6200 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:09am Subject: The meaning of Equanimity Equanimity is a very important part of Buddhist practise. It means not having any aversion or fondness of something, or indulging in indifference for that matter. It means neither indulging in, or rejecting what you are experiencing, not giving in to like and dislike. Thus it is the perfect countermeasure for attachments of all kinds, as it ends the volitional cycle. But many people mistakenly believe that being equanimous means that you are supposed to be unaffected by your external surroundings. Thus they reject their own reactionary thoughts towards the external surroundings in order to be unaffected by it, and thus the very thing that the equanimity is supposed to counter, namely the habitual tendency towards indulgence and rejection, is actually sustained and nourished! Such people become numb automatons with no wisdom. They are essentially "wall-builders." They erect solid walls to isolate their mind-environment from the external environment, and mistake this for attainment. Yet they will never know their own minds. This is also a danger to watch out for in meditation! True equanimity means to be equanimous in the face of your own defilements, to not be dragged around by your likes and dislikes, but rather be equanimously aware of those defilements, without rejecting or indulging in those defilements, but on the other hand, if you do find yourself indulging in or rejecting your defilements, then that very indulgence/rejection is also something to be equanimous towards (since this is also part of the mind-environment), rather than rejecting it, and then be aware of the defilement that you were indulging or rejecting. To cultivate Panna means to know your own mind. To know your own mind, you have to cease being dragged around by the mind. The way to cease being dragged around by the mind, is by not sustaining the habits of the mind, being indulging in or rejecting the objects of the mind. Thus, through equanimity, not only is Panna nurtured, but defilements are also ended, as they are no longer sustained. Regards, Anders Honore ************************************************* Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ ************************************************* 6201 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:14am Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:54 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! > Hi Anders, > > May I join in the discussion? Sure! > I know that I was born with ignorance and defilements. I don't > need to know where they came from. Your question about the origin of > our ignorance sounds very much like the story of the person shot by > an arrow. His care provider needed to take the arrow out and > attended the wound before trying to investigate the incident. I think you misunderstood my question. My question was not wherefrom, or how Ignorance arose. I don't know anything about that, and the Buddha himself said that contemplating the unimaginable beginnings of Samsara is a cause for insanity if taken to its end-conclusion. My question was, where did ignorance arise once it had arisen? Regards Anders > > The Buddha taught that the first link from which the entire > Samsaric circle > > arises from is ignorance. My question is simple: Where did > ignorance arise? 6202 From: Joe Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 4:05am Subject: Re: (Vakkali-Ray) Very good. Can you translate the phrases? Meanwhile I work on it myself. Thanks very much. Joe --- "Jim Anderson" wrote: > Dear Joe, > > >Surely anyone with even an elementary knowledge of Pali can discern > >whether the proper translation in 'unestablished consciousness' > >or 'consciousness unestablished'. Pali is very precise - almost as > >precise as Sanskrit or Latin - in the attributive. > > > >Do you happen to know the exact Pali phrase? > > appati.t.t.hitena ca bhikkhave vi~n~naa.nena Vakkali kulaputto parinibbuto > ti. (S iii 124 pts) > > For further information: > > commentary: > appati.t.t.hitenaa ti pa.tisandhivi~n~naa.nena appati.t.thitena. > appati.t.thitakaara.naa ti attho. (SA i 184 pts) > > (with the re-linking or rebirth consciousness not re-established) > > subcommentary: > appati.t.thitenaa ti patit.tha.m alabhantena. itthambhuutalakkha.ne eta.m > kara.navacana.m, anuppattidhammenaa ti attho. sati hi uppaade pati.t.thita.m > naama siyaa, a.t.thakathaaya.m pana yadeva tassa vi~n~naa.nassa > appati.t.thaanakaara.na.m, tadeva parinibbaanakaara.nan ti vutta.m > appati.t.thitakaara.naa ti. (SA.T i 218 cscd) > > Best wishes, > Jim > > 6203 From: Joe Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 4:06am Subject: Re: (Vakkali-Ray) Very interesting, thanks, Cameron. Joe --- "Derek Cameron" wrote: > --- Ray wrote: > > Do you happen to know the exact Pali phrase? > > It's "appati.t.thitena viññaa.nena" (SN XXII.87). This isn't one of > the ones translated at Access to Insight, but the Pali is online at > http://www.tipitaka.org/ Samyutta Nikaya, Khandhavagga, section 22 > (Khandhasa.myutta), number 87 (Vakkali). > > The context is that after the liberation and death of Vakkali, the > monks see a cloud of black smoke moving around. The Buddha tells the > monks that this is Mara, looking for Vakkali's consciouness. But, > says the Buddha, Vakkali attained final Nibbana "appati.t.thitena > viññaa.nena". > > appati.t.thitena = instrumental of a- (not) + appati.t.thita, which > is the past participle of pati.t.thahati, meaning "to stand fast or > firmly, to find a support in, to be established, to fix oneself, to > be set up, to stay" (PED). > > Derek. 6204 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 4:32am Subject: Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert Dear Victor, Thank you very much. The sutta is a joy to read. kom --- Victor wrote: > Hi Mike, > > If interested, you might want to refer to > Vera Sutta, Animosity > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-092.html > > Metta, > Victor > > 6205 From: Joe Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:08am Subject: Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert Welcome to DSG, David. I have come to the same conclusion as you have with regard to understanding the Tipitaka, and with regard to its common mistranslation and misuse by Buddhists in many traditions, including Theravada. Along these same lines of inquiry, have you reached any conclusions as to the weighting you give to each of the respective pitakas, by any chance? sadhu, Joe --- David wrote: > Dear Gayan > I am very sorry, but it is published translations like this and > similar, that allow skeptics to Buddhism to have a field day with us. > Firstly we must take what the Buddha has said in its totality and > than apply these teachings. We cannot take bits and pieces from a > host of translators, patch them together and take the resultant as > Buddha's Dhamma." The only way to end this historical problem is to > spend time reading the Tipitaka in full in its "Original Pali" and > not translated versions, which are infact individual opinions, quite > different insome cases from the original Author, the Buddha. This is > if you wish to delve deep into Dhamma, otherwise if you are > comfortable in just learning in general than the study of Tipitaka in > Original Pali is not necessary. For deep Dhamma understanding you > must be the translator yourself, then your translations will be > weighted by the strength in your own belief. This will be affected, > once again based on your inner likings to sections you prefer more > than others. > > My readings (and that of my Buddhist brothers) of the Tipitaka (Pali > Version) has never revealed anything to imply self-realization even > remotely. There are many variants in translations of the original > which unfortunately are dependent on the origin of the translator. > This is not new and has been a point of contention for centuries. > > Much Metta to All > David > > --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > > In sotapatti samyutta there are many discourses given by the > buddha, about > > 'self-streamentry-check'. > > where one can look into (as a mirror) and self-declare that he/she > is a > > sotapanna.(dhammadasa). > > > > Rgds 6206 From: Joe Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:26am Subject: Re: Stream Entry - clarification > Basically, it tells you to go from your own direct experience of the Dhamma. > If you find your own direct experience of the Dhamma inadequate to answer > such a question, then what is the point of lingering on it, since it has no > practical application for you that might help you further your own daily > practise? > I think there are many people here who might find themselves violating the > principles laid forth in this sutta, but again, this is not something that > they should accept from my words, or even the Kalama Sutta itself! This is > something they have to discover from their own personal experience. There has been a fair amount of prevarication and discussion on this forum as to what the Kalama Sutta really means. I read it basically the way you do, but given the translation problem David has so well articulated, who knows? Anders, why don't you fly to Bangkok and have an interview with DSG's mentor, Ajahn Sujin. She will give you a pretty quick assessment of your understanding of Abhidhamma, as she sees it, at the very least. Or at least she used to do that sort of thing. Not as an 'evaluation' as such, but as grist for talking about Abhidhamma. Maybe the format is different these days (but they don't call it 'brain-eating' for nothing!). Of course you have no personal need for such an encounter and neither does Ajahn Sujin. But from my (rather distant) perspective, your confidence is inspiring. And so is Ajahn Sujin's. You don't find that many people in Buddhism with this kind of confidence, aside from the evangelistic types who are raising funds, building temples or just hell bent on conversion. Of course there is no final round, as people will believe what they want to believe in the end. Carry on nonetheless. Joe 6207 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 6:36am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Stream Entry - clarification ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:26 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Stream Entry - clarification > There has been a fair amount of prevarication and discussion on this > forum as to what the Kalama Sutta really means. I read it basically the > way you do, but given the translation problem David has so well > articulated, who knows? Well, I've found a pretty nitty-gritty translation. The URL is: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/Knowledge.htm My knowledge of Pali is not big enough to tell whether the author knows what he is talking about, but perhaps others can. > Anders, why don't you fly to Bangkok and have an interview with DSG's > mentor, Ajahn Sujin. She will give you a pretty quick assessment of your > understanding of Abhidhamma, as she sees it, at the very least. Or at > least she used to do that sort of thing. Not as an 'evaluation' as such, > but as grist for talking about Abhidhamma. Maybe the format is different > these days (but they don't call it 'brain-eating' for nothing!). Haha, 'fly to Bangkok' sounds awfully simple. I don't think I'll have the money to go there until I finish my education (which should be one year from now). But I most likely will go to Bangkok after that. > Of course you have no personal need for such an encounter and neither > does Ajahn Sujin. But from my (rather distant) perspective, your > confidence is inspiring. And so is Ajahn Sujin's. You don't find that many > people in Buddhism with this kind of confidence, aside from the > evangelistic types who are raising funds, building temples or just hell > bent on conversion. Hmm, I think I've had that confidence right from the beginning really. I have never really had much doubt about the validity of the Dhamma, only my own interpretation of it. In another mail, I mentioned a friend of mine who would soon become a Theravada teacher himself. He recently said to me, that in his experience, the faith in the fact that one will be enlightened, is highly instrumental in the actualisation of that enlightenment. I can see his point. Your beliefs influence things, and if you believe that you are far away from enlightenment, far away is what you will be. > Of course there is no final round, as people will believe what they want > to believe in the end. That is true. And such is their freedom to do so. The point of this post is not really to say 'don't you think that!'