-path" consciousness. As you > may also have picked up, I have not seen this defined anywhere in this > particular manner either, although I have seen the explanation that the > moment of satipathana (non-lokuttara path consciousness, as defined > above) is not a link within the Dependent origination. > > For the definitions of lokkutara path consciousness, you can look at: > http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat8.html > > kom > /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) 6048 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:51am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Howard, I am still waiting to see you offending anyone... kom --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Anders - > > With no offense to Kom at all - and please be assured that I mean > this, Kom, I think this post oy yours, Anders, is wonderful. Sadhu, sadhu, > sadhu! > > With metta, > Howard 6049 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:57am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Hi, Anders - > > With no offense to Kom at all - and please be assured that I mean > this, Kom, I think this post oy yours, Anders, is wonderful. Sadhu, sadhu, > sadhu! Let me guess: It is not far off from what Peter Harvey would write in his book The Selfless Mind? :-) 6050 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 6:06am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:46 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello --- "Anders Honoré" > > It seems you are beginning to see the futility of such holding unto views > > that are remote from oneself. > Not quite exactly... Otherwise, I wouldn't want to discuss all these views, > would I? I see these views as possible explanations, but am not convicted > that they are correct. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not. All but > ariyans have incorrect views, so unless you can verify somehow that the > speaker is at least sotapanna, they may be telling you subtly incorrect > views. Only the actual enlightenment would prove things absolutely > beyond doubt. And even that is (currently) a view... Nonetheless, a useful view as it helps against being mislead by others. But how will you prevent being mislead by yourself? > I see some values of having the right view in mind. Not being able to > verify that completely, I do the best I can... I too see the value of Right View. But the Middle Way has to be remembered, and there is a difference between Right View and excess in views, a thicket of views. 6051 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 6:14am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > > Nonetheless, a useful view as it helps against being mislead by others. But > how will you prevent being mislead by yourself? There is none, except by being reminded by oneself and others these are just views, models, concepts, and not realities. Realities are rising now,= and that can be verified, understood a little bit at a time. > I too see the value of Right View. But the Middle Way has to be remembered, > and there is a difference between Right View and excess in views, a thicket > of views. Yes, the Middle Way means (in a definition I have heard) that there is an awareness and penetrating knowledge of the realities occuring now. As you have mentioned before, and I believe are known to many people in this group, that concepts don't bring on the path. Thanks for the reminder. kom 6052 From: Derek Cameron Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 8:18am Subject: Re: silabbataparamasa Robert, thanks for your note. I've just got back from the khao pansa ceremony at my local temple. I'm going to be in Bangkok until September 10 as I can only afford 2 weeks away from work. After looking through all the guidebooks, the 2 temples I want to try and spend some time in are Wat Mahathat and Wat Thammamongkhon. The information I have on Wat Mahathat says you just show up and inquire if you can stay for a few days. Wat Thammamongkhon is affiliated with my local temple so I'll probably see if I can call them first before I leave, So ... apart from the dates which are fixed due to flights, I haven't made any definite plans yet. How about you? Do you have plans? Derek. 6053 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 8:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Dear Howard, Kom's right--this is excellent (I missed it at first). You're on quite a roll of late! mike --- Howard wrote: > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a > reality as it truly is, it is > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness > that doesn't continue > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path > consciousness > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. 6054 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello Hi again, Anders - In a message dated 7/8/01 6:04:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Anders Honore writes: > Let me guess: It is not far off from what Peter Harvey would write in his > book The Selfless Mind? :-) > > ============================== ;-)) 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) 6055 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:59am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Thanks, Kom. You're very kind. With metta, Howard In a message dated 7/8/01 6:04:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kom T writes: > Dear Howard, > > I am still waiting to see you offending anyone... > > kom > /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) 6056 From: Herman Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 10:29am Subject: Re: Hello Bruce and Robert, Where is the authority that qualifies anyone as a member of the mind police? Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition after sending a Hello. What, Anders has committed blasphemy now? And the scribes and pharisees will silence him, hey? This is from a sutta known as Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And this was the retort: Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer you them that are entering to go in. No reply necessary. I am removing myself from the list and the other one between which Robert divides his life. It is getting too dark in here. Bye Herman --- bruce wrote: > herman, you are kidding, right? robert has been making his usual calm and > rational inquiries into a situation that is most certainly not usual: not > only do we have someone claiming to this group to be at least a sotapanna, > but also someone who is proclaiming it to the world from a website....don't > you think that something like this needs to be looked into as thoroughly as > possible? what could robert have possibly said in this thread to engender > so much lobha? > > bruce > 6057 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 11:43am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Kom (and also Robert)1 --- Anders Honoré wrote: > The subjects we are discussing doesn't really have > any practical > appliance, as I think (and I get the impression you'll agree) > that things > such as Nibbana and so on, are hardly relevant in your own > practise in terms > of integrating that knowledge or actualising it. > I pretty much agree - although sometimesI think it can be useful to talk about it even if we have not yet experienced it. For instance, if we say had an idea of Nibbana as union with the Infinite Brahma then perhaps our path would head in such a direction. This discusion group has been going for 18months and this is one of the first lenghthy threads about it. (I guess you meant "our own practice" when you said "hardly relevant in your own practice"?) I have made > no claim to > stream-entry, so there's nothing lost or gained from that.