. It's just to say, 'think what you will, but don't expect me to endorse any of it'. > Carry on nonetheless. Will do so. Thanks for your input :o) Kind regards Anders 6208 From: Num Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 2:44am Subject: Cetasikas : ? Sati (mindfulness) ? Hi Nina, Sarah&Jon and everybody. Sorry, Sarah & Jon, I think I mixed up the list of persons who are going to go Bangkok. I will be there July next year :). I am not dreaming, Sarah :). Thanks Nina for your reply. I am pretty busy and caught up with my work, my real vacation is coming in two weeks. A lot to do before I can take off. About sati (mindfulness), in satipatthana, sati is mindful of nama or rupa as it appears. I am not clear what does sati be mindful in dana, smatha or kusula moment which is not vipassana. I definitely did some wholesome deed before, but sati (as in sati-patthana) did not necessary occur at that moment, but sati cetasika had to be there, if it really kusala moment ? ________________________________________________ You wrote that :... Mindfulness has "not floating away" as its characteristic, unforgetfulness as its function, guarding, or the state of facing the object, as its manifestation, firm remembrance (sanna) or application in mindfulness as regards the body, etc., as proximate cause. It should be regarded as a door-past from being firmly established in the object, and as a doorkeeper from guarding the door of the senses. ________________________________________________ Sati in sati-patthana has character of non floating by being mindful of paramattha-dhamma at that moment, but sati in general kusala moment does not, is this correct? So sati in satipatthana cannot have pannatti as its arammana but sati in general sobhana citta can have pannatti as arammana, right? Let me also ask about arammana of sati (in sati patthana). Sati can arise only in kusala moment but can have kusala-, akusala-, vipaka-, kiriya-citta & cetasika or rupa as arammana. I heard from a CD by Aj.Santi which given to me by Kom that sati can be mindful of past, present and even future arammana. In case of past arammana, that arammana is not sampayutta with citta, cetasika and sati at that moment but being only arammana paccaya. Just curious, so sati can be mindful of present and past kusula moment in but only past aramana in panca-dvara. I have no idea about future arammana. Is my statement valid? I am not clear about this, Always appreciate your response. Have to run. I am really mean it, Sarah. Num 6209 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:01am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Attachment to Right View - Spiritual arrogance Thanks Jon, I'll see if I can come up with it. mike --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > > > If I recall correctly, the Buddha somewhere > defined > > nibbana as complete and perfected right view. > Does > > this ring a bell with anyone? > > > > mike > > Interesting. I've had a browse around but have not > come up with anything. > Most of the synonyms for or descriptions of nibbana > are in terms that do > not relate to conditioned realities (eg, the > deathelss, cessation, void), > but given your excellent recall of suttas I am sure > the reference is there > somewhere. Please let us know if you come across it > anytime. > > Jon > > 6210 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert Thanks, Victor, For reminding of this great sutta. "When, for a disciple of the noble ones, these five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he is endowed with these four factors of stream entry; and when, through discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out this noble method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!'" The context of this is a little unusal, the combination of these four factors of stream entry and the stilling of these five forms of fear and animosity, I don't off-hand recall encountering elsewhere. However, it does seem to state plainly that the stream-entrant can perceive his stream-entry. Thanks again. mike --- Victor wrote: > Hi Mike, > > If interested, you might want to refer to > Vera Sutta, Animosity > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-092.html > > Metta, > Victor > > > --- "m. nease" > wrote: > > Dear David, > > > > This is very interesting! I'm curious about one > > point: > > > > --- David wrote: > > > > > This level can only > > > be realized by others onto the receiver and > never by > > > the receiver > > > him/her self be realized (during life). > > > > I hadn't heard this before that I can recall. Is > it > > from the Tipitaka? > > > > Nice to hear from you again. > > > > mike 6211 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:12am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert Dear David, The subject of poor translation has come up before. It would be most helpful if you could show us some specific examples, with the Pali, where these passages in the PTS are in error. Thanks in advance, mike --- David Blickenstaff wrote: > Dear Gayan > I am very sorry, but it is published translations > like this and > similar, that allow skeptics to Buddhism to have a > field day with us. > Firstly we must take what the Buddha has said in its > totality and > than apply these teachings. We cannot take bits and > pieces from a > host of translators, patch them together and take > the resultant as > Buddha's Dhamma." The only way to end this > historical problem is to > spend time reading the Tipitaka in full in its > "Original Pali" and > not translated versions, which are infact individual > opinions, quite > different insome cases from the original Author, the > Buddha. This is > if you wish to delve deep into Dhamma, otherwise if > you are > comfortable in just learning in general than the > study of Tipitaka in > Original Pali is not necessary. For deep Dhamma > understanding you > must be the translator yourself, then your > translations will be > weighted by the strength in your own belief. This > will be affected, > once again based on your inner likings to sections > you prefer more > than others. > > My readings (and that of my Buddhist brothers) of > the Tipitaka (Pali > Version) has never revealed anything to imply > self-realization even > remotely. There are many variants in translations of > the original > which unfortunately are dependent on the origin of > the translator. > This is not new and has been a point of contention > for centuries. > > Much Metta to All > David > > --- "Gayan Karunaratne" > wrote: > > In sotapatti samyutta there are many discourses > given by the > buddha, about > > 'self-streamentry-check'. > > where one can look into (as a mirror) and > self-declare that he/she > is a > > sotapanna.(dhammadasa). > > > > Rgds 6212 From: cybele chiodi Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:41am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Dear Anders I resend to actualize what you replied to me one week ago on this issue of enlightenment claimings. And indeed even if you don't claim to be a stream enterer, you pretty much hinted it with your introduction and in your site. Let's say you invited us to discuss the issue, you enhanced this possibility, you stung our curiousity. Now apart the various discussions on how to evaluate it in order to assess the authenticity or not of your mental evolution (what personally I don't care as the results don't impinge my own research anyway), considering that you declare not being particularly interested on the fact whether or not you are a stream enterer, why then did you chose to introduce yourself in such a provocative fashion, just to create havoc? I suppose it is pertinent enquiring about your motivations. Perhaps you have a hidden agenda and secretively you are planning to brainwash all of us to become your disciples and give you half of our salaries. ;-)))) With me you are wasting your time, I am destitute and a bit difficult to persuade however. :-)))) Regards Cybele the mother goddess ;-), well I want a title myself, at least I have got a mythological prestige even if I am not a stream enterer. > >--- "cybele chiodi" >wrote: > > > > Dear Ander > > > > After reading your website I could come to only two conclusions >that I will > > expose with my usual straightforwardness that your advanced stage >of mental > > clarity will perfectly handle equanimously: > > > > If you are not in a mystical delusional mind state of psychotic >nature it > > seems to me that you are claiming to be enlightened. > > Could you clarify the issue for us? You replied: >I always appreciate straightforwardness. Please feel free to strike >down at anything I say. I am always interested in improving my >practise. >Well, I would be somewhat hestitant to say I am enlightened (it's >stream-entry at best), as I am unsure of what your definition of it >is, as well as the definition of stream-entry. If stream-entry is >realising that are dhammas are not-self and impermanent, and thus >realising that which not impermanent, then yes, you could say it is >stream-entry. I've noticed that I no longer sustain the fetters >accosiated with stream-entry (views of self, precepts and practises. >Any others?), so that would also match. But I think I can remember >some sutta (can't remmember which one) that mentions something about >the unwholesome deeds which a stream-entrant can never commit, and >not all of them fitted me if I remember correctly (can't remember >what they were anymore). >My own teacher has certified it, if that is any help to you. > >Personally, it doesn't matter much to me whether I am a stream- >entrant or not, or even enlightened or not. I figure I'll make it all >in due time, and thinking about it certainly won't speed up the >actualisation of it. > >Hope that clarifies. > >Regards, >Anders > 6213 From: cybele chiodi Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:54am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity Dear Anders Must admit that you are smart, whether you are or not a stream enterer, what doesn't matter for me anyway. The post is inspiring, I would suggest next time less 'preaching tone', we have enough of missionary like statements and we all commit this mistake on our enthusiasm, we get carried away. Can I forward your post to another list where we are discussing on this subject, would save me to say the very same things composing another mail, what is time and energy consuming. I will keep your name obviously. Let me know if you agree. Thanks Cybele Anders wrote: >Equanimity is a very important part of Buddhist practise. It means not >having any aversion or fondness of something, or indulging in indifference >for that matter. It means neither indulging in, or rejecting what you are >experiencing, not giving in to like and dislike. Thus it is the perfect >countermeasure for attachments of all kinds, as it ends the volitional >cycle........ > > 6214 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:57am Subject: Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" wrote: > Please try to use your own understanding, rather > than the scriptures. Besides, I don't think they'll be much help to you i= n > this regard. I promise not to quote any scriptures in this message. You probably have noticed that my knowledge of the scripture is spotty at best anyway. > > The Buddha taught that the first link from which the entire Samsaric circle > arises from is ignorance. By your response to Alex, you are not asking about the origin of ignorance. > My question is simple: Where did ignorance arise? As you are well aware of, the buddha taught that all conditioned realities = arise because there are conditions for them to arise. Ignorance (moha) is such a reality. As far as beings are concerned, only an arahat has no more conditions for moha to arise in him. Moha, a mental factor (cetasika), is said to be co-arising with other realities. In order for moha to arise, there must be the following co- arising realities: 1) consciousness (citta) 2) 3 other mental factors that arise with all akusala dhamma including shamelessness (ahiri), fearlessness (anottappa), and restlessness (uddhacca). 3) Other appropriate mental factors. In the plane of existence with 5 kandhas, a consciousness and its associated mental factors must arise on a base rupa (vathu rupa): the vathu rupa acts as a support condition (nissaya pacaya) for the consciousness and the mental factors. The consciousness and the mental factors arise and fall at/on the same vathu. For moha in particular, it arises within the heart-base (hadaya vathu). By the above explanations (in the plane with 5 kandhas), it can be deduced that moha rises within the consciousness, within other mental factors besides itself, and within the heart base. While I was writing this message, it seemed to me that you wanted to ask a different question, but I think this answer fits most with the question. > If you say nowhere, then you confirm the doctrine of annihilation, on The conditions for the moha to arise is not only its co-arising realities and its vathu, it is also other dhammas that no longer exist and dhamma that didn't co-arise with the moha. > account of that there was nothing before, and there will thus be nothing > after the ending of ignorance and Samsara. A conditioned dhamma doesn't arise unless its conditioning dhammas are fully ripened. The kandhas of an arahat, after his pari-nibbana, ceases to condition additional kandhas to arise. I think we already agree on this point (you said the kandhas disperse). If you notice this description, nothing is annihilated. There are no more conditions for additional khandas that we conventionally identify as belonging to that arahat. What do I mean when I say a person ceases to exist after his pari- nibbana? I mean his aggregates (the kandhas) cease to condition additional kandhas to arise. However, if you look at this at the paramatha level, this person never exists at the first place. What do I mean when I say this person does not exist? I mean the person is a *concept* and has no fundamental characteristics (sabhava); at any point of time, only the aggregates exist for an infinitesmally small amount of time. Nibbana is a reality, an elment, a dhatu with *distinct* characteristics from all the 28 rupas, 89 citta, and 52 cetasikas. Nibbana is not counted to be part of the aggregates that we take as a person. Nibbana does *not* cognize, but *can* be cognized. Since the only realities that cognize are citta and cetasikas, the only way to verify nibbana is that it *must* be cognizable. > If you say Nibbana, how is this > possible since Nibbana is a cognisable object? Nibbana is cognizable because it has its own fundamental (paramatha) characteristics (sabhava). > How can the cognisable ever > cognise something else? Nibbana does not cognize anything, although it can be an object of cognition. A citta can cognize another citta and cetasikas, which cognize a different = object. For example, when a citta (A) sees a visible object, the citta is = cognizing that visible object. There may be another citta (B) that rises after (A) cognizing (A). (A) and (B) cognize different objects even though (B) cognizes (A). I think there are a number of people on the list who maintain the position that an unconditioned element cannot be cognized unless the element is itself conditioned. Hence, to say that an unconditioned element can be cognized is a contradiction. Although I don't believe there is a scripture that supports this position, would anyone care to explain the logics of how we can arrive at the conclusion? kom 6215 From: Howard Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:25am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Hi, Alex (and Anders) - In a message dated 7/12/01 3:28:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Alex Tran writes: > > Hi Anders, > > May I join in the discussion? > > I know that I was born with ignorance and defilements. I don't > need to know where they came from. Your question about the origin of > our ignorance sounds very much like the story of the person shot by > an arrow. His care provider needed to take the arrow out and > attended the wound before trying to investigate the incident. > > With Metta, > Alex > > > The Buddha taught that the first link from which the entire > Samsaric circle > > arises from is ignorance. My question is simple: Where did > ignorance arise? > > ================================= I recall that there is a sutta in which the Buddha points out that avijja (ignorance) is not a "first cause", but is, itself caused. I seem to recall that the asava ("outflowings") may have been given as the cause of ignorance. I don't recall which sutta it is. 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) 6216 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 9:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Dear Howard, I'm pretty sure you're right about this, and I've read it stressed by others (that is that paticcasamuppada is continuous, without a really originating link) and believe this is correct, but I can't put my finger on the sutta. I'll keep an eye out for it. mike --- Howard wrote: > ================================= > I recall that there is a sutta in which the > Buddha points out that > avijja (ignorance) is not a "first cause", but is, > itself caused. I seem to > recall that the asava ("outflowings") may have been > given as the cause of > ignorance. I don't recall which sutta it is. > > With metta, > Howard 6217 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 10:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] the end to rebirth Nina I think you are referring to the Pali passages that Jim posted. Would you like to share your translation (and understanding) with us? An interesting point. Jon --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Jim and all, > I just wish to thank Jim for his excellent post on unestablished> with commentary and subcommentary. This is really > wonderful, > quite clear and precise. Nina. > 6218 From: Derek Cameron Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 11:07am Subject: Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! --- Howard wrote: > I recall that there is a sutta in which the Buddha points out that > avijja (ignorance) is not a "first cause", but is, itself caused. I seem to > recall that the asava ("outflowings") may have been given as the cause of > ignorance. I don't recall which sutta it is. Hello, Howard, Toward the end of the Saamaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) it says that avijjaa ("ignorance") *is* one of the aasava ("outflowings"). Derek. 6219 From: Herman Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 11:52am Subject: Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Anders, I have just one or two questions in relation to your simple question. Is your question based on your own understanding only? Why do you presuppose that there is a locus for ignorance? Kind Regards Herman --- "Anders Honoré" wrote: > Okay, Kom. I will let go of the subject of whether Nibbana is released > consciousness or not now. Before that, however, I would just like you to > answer one simple question. Please try to use your own understanding, rather > than the scriptures. Besides, I don't think they'll be much help to you in > this regard. > > The Buddha taught that the first link from which the entire Samsaric circle > arises from is ignorance. My question is simple: Where did ignorance arise? > > If you say nowhere, then you confirm the doctrine of annihilation, on > account of that there was nothing before, and there will thus be nothing > after the ending of ignorance and Samsara. If you say Nibbana, how is this > possible since Nibbana is a cognisable object? How can the cognisable ever > cognise something else? > > Patiently awaiting your answer... 6220 From: Howard Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:31am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Hi, Derek - In a message dated 7/12/01 11:10:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Derek writes: > Hello, Howard, > > Toward the end of the Saamaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) it says that avijjaa > ("ignorance") *is* one of the aasava ("outflowings"). > > Derek. > =========================== Yes, I see what you mean. There is mention of the "fermentation of ignorance". I still seem to recall, however, that elsewhere the Buddha refers to the out-flowings as the cause of ignorance. I have seen from time to time that such discrepancies occur in the suttas. It could be that the categories are not quite as hard and fast as we might expect. [Of course, I could be mistaken in recalling the asavas being given as cause of avijja.] 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) 6221 From: Howard Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Hi again, Derek - I found the following on the Access to Insight site. It is from the sutta I had in mind: Ignorance avijja The definition > "And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the > cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of > ignorance? Not knowing about dukkha, not knowing about the origin of dukkha > , not knowing about the cessation of dukkha, not knowing about the way > leading to the cessation of dukkha -- this is called ignorance. With the > arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance; with the cessation > of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way leading to the > cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right > view...right concentration." ... "And what are the taints, what is the > origin of the taints, what is the cessation of the taints, what is the way > leading to the cessation of the taints? There are three taints: the taint > of sensual desire, the taint of being and the taint of ignorance. With the > arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints. With the cessation > of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints. The way leading to the > cessation of the taints is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right > view...right concentration." > >> -- MN 9 > Notice that this includes: "With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance; with the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance." And yet, as you point out, ignorance, itself, is given as one of the four taints. (So, it is a little confusing, unless ignorance as a taint is considered to be different in some manner from ignorance as a factor in the cycle of dependent arising.) 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) 6222 From: Victor Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 1:45pm Subject: Re: Attachment to Right View - Spiritual arrogance Is right view fit to be seen thus: "This is mine, this I am, this is my self"? --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > > --- 243082114180158116015199190036129 wrote: > > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > > > If we don't see the attachment to view - even to right view- > > > then how can we ever let it go. Some people never even > > relaise > > > that they have attachment to view. This is not a matter of > > > seeing it and trying to relinquish but learning to see it > > again > > > and again and again and again - at the very moments it > > arises. > > > By seeing its conditioned nature this is also going together > > > with satipatthana. > > > > Dear Robert and friends, > > > > When reading the above statements, I was thinking about our > > Lord > > Buddha. He continuously advocates that we need to develop > > Right > > View. It seems that the Buddha and the Arahants are living > > (or > > swimming and breathing) in Right View all of Their lives on > > this > > earth. In another word, Right View adheres to Them. > > > > Therefore, my question is why do we need to let Right View > > go then? > > > > Metta, > > Alex > > ______________ > Dear Alex, > it is not the right view that is to be discarded but the > attachment to it. > To my mormon friends attachment to their ideas, to their faith > is seen as beneficial and to be cultivated. This is not so in > the Dhamma because attachment is a distorting factor that clouds > right vision. > Some people hear this, for example the famous sutta about the > raft (do we carry it around after crossing the river), and > decide that they will just discard all view. Thye don't realise > that view can't be discarded by decision or thinking, but only > by actual clear comprehension of the dhammas that arise at the 6 > doors. By this way direct insight knows things as they are. > Then there is right view but it arises in association with > alobha (non-attachment) unlike wrong view that always comes with > lobha(attachment). > Some people imagine they have no view because they have such > ideas as "I don't say this is right, I don't say that is right" > -they don't have opinions: but this is simply another view that > is attached to. > The most deeply held views are those revolving around the idea > of self. Those that take concepts for being something real, and > realities for self or lasting. > This is quite a hard topic and otehrs may be able to put it > better. > There is an article by Bhikkhu bodhi that is worth reading on > this: > http://www.abhidhamma.org/essay25.html > robert > . > 6223 From: craig garner Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:28pm Subject: Dear Sangha, could anybody please give me some clues to what kind of rules a buddhist couple should follow? with refference to marriage etc... I have read a bit hear and a bit there but it seems a little confusing for me, at least maybe a few of you could point me in the right dirrection it would be much appreciated. with metta Craig. 6224 From: kelvin liew peng chuan Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 4:35pm Subject: where's it frm? Dear friends in Dhamma, This may be a very silly question, but out of curiousity, may i ask where our panca sila comes from? any sutta or gatha to refer to ? thanks.MAy you be well and happy! ~ sampuna 6225 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 4:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Panca-sila - where's it frm? Kelvin Not a silly question at all. One of the suttas in which the 5 precepts are referred to is the one mentioned earlier by Victor in his post- Vera Sutta, Animosity http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-092.html There are other more direct references than this, and I am sure others will post them. Jon --- kelvin liew peng chuan wrote: > Dear friends in Dhamma, > > This may be a very silly question, but out of curiousity, may i ask > where > our panca sila comes from? any sutta or gatha to refer to ? thanks.MAy > you > be well and happy! ~ sampuna > 6226 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) dear Robert E. I got around to looking up some details on alcohol. In the kuddakatapatha by Buddhaghosa (translated as Minor readings PTS by nanamoli). there is a comprehensive section ion the precepts. on p24 -25 it notes that the blamableness of an action varies according to its degree. hence killing a large animal is worse than killing an insect because of the degree of effort involved and other factors. it has many details. there is one interesting part " But unlike killing, drinking is always greatly blamable. Why? because it obstructs the ariyan Dhamma by inducing even madness in a human being". p32 "the fruits of abstaining from the opportunity for negilgence due to wine or liquor are such things as quick recognition of past, future and present tasks to be done, constant establishment of mindfulness, possession of knowledge, non-stupidty, non-drivelingness,,,non-confusion, non-timorousness, non-presumption, uneviousness, truthfulness, freedom from malicious and harsh speech and from gossip, freedom from dullness day and night, gratitude, libearlty, possesion of conscience, great understanding, rectitude of view, skill in distinguishing skill from unskill, and so on"END QUOTE. robert 6227 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 4:40pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:52 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! >Anders, >I have just one or two questions in relation to your simple question. >Is your question based on your own understanding only? Pretty much, yes. >Why do you presuppose that there is a locus for ignorance? 'locus'.... No mention of it in my dictionary. Would you care to define that word for me? 6228 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 4:42pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity > Dear Anders > > Must admit that you are smart, whether you are or not a stream enterer, what > doesn't matter for me anyway. > The post is inspiring, I would suggest next time less 'preaching tone', we > have enough of missionary like statements and we all commit this mistake on > our enthusiasm, we get carried away. Yes, thanks for the advice. I can get a little carried away at times, yes. Need to be mindful of that. Thanks. > Can I forward your post to another list where we are discussing on this > subject, would save me to say the very same things composing another mail, > what is time and energy consuming. > I will keep your name obviously. > Let me know if you agree. Sure, go ahead. My general opinion is that once I written something, it is out of my hands. 6229 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:04pm Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello (stream-entry once again...) ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:41 AM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Dear Anders > > I resend to actualize what you replied to me one week ago on this issue of > enlightenment claimings. > And indeed even if you don't claim to be a stream enterer, you pretty much > hinted it with your introduction and in your site. Well, the website was created as a way for me to be honest about my own practise, and perhaps inspire others (it seems it serves this purpose as I get a lot of feedback). Thus, it would have to include what I've discovered along the way, and that is what it presents. As I said, I'll leave it to others to try and fit it into nice categories and boxes and define what it is. This is just what I am discovered so far. I'll probably discover more later on, and I'll list that as well. > Let's say you invited us to discuss the issue, you enhanced this > possibility, you stung our curiousity. Well, Cybele, you were the one bringing it up, demanding an answer ;-) I would have been more than content if no-one bothered. > Now apart the various discussions on how to evaluate it in order to assess > the authenticity or not of your mental evolution (what personally I don't > care as the results don't impinge my own research anyway), considering that > you declare not being particularly interested on the fact whether or not you > are a stream enterer, why then did you chose to introduce yourself in such a > provocative fashion, just to create havoc? Well, foolish me thought that that original post would clarify things. I see that that specific post was more than unskilful on my part, and I apologise for any confusion it might have caused. I won't deny that I have had some insights, and as such it could perhaps be interpreted as stream-entry (which I think I failed to make clear in that original post - "interpreted"). But since some of those insights seem to conflict with the Pali Canon, I certainly won't declare them valid in any way. But as I was telling Dan Dalthorp, whom I had the pleasure of conversing with via email, my own understanding of the Pali Canon is "biased" in the sense that I am very much familiar with Mahayana (much more than Theravada) and as such I draw from those teachings as well, in terms of what is true and not true (I don't think either is false. It's just a question of seeing it properly). But it can be difficult to absorb initially from the Thervadan view-point, since they attribute different meanings to labels (not to mention invent new ones). Buddha for instance, is much more generic and basically means anyone who has completed the path, but also Nirvana itself. Anyway, my point is that the website shows what I have discovered. I have no desire myself to interpret that into any Buddhist (or non-Buddhist for that matter) context (such as stream-entry, discovering Nibbana and so on), other than my own practise, which doesn't need definitions. Perhaps I should make this entirely clear: If you must put some label on me, and try to fit your perception of me into a box, then I would advice you to put that perception into the 'crazed deluded heretic' box, and stick with the Pali Canon. Much easier that way. The Pali canon offer guarantees. I don't. > I suppose it is pertinent enquiring about your motivations. > Perhaps you have a hidden agenda and secretively you are planning to > brainwash all of us to become your disciples and give you half of our > salaries. ;-)))) Damn! Need to go find myself another egroup to overtake. > With me you are wasting your time, I am destitute and a bit difficult to > persuade however. :-)))) I'll give you a dollar if you'll convert.... 