________ Thank you for clarifying this Anders. In your introduction you gave the url to your websites where you do claim to have some stage of enlightenment. But when I asked about alcohol consumption you candidly admitted doing so and thus had come to your own conclusion that you are not enlightened. And isn't it good that you now know this? I asked also about seeing - which you didn't reply to - because isn't it practical and useful to understand? It is happening now and I find it a most interesting dhamma to investigate directly. best wishes robert 6058 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:17pm Subject: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Thank you for clarifying this Anders. In your introduction you > gave the url to your websites where you do claim to have some > stage of enlightenment. But when I asked about alcohol > consumption you candidly admitted doing so and thus had come to > your own conclusion that you are not enlightened. > And isn't it good that you now know this? Hi, I'm new to this list and have very little knowledge of it or most members, so I am just jumping in to make a comment. By way of introduction, my name is Robert, I am involved in a practice which I consider to be Buddhist, but I am also influenced by Advaita Vedanta and other disciplines, so I cannot say I *am* a Buddhist. Perhaps that's unnecessary in any case. I am inspired by Buddhist teachers of various lineages, but particularly Hui-Neng, Chao-Chou and other sudden-school Ch'an and Zen masters. But I also have a strong interest and some practice in Vipassana, and regard all the teachings as significant. Now for my comment. I can understand the issue of drinking alcohol as being relevant to following precepts, but what on earth does it have to do with being enlightened? Do you really think that a Buddha would be concerned as to whether a drop of alcohol touched his lips, or that perhaps he would lose his enlightenment because of taking a drink? I don't see that following the letter of prohibitions and precepts is directly related to realization at all. If you think it is, I would be happy to hear your explanation. Robert 6059 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Sorry you feel that way, Herman, and sorry to see you go. mike --- Herman wrote: > Bruce and Robert, > > Where is the authority that qualifies anyone as a > member of the mind > police? Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition after > sending a Hello. > > What, Anders has committed blasphemy now? And the > scribes and > pharisees will silence him, hey? > > This is from a sutta known as Matthew 22:15 > Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they > might entangle him > in his talk. > > And this was the retort: Matthew 23:13 > But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! > for you shut up > the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither > go in yourselves, > neither suffer you them that are entering to go in. > > > No reply necessary. I am removing myself from the > list and the other > one between which Robert divides his life. It is > getting too dark in > here. > > > Bye > > > Herman 6060 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup](Drinking) Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Now for my comment. I can understand the issue of drinking > alcohol as > being relevant to following precepts, but what on earth does > it have to > do with being enlightened? Do you really think that a Buddha > would be > concerned as to whether a drop of alcohol touched his lips, or > that > perhaps he would lose his enlightenment because of taking a > drink? > > I don't see that following the letter of prohibitions and > precepts is > directly related to realization at all. If you think it is, I > would be > happy to hear your explanation. > _____________ Dear Robert E. (can we call you that as I am also a Robert) Welcome to the group. The early buddhist texts are explicit that a sotapanna or any enlightened being (enlightened in the Buddha's way - it may be different for other paths) has no more conditions to break the five precepts. The way I understand this is by gradually learning to study the different moments as they happen in a day. Now for instance, there is seeing and immediately there is thinking arising about what is seen. Underlying this thinking there are different roots, states of mind, such as ignorance or understanding or desire or aversion or non-desire or non-aversion. It is not so easy to be sure of which state is arising in the moment. Is it understanding or is it ignorance at this moment? Is there subtle desire present or is there genuine detachment. Now I feel calm and relaxed but is there a refined attachment to that feeling? When I look at my desk, which has many papers scattered on it, I sense no unpleasantness but could there be a very refined aversion with an equally refined unpleasant feeling?Or is there simply no understanding of the moment - just a feeling that "I" see (desk, papers, whatever). I do find there seems to be a little more understanding of mental states than when I first learnt about buddhism . Sometimes I might think of having a drink of alcohol - but the root underlying that is not subtle at all. It is very obviously rooted in greed for: pleasant feeling, new experience, a way to forget problems, impress my friends, relax...take your pick. The more we learn about the different moments in daily life - the apparently uninteresting ones that are happening now - the more we learn about the characteritics of the roots. The roots such as greed and aversion and ignorance are not wholesome and learning about them means that there is some turning away from them. Not by forcing and setting rules but by seeing their true nature- they are ugly. One who is a sotapanna has developed profound insight into dhammas (including mindstates) and thus the degree of desire that could condition the breaking of the five precepts cannot arise. robert 6061 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup](Drinking) Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 Robert, Feel free to call me Robert E. I appreciate your explanation, and I think it is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. However, I find it hard to believe that an enlightened being, who is no longer subject to desires and defilements, since he has seen through the illusion of the separate self and the skandhas, would necessarily be averse to having a drink. Can one not have a drink without the arising of a desire to have a drink? At a certain point, to refuse to have a drink would also represent a fear, an aversion or a holding onto a view. It would be a protecting of a self which one does not want to defile. If one is attached to the precepts there can be no absolute detachment. Of course, for one attempting to discriminate all of the mind states it is wiser not to act than to act, wiser to follow the precepts than not to. But for someone who has gone past those challenges, and with the understanding that most of us are not in that position, attachment to non-attachment can be a serious impediment. Likewise, I would not disqualify someone from having achieved realization because they announce that they have sometimes had a drink. Is it not possible to have a drink without having desire for a drink? I would look further into that person's state of mind and experience of realization before discounting them on the basis of an external sign. Robert E. -----------------