6230 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:26pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:57 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! >Dear Anders, >I promise not to quote any scriptures in this message. You probably have noticed that my knowledge of the scripture is spotty at best anyway. >> The Buddha taught that the first link from which the entire Samsaric circle >> arises from is ignorance. > My question is simple: Where did ignorance arise? >As you are well aware of, the buddha taught that all conditioned realities = >arise because there are conditions for them to arise. Ignorance (moha) >is such a reality. As far as beings are concerned, only an arahat has no >more conditions for moha to arise in him. Well, the beginning is not different from the end. I'll explain below. >For moha in particular, it arises within the heart-base (hadaya vathu). Please define heart-base (heart-base, hsin in Chinese) generally means 'Budha-nature' or Nirvana. >While I was writing this message, it seemed to me that you wanted to ask a different question, but I think this answer fits most with the question. Yes, that is correct. My point was that the very first link of dependent co-origination, didn't just arise in a nothingness (since this would imply annihilation) and once the last link is dissolved (parinibbana), there won't just be nothingness left. >Nibbana is a reality, an elment, a dhatu with *distinct* characteristics from all the 28 rupas, 89 citta, and 52 cetasikas. Nibbana is not counted to be part of the aggregates that we take as a person. Nibbana does *not* cognize, but *can* be cognized. Since the only realities that cognize are citta and cetasikas, the only way to verify nibbana is that it *must* be cognizable. Well, as I mentioned in another post, I draw from both Mahayana and Theravada, and I don't think either is untrue. I don't think that Mahayana arose simply as a 'rebellious' way to create a new doctrine. I think it arose out of the need to emphasise parts of the Dhamma which might have been somewhat under-emphasised by the old schools at that given point in time, and thus it highlights aspects of the Dhamma which might not be very strong in the schools before it. But that is just my view. I would like to quote Bodhidharma, the first Patriarch of Zen, to show you what I've been trying to say all along: ..."This mind is the buddha" says the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll never find another Buddha [Nirvana]. To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is impossible.... When the mind reaches nirvana, you don't see nirvana, because the mind is nirvana. If you see nirvana somewhere outside the mind, you're deluding yourself. 6231 From: Tori Korshak Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 6:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity >Dear Anders, Thank you. I like this very much. The cultivation of uppekha has been very important in my own practice (lots of lobha and dosa to deal with). Metta, Victoria >To cultivate Panna means to know your own mind. To know your own mind, you >have to cease being dragged around by the mind. The way to cease being >dragged around by the mind, is by not sustaining the habits of the mind, >being indulging in or rejecting the objects of the mind. Thus, through >equanimity, not only is Panna nurtured, but defilements are also ended, as >they are no longer sustained. > >Regards, >Anders Honore >************************************************* >Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ >************************************************* > 6232 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity Anders Welcome to the list, and thanks for your voluminous contributions of late. What a debut! As you are more familiar with the Mahayana teachings, I thought I would give the Theravadin slant on the question of equanimity and the development of panna (as I understand the texts) in case there is any difference of substance. --- Anders Honoré wrote: > Equanimity is a very important part of Buddhist practise. It means not > having any aversion or fondness of something, or indulging in > indifference > for that matter. It means neither indulging in, or rejecting what you > are > experiencing, not giving in to like and dislike. Thus it is the perfect > countermeasure for attachments of all kinds, as it ends the volitional > cycle. According to the Pali texts, only panna can eradicate defilements and lead towards the end of the volitional cycle. The development of upekkha (equanimity) as one of the Brahma vihara (heavenly abidings) is an aspect of samatha and hence is a high level of kusala but in and of itself leads to continuation of the volitional cycle. With the development of high levels of samatha, it may seem that the kilesa are reduced, but in fact the latent tendencies are being suppressed rather than removed. > To cultivate Panna means to know your own mind. To know your own mind, > you > have to cease being dragged around by the mind. The way to cease being > dragged around by the mind, is by not sustaining the habits of the mind, > being indulging in or rejecting the objects of the mind. Thus, through > equanimity, not only is Panna nurtured, but defilements are also ended, > as > they are no longer sustained. The development of panna is not contingent on, or particularly assisted by, developing equanimity. The function of panna is to know the true characteristic of a reality, any reality, appearing at the present moment. That reality may be a wholesome or an unwholesome one, or it may be a rupa (ie. not a reality that we take for the mind). And there cannot be panna of realities without the development of awareness of realities. But equanimity is not a prerequisite, nor even particularly an advantage. How does this compare with the Mahayana teachings as you understand them? Jon 6233 From: cybele chiodi Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:36pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning ...thanks Anders Dear Anders Thank you very much, will be very helpful. Sadhu x 3 for your generosity. :-) Regards Cybele > > Can I forward your post to another list where we are discussing on this > > subject, would save me to say the very same things composing another >mail, > > what is time and energy consuming. > > I will keep your name obviously. > > Let me know if you agree. > >Sure, go ahead. My general opinion is that once I written something, it is >out of my hands. > 6234 From: cybele chiodi Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:55pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello (stream-entry once again...) Dear Anders > > > > > Let's say you invited us to discuss the issue, you enhanced this > > possibility, you stung our curiousity. >Well, Cybele, you were the one bringing it up, demanding an answer ;-) I would have been more than content if no-one bothered. Indeed I am very nosy, always probing, probing, it's in my nature. :-) But with your exploit was difficult for us to be restrained. > >Perhaps I should make this entirely clear: If you must put some label on >me, >and try to fit your perception of me into a box, then I would advice you to >put that perception into the 'crazed deluded heretic' box, and stick with >the Pali Canon. Much easier that way. The Pali canon offer guarantees. I >don't. I don't label or enclose people in any box like perception, lucky me I am too openminded for it. But must say that this 'trademark' pleases me very much, lobha, lobha being an heretic myself! Oh pardon, there is no self...what a gaffe! > > > I suppose it is pertinent enquiring about your motivations. > > Perhaps you have a hidden agenda and secretively you are planning to > > brainwash all of us to become your disciples and give you half of our > > salaries. ;-)))) > >Damn! Need to go find myself another egroup to overtake. > > > With me you are wasting your time, I am destitute and a bit difficult to > > persuade however. :-)))) > >I'll give you a dollar if you'll convert.... Please make two and it's a deal!!! :-)))) LOve Cybele 6235 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Cybele, Not sure if I can say that I have 'arrived' at your wavelength of communication. But reading you certainly has made me aware of my tendency to misconstrue. By accumulations I am quite slow to understanding others, but now I know in part, why. And it has been quite liberating. Thankyou and much Metta, Sukin. ps: I live in Bangkok and will definately meet you when you come. cybele chiodi wrote: > Dear Sukin > > I am so glad that we are communicating eventually. > I am prone to persist in this dialogues exactly to improve our communication > skills and clarify doubts and misunderstandings. > This sharings are a great, meaningful opportunity of practice of right > understanding for me. > A bit if goodwill, a handful of humour and let's take it easy without > competitions, being honest and not conceited in our exchanges. > Nice knowing you too. > Btw do you live in Thailand? > If so for sure we are going to meet soon, around september or so. > > Love > > Cybele 6236 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Dear Derek, I looked at this one too, and several others where ignorance is referred to as an asava. I've still been unable to find one referring to it as a cause for ignorance--I'll keep you posted. mike --- Derek Cameron wrote: > --- Howard wrote: > > I recall that there is a sutta in which the > Buddha points > out that > > avijja (ignorance) is not a "first cause", but is, > itself caused. I > seem to > > recall that the asava ("outflowings") may have > been given as the > cause of > > ignorance. I don't recall which sutta it is. > > Hello, Howard, > > Toward the end of the Saamaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) it > says that avijjaa > ("ignorance") *is* one of the aasava > ("outflowings"). > > Derek. > 6237 From: cybele chiodi Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Communication skills - Sukin Dear Sukin > >Dear Cybele, >Not sure if I can say that I have 'arrived' at your wavelength >of communication. But reading you certainly has made me aware >of my tendency to misconstrue. By accumulations I am quite slow >to understanding others, but now I know in part, why. And it has >been quite liberating. >Thankyou and much Metta, > >Sukin. >ps: I live in Bangkok and will definately meet you when you come. > I suppose that by accumulations I am very extroverted and communicative and very keen on understanding others; I am hyperempathic with life what leads me to a lot a lobha. Never mind, I cope with my lust for life. Glad to know you live in Bkk, I have a very modest room in Pratunam. Will be nice meeting you; sometimes I strive in Bangkok because of the language, I speak very little Thai and people speak very little English. Well I am learning to develop a different kind of language to communicate far beyond the possibilities of speech and much more meaningful. I get along well with Thais and Asians generally because I am a smiling person and so are they. I miss their smiles when I am in Europe. Looking forward to meet you Love Cybele 6238 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:38pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity > Anders > > Welcome to the list, and thanks for your voluminous contributions of late. > What a debut! Haha, thanks. It was actually my intention to just say hello, and then fade into the background for a while. Perhaps I'll fade later on... > As you are more familiar with the Mahayana teachings, I thought I would > give the Theravadin slant on the question of equanimity and the > development of panna (as I understand the texts) in case there is any > difference of substance. I think it's important not mistake the various categorisations as an actual exposition of truth. One needs to look into the causal factors that these create, rather than the labels and categories fit into, and from that determine id its valid or not. > --- Anders Honoré wrote: > > Equanimity is a very important part of Buddhist practise. It means not > > having any aversion or fondness of something, or indulging in > > indifference > > for that matter. It means neither indulging in, or rejecting what you > > are > > experiencing, not giving in to like and dislike. Thus it is the perfect > > countermeasure for attachments of all kinds, as it ends the volitional > > cycle. > > According to the Pali texts, only panna can eradicate defilements and lead > towards the end of the volitional cycle. I agree. Even the attempt to be equanimous involves some sort of rejection or indulgence. But it helps to end volitional cycles at "lower" levels, so to speak. > The development of upekkha > (equanimity) as one of the Brahma vihara (heavenly abidings) is an aspect > of samatha and hence is a high level of kusala but in and of itself leads > to continuation of the volitional cycle. With the development of high > levels of samatha, it may seem that the kilesa are reduced, but in fact > the latent tendencies are being suppressed rather than removed. I am not sure about this, but isn't equanimity also part of the seven factors of awakening? Is it implied as an object of Samatha there as well? > > > > To cultivate Panna means to know your own mind. To know your own mind, > > you > > have to cease being dragged around by the mind. The way to cease being > > dragged around by the mind, is by not sustaining the habits of the mind, > > being indulging in or rejecting the objects of the mind. Thus, through > > equanimity, not only is Panna nurtured, but defilements are also ended, > > as > > they are no longer sustained. > > The development of panna is not contingent on, or particularly assisted > by, developing equanimity. The function of panna is to know the true > characteristic of a reality, any reality, appearing at the present moment. > That reality may be a wholesome or an unwholesome one, or it may be a > rupa (ie. not a reality that we take for the mind). And there cannot be > panna of realities without the development of awareness of realities. But > equanimity is not a prerequisite, nor even particularly an advantage. From the view-point of Equanimity as a Samatha practise, I agree with this. Panna arises when one observes cause and effect. But it is quite difficult to observe it properly, if you are being dragged around by it, through clinging. I would say that equanimity helps you cease clinging to it, in order to observe it. > How does this compare with the Mahayana teachings as you understand them? It is difficult to say, since the approach is very different.... 6239 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:45pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello (stream-entry once again...) ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello (stream-entry once again...) > >Perhaps I should make this entirely clear: If you must put some label on > >me, > >and try to fit your perception of me into a box, then I would advice you to > >put that perception into the 'crazed deluded heretic' box, and stick with > >the Pali Canon. Much easier that way. The Pali canon offer guarantees. I > >don't. > > I don't label or enclose people in any box like perception, lucky me I am > too openminded for it. > But must say that this 'trademark' pleases me very much, lobha, lobha being > an heretic myself! > Oh pardon, there is no self...what a gaffe! It's all good at a conceptual level... > >I'll give you a dollar if you'll convert.... > > > Please make two and it's a deal!!! :-)))) Deal and done! (reminds me of a Simpson's episode where Homer tries to convince his family what a shrewd negotiator he is, when Bart says "I'll trade you this delicious doorknob for your crummy old doughnut." Homer says "Deal and done!") :-) 6240 From: Derek Cameron Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 9:12pm Subject: Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! --- Howard wrote: > Notice that this includes: "With the arising of the taints there is > the arising of ignorance; with the cessation of the taints there is the > cessation of ignorance." And yet, as you point out, ignorance, itself, is > given as one of the four taints. (So, it is a little confusing, unless > ignorance as a taint is considered to be different in some manner from > ignorance as a factor in the cycle of dependent arising.) Howard -- Yes, it is confusing. Actually, my personal belief is that this kind of deep knowledge can't be realized merely by thinking about it. All the many suttas that describe these higher knowledges mention them as coming about as a result of practice. That ties in nicely with the teachings of the Kaalaama Sutta (AN III.65) which several people have referred to recently. Anders -- I loved your little aside about how the Kaalaama Sutta itself is not to be relied upon, according to the Kaalaama Sutta! As far as your question about "where everything started from" is concerned, I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the lines: "There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not- conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to- being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned" (Udaana VIII.3, repeated at Itivuttaka 43). Derek. 6241 From: cybele chiodi Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 9:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Internet skills Dear group I apologyse for my duplicate messages - have no idea why is happening. I am very attentive while pressing the mouse whether to avoid it. Have no clue what is happening. Sorry be patient! Cybele 6242 From: Tori Korshak Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 11:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity Dear Jon, Thank you for this, but I am puzzled. If developing equanimity helps to curb lobha and dosa (and it does in my experience), is that not an aid to knowing the true characteristic of a reality? If I am not blinded by my own clinging or aversions , are these realities not more likely to be seen clearly? Why is it not an advantage to panna to abandon clinging and develop equanimity? I wouldn't trust a monk for example who exhibited a lot of dosa to have panna. Thank you for your help. Metta, Victoria >The development of panna is not contingent on, or particularly assisted >by, developing equanimity. The function of panna is to know the true >characteristic of a reality, any reality, appearing at the present moment. > That reality may be a wholesome or an unwholesome one, or it may be a >rupa (ie. not a reality that we take for the mind). And there cannot be >panna of realities without the development of awareness of realities. But >equanimity is not a prerequisite, nor even particularly an advantage. > >How does this compare with the Mahayana teachings as you understand them? > >Jon > 6243 From: Howard Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:06pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity Hi, Anders (and Jon) - In a message dated 7/13/01 9:39:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Anders Honore writes: > > Anders > > > > Welcome to the list, and thanks for your voluminous contributions of late. > > What a debut! > > Haha, thanks. It was actually my intention to just say hello, and then fade > into the background for a while. Perhaps I'll fade later on... > > > As you are more familiar with the Mahayana teachings, I thought I would > > give the Theravadin slant on the question of equanimity and the > > development of panna (as I understand the texts) in case there is any > > difference of substance. > > I think it's important not mistake the various categorisations as an actual > exposition of truth. One needs to look into the causal factors that these > create, rather than the labels and categories fit into, and from that > determine id its valid or not. > > > --- Anders Honoré wrote: > > > Equanimity is a very important part of Buddhist practise. It means not > > > having any aversion or fondness of something, or indulging in > > > indifference > > > for that matter. It means neither indulging in, or rejecting what you > > > are > > > experiencing, not giving in to like and dislike. Thus it is the perfect > > > countermeasure for attachments of all kinds, as it ends the volitional > > > cycle. > > > > According to the Pali texts, only panna can eradicate defilements and lead > > towards the end of the volitional cycle. > > I agree. Even the attempt to be equanimous involves some sort of rejection > or indulgence. But it helps to end volitional cycles at "lower" levels, so > to speak. > > > The development of upekkha > > (equanimity) as one of the Brahma vihara (heavenly abidings) is an aspect > > of samatha and hence is a high level of kusala but in and of itself leads > > to continuation of the volitional cycle. With the development of high > > levels of samatha, it may seem that the kilesa are reduced, but in fact > > the latent tendencies are being suppressed rather than removed. > > I am not sure about this, but isn't equanimity also part of the seven > factors of awakening? Is it implied as an object of Samatha there as well? > > > > > > > > To cultivate Panna means to know your own mind. To know your own mind, > > > you > > > have to cease being dragged around by the mind. The way to cease being > > > dragged around by the mind, is by not sustaining the habits of the mind, > > > being indulging in or rejecting the objects of the mind. Thus, through > > > equanimity, not only is Panna nurtured, but defilements are also ended, > > > as > > > they are no longer sustained. > > > > The development of panna is not contingent on, or particularly assisted > > by, developing equanimity. The function of panna is to know the true > > characteristic of a reality, any reality, appearing at the present moment. > > That reality may be a wholesome or an unwholesome one, or it may be a > > rupa (ie. not a reality that we take for the mind). And there cannot be > > panna of realities without the development of awareness of realities. But > > equanimity is not a prerequisite, nor even particularly an advantage. > > From the view-point of Equanimity as a Samatha practise, I agree with this. > Panna arises when one observes cause and effect. But it is quite difficult > to observe it properly, if you are being dragged around by it, through > clinging. I would say that equanimity helps you cease clinging to it, in > order to observe it. > > > How does this compare with the Mahayana teachings as you understand them? > > It is difficult to say, since the approach is very different.... > > > ================================== The following is drawn from Wings to Awakening (from Access to Insight). I think it is relevant to this discussion. Particularly interesting to me is the distinction made between the alleged sutta-perspective and the abhidhamma-perspective. You, Jon, I believe, have Abhidhamma as your main influence? The material follows: *************************************************** G. The Seven Factors of Awakening [ Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section ] [ Jump down to passages §§92-100 ] The seven factors of Awakening (bojjhanga) are closely related to the practice of the four frames of reference. The texts use two patterns to describe this relationship. The first pattern is a spiral, showing how the seven factors of Awakening build on the four frames of reference [§92]. This point is reflected in the position of mindfulness -- defined as the practice of any one of the four frames of reference -- as the first factor in the list. Discernment, in the role of the analysis of mental qualities into skillful and unskillful, builds on right mindfulness and leads to persistence, which in the form of right effort/exertion maximizes the skillful qualities and minimizes the unskillful ones. This in turn leads to four factors associated with jhana: rapture, serenity, concentration, and equanimity. Equanimity, here, is not a neutral feeling, but rather a balancing or moderation -- an evenness of mind -- with regard to any feeling or object that arises. It is identical with the equanimity in the fourth jhana [§149] and with the inherent equanimity in the fifth factor of five-factored noble concentration [§150], which can develop out of any of the four jhanas. As such it can either lead to greater mastery of meditation -- as the purity of mindfulness that accompanies the fourth jhana provides the basis for even more precise analysis of qualities, thus allowing the causal loop to spiral to a higher level -- or else develop into the state of non-fashioning that opens to Awakening. Abhidhamma texts seem to contradict the point that equanimity feeds back into mindfulness in this way, for they maintain that the factors of Awakening are transcendent -- in other words, that they come into play only as one reaches the point of Awakening, where no temporal feedback would take place. The discourses, however, show that the factors of Awakening can function in the development of mundane concentration as well. Passage §96 shows how the "feeding" of the factors of Awakening is needed to "starve" the hindrances, mental qualities that have to be suppressed before mundane concentration can be attained. Passage §98 shows how the factors function in developing the four attitudes that lead to "release of awareness" -- a mundane form of release -- and indicates the highest state to which those attitudes can lead for one who has penetrated no higher, i.e., who has attained none of the transcendent levels. These passages demonstrate that the factors of Awakening can function on the level of mundane jhana in addition to the level at the verge of Awakening. Thus, equanimity as a factor of Awakening on the mundane plane can feed back into the process of meditation, providing a steady basis for more continuous mindfulness and clearer analysis of mental qualities, until all the factors of the list ripen to transcendence. ********************************************** 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) 6244 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 11:20pm Subject: re: Rules for Married couples. --- "craig garner" wrote: > Dear Sangha, could anybody please give me some clues to what kind of rules a buddhist couple should follow? with refference to marriage etc... I have read a bit hear and a bit there but it seems a little confusing for me, at least maybe a few of you could point me in the right dirrection it would be much appreciated. with metta Craig. > > > Dear Craig, I am not part of the sangha, but according to the Budha teaching, anybody should strive to understand the realities as they truly are. With that, other things are (most likely) to follow, like the 5 precepts, etc. If you strictly follow the scripture in this regard in all the different ways (follow exactly what the Buddha said about what a marriage couple should do), you may not like them too much. The conventional, societal views about the interactions between the couple were different in Buddha India than they are today. kom 6245 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 11:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] re: Rules for Married couples. Dear Craig, There are a few points in the sigalovada sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn31.html robert > --- "craig garner" > wrote: > > Dear Sangha, could anybody please give me some clues to what > kind of > rules a buddhist couple should follow? with refference to > marriage etc... I > have read a bit hear and a bit there but it seems a little > confusing for me, > at least maybe a few of you could point me in the right > dirrection it would > be much appreciated. with metta Craig. > > > 6246 From: robert Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 11:56pm Subject: Re: The meaning of Equanimity --- Tori Korshak wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > Thank you for this, but I am puzzled. If developing equanimity helps to > curb lobha and dosa (and it does in my experience), is that not an aid to > knowing the true characteristic of a reality? If I am not blinded by my own > clinging or aversions , are these realities not more likely to be seen > clearly? Why is it not an advantage to panna to abandon clinging and > develop equanimity? I wouldn't trust a monk for example who exhibited a lot > of dosa to have panna. ______________________________ Dear Tori, I think what really blinds you to these realities is that they are taken as self, as "my dosa, my lobha". I wrote a post to Paul a while back that may have bearing on this. >>"Sarah told me a story. When she was staying with friends in Australia (old students of khun Sujin), they were taking her to the airport to catch a flight back to hong kong. They were running very late and sarah was showing some agitation. These friends then said that "this shows how much more understanding Sujin has"; because a few months earlier the same thing happened when Sujin was visiting Australia -they only got her on the flight with minutes to spare. BUT Sujin showed no concern at all. Later on when Sarah commented on this to Khun Sujin all she said was "they don't understand the path". You see we can't tell someones understanding by how calm they appear. I can't be surprised or even much disapointed when anger arises (in myself or others) as it seems such a natural thing. It is sankhara dhamma , conditioned phenomena, it arises because there are the right coincidence of paccaya (conditions) for this to happen. In earlier days I would have tried to do something, and felt guilty, but this is 'putting an extra head on top of the original one". I have had the benefit of knowing many different cult members. Some of them have the idea that they should always be happy - so they always act happy. or some think thye should act serious (because of dukkha) so they act serious. Actually it is not really an act as they aim towards happy feeling or serious feeling and so build up the conditions for this. Of course they don't always succeed but they head in such directions. However, to my thinking although they keep outward sila to a high degree, they don't have insight into real Dhamma. They are clinging to view and self , to virtue and ritual . (silabataparamasa). In the Brahmajala sutta (trans. Bodhi All embracing net of views p56) "It is bhikkhus only to trifling and insignificant matters, to the minor details of mere moral virtue, that a wordling would refer when speaking in praise of the Tathagata. And what are those trifling matters, those minor details of mere moral virtue?" the sutta then lists many virtues such as not killing or stealing, being chaste, no harsh speech, no idle chatter.. no meals after midday....etc. As your post indicates your friends and relatives look at your outer behaviour, they try to estimate your wisdom based on this. They don't know that only an anagami has eradicated anger forever; they don't know that someone may have suppressed lust and anger for their whole life - by true samatha - but have no insight into the true nature of dhammas; that someone else again might appear always calm but only have clinging to pleasant feeling. If they discussed much with you they would know more about your insight - then they would know that, as a disciple of the buddha, you can help them understand life in profound ways. Then they wouldn't be so concerned about slips in behaviour. maybe they would think it is natural - if they understood the conditioned nature of dhammas. robert 6247 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 0:14am Subject: Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > > Well, the beginning is not different from the end. I'll explain below. I have actually never contemplated the beginning myself. Because of that, = only the scripture is a guide. There are other on-going thread that discusses the sutta(s?) that the Buddha mentioned that: a) Ignorance rises out of asava (a kind of tanha) b) Ignorance rises out of tanha (craving) I still don't have a clue what you are implying, but it seems we are discussing how ignorance rises out of something in the beginning of the samsaric cycle, which implies how it could end? Is this where you are leading to? (The beginning wouldn't ever be verifiable, even though the end will at least be implied by the enlightenment.) > > >For moha in particular, it arises within the heart-base (hadaya vathu). > > Please define heart-base (heart-base, hsin in Chinese) generally means > 'Budha-nature' or Nirvana. The vathu rupa, which heart-base (hadaya vathu) is, is a conditioned materiality said to be located in the middle of the heart (and somewhere else if without a heart!). It is a place of rising for many types of consciousness and mental factors. It is certainly not Nibbana. > Yes, that is correct. My point was that the very first link of dependent > co-origination, didn't just arise in a nothingness (since this would impl= y > annihilation) and once the last link is dissolved (parinibbana), there won't > just be nothingness left. I don't believe there are any scripture explaining the end of samsaric cycl= e by the process of how it comes in the beginning. There is only: without this, that can't come to be, etc (and nibbana is definitely *not* included = as a link). Even though I may be able to able to derive (if not contrive!) such a logic, I wouldn't trust it much myself. Logic (or my logical mind) = has failed to reveal the truths many many times. The buddha didn't expound the beginning much at all (even related to explaining the end), it = would only lead to more delusion to think I can explain as such. > Well, as I mentioned in another post, I draw from both Mahayana and > Theravada, and I don't think either is untrue. I don't think that Mahayan= a > arose simply as a 'rebellious' way to create a > new doctrine. I think it arose out of the need to emphasise parts of the > Dhamma which might have been somewhat under-emphasised by the old schools at > that given point in time, and thus it highlights aspects of the Dhamma which > might not be very strong in the schools before it. But that is just my view. > I would like to quote Bodhidharma, the first Patriarch of Zen, to show you > what I've been trying to say all along: > ..."This mind is the buddha" says the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll= > never find another Buddha [Nirvana]. To search for enlightenment or nirvana > beyond this mind is impossible.... When the mind reaches nirvana, you don't > see nirvana, because the mind is nirvana. If you see nirvana somewhere > outside the mind, you're deluding yourself. The theravadans try to stick to the original text as much as possible for knowing (or fearing, for some of us) that diverging from it will distort th= e meanings of the teachings. I am quite sure that some of the distortions introduced by different people (even in translations), intentional or not, = calling themselves Theravadan or not, with or without delusion while so doing, more often lead people to the wrong end than the right one. The Buddha dhamma is incredibly subtle, a distortion sometimes serves as a hinderance (conventional, not the 5 hinderances!) rather than an aid to the understanding, and ultimately the realization. Again, just like the concept of duality, I can somewhat map what Bodhidharma said to the Theravadan frame of references, but not completely, especially the part "the mind is nirvana." kom 6248 From: Tori Korshak Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 0:39am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The meaning of Equanimity At 03:56 PM 7/13/01 +0000, you wrote: >--- Tori Korshak wrote: > > Dear Robert, Now it's my turn to be puzzled by your post. More below. > > Dear Jon, > > > > Thank you for this, but I am puzzled. If developing equanimity >helps to > > curb lobha and dosa (and it does in my experience), is that not an >aid to > > knowing the true characteristic of a reality? If I am not blinded >by my own > > clinging or aversions , are these realities not more likely to be >seen > > clearly? Why is it not an advantage to panna to abandon clinging >and > > develop equanimity? I wouldn't trust a monk for example who >exhibited a lot > > of dosa to have panna. >______________________________ >Dear Tori, >I think what really blinds you to these realities is that they are >taken as self, as "my dosa, my lobha". >I wrote a post to Paul a while back that may have bearing on this. > >>"Sarah told me a story. When she was staying with friends in >Australia (old students of khun Sujin), they were taking her to >the airport to catch a flight back to hong kong. They were >running very late and sarah was showing some agitation. >These friends then said that "this shows how much more >understanding Sujin has"; because a few months earlier the same >thing happened when Sujin was visiting Australia -they only got >her on the flight with minutes to spare. BUT Sujin showed no >concern at all. >Later on when Sarah commented on this to Khun Sujin all she said >was "they don't understand the path". Well for example, I can relate to this. Since studying and meditating, I find that when traveling, things like delays and missed flights truly don't disturb me the way they used to. This is not pretending but a big change. Of course one doesn't like to inconvenience others who have made plans at the other end but when it can't be helped there is more acceptance and understanding that my reaction one way or the other won't change events. >You see we can't tell someones understanding by how calm they >appear. No-only one can know that for oneself-not others. >I can't be surprised or even much disapointed when anger arises >(in myself or others) as it seems such a natural thing. It is >sankhara dhamma , conditioned phenomena, it arises because there >are the right coincidence of paccaya (conditions) for this to >happen. I agree but there are fewer conditions arising now that understanding is changing. > In earlier days I would have tried to do something, and >felt guilty, but this is 'putting an extra head on top of the >original one". Yes after the fact one cannot stop the arising. Only through understanding beforehand. >I have had the benefit of knowing many different cult members. >Some of them have the idea that they should always be happy - so >they always act happy. or some think thye should act serious >(because of dukkha) so they act serious. Actually it is not >really an act as they aim towards happy feeling or serious >feeling and so build up the conditions for this. Of course they >don't always succeed but they head in such directions. However, >to my thinking although they keep outward sila to a high degree, >they don't have insight into real Dhamma. They are clinging to >view and self , to virtue and ritual . (silabataparamasa). >In the Brahmajala sutta (trans. Bodhi All embracing net of >views p56) "It is bhikkhus only to trifling and insignificant >matters, to the minor details of mere moral virtue, that a >wordling would refer when speaking in praise of the Tathagata. >And what are those trifling matters, those minor details of mere >moral virtue?" the sutta then lists many virtues such as not >killing or stealing, being chaste, no harsh speech, no idle >chatter.. no meals after midday....etc. This is not what I understand as equanimity. >As your post indicates your friends and relatives look at your >outer behaviour, My post was not intending to indicate this. Why did you think so? >they try to estimate your wisdom based on this. >They don't know that only an anagami has eradicated anger >forever; they don't know that someone may have suppressed lust >and anger for their whole life - by true samatha - but have no >insight into the true nature of dhammas; that someone else again might >appear always calm but only have clinging to pleasant feeling. >If they discussed much with you they would know more about your >insight - then they would know that, as a disciple of the >buddha, you can help them understand life in profound ways. Then >they wouldn't be so concerned about slips in behaviour. maybe >they would think it is natural - if they understood the >conditioned nature of dhammas. What? I think we're on different subjects here. I don't confuse calm with equanimity. I have always been calm but equanimity is something relatively new to me. I don't know if anyone else is trying to estimate my wisdom, but I don't think it's a high priority. >robert > >Metta, Victoria 6249 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 1:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The meaning of Equanimity Dear Tori, I think I was unclear. From "I wrote a post to paul a while back that may have bearing on this.." All of the rest is simply a cut and paste from a post I wrote to Paul that I thought might have had some mild bearing on this. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5503 As you show it was in fact completely off the topic. sorry robert --- Tori Korshak wrote: > At 03:56 PM 7/13/01 +0000, you wrote: > >--- Tori Korshak > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Robert, > Now it's my turn to be puzzled by your post. More below. > > > > Dear Jon, > > > > > > Thank you for this, but I am puzzled. If developing > equanimity > >helps to > > > curb lobha and dosa (and it does in my experience), is > that not an > >aid to > > > knowing the true characteristic of a reality? If I am not > blinded > >by my own > > > clinging or aversions , are these realities not more > likely to be > >seen > > > clearly? Why is it not an advantage to panna to abandon > clinging > >and > > > develop equanimity? I wouldn't trust a monk for example > who > >exhibited a lot > > > of dosa to have panna. > >______________________________ > >Dear Tori, > >I think what really blinds you to these realities is that > they are > >taken as self, as "my dosa, my lobha". > >I wrote a post to Paul a while back that may have bearing on > this. > > >>"Sarah told me a story. When she was staying with friends > in > >Australia (old students of khun Sujin), they were taking her > to > >the airport to catch a flight back to hong kong. They were > >running very late and sarah was showing some agitation. > >These friends then said that "this shows how much more > >understanding Sujin has"; because a few months earlier the > same > >thing happened when Sujin was visiting Australia -they only > got > >her on the flight with minutes to spare. BUT Sujin showed no > >concern at all. > >Later on when Sarah commented on this to Khun Sujin all she > said > >was "they don't understand the path". > > > Well for example, I can relate to this. Since studying and > meditating, I > find that when traveling, things like delays and missed > flights truly don't > disturb me the way they used to. This is not pretending but a > big change. > Of course one doesn't like to inconvenience others who have > made plans at > the other end but when it can't be helped there is more > acceptance and > understanding that my reaction one way or the other won't > change events. > > > >You see we can't tell someones understanding by how calm they > >appear. > > No-only one can know that for oneself-not others. > > >I can't be surprised or even much disapointed when anger > arises > >(in myself or others) as it seems such a natural thing. It is > >sankhara dhamma , conditioned phenomena, it arises because > there > >are the right coincidence of paccaya (conditions) for this to > >happen. > > I agree but there are fewer conditions arising now that > understanding is > changing. > > > In earlier days I would have tried to do something, and > >felt guilty, but this is 'putting an extra head on top of the > >original one". > > Yes after the fact one cannot stop the arising. Only through > understanding > beforehand. > > >I have had the benefit of knowing many different cult > members. > >Some of them have the idea that they should always be happy - > so > >they always act happy. or some think thye should act serious > >(because of dukkha) so they act serious. Actually it is not > >really an act as they aim towards happy feeling or serious > >feeling and so build up the conditions for this. Of course > they > >don't always succeed but they head in such directions. > However, > >to my thinking although they keep outward sila to a high > degree, > >they don't have insight into real Dhamma. They are clinging > to > >view and self , to virtue and ritual . (silabataparamasa). > >In the Brahmajala sutta (trans. Bodhi All embracing net of > >views p56) "It is bhikkhus only to trifling and insignificant > >matters, to the minor details of mere moral virtue, that a > >wordling would refer when speaking in praise of the > Tathagata. > >And what are those trifling matters, those minor details of > mere > >moral virtue?" the sutta then lists many virtues such as not > >killing or stealing, being chaste, no harsh speech, no idle > >chatter.. no meals after midday....etc. > > This is not what I understand as equanimity. > > > >As your post indicates your friends and relatives look at > your > >outer behaviour, > > My post was not intending to indicate this. Why did you think > so? > > >they try to estimate your wisdom based on this. > >They don't know that only an anagami has eradicated anger > >forever; they don't know that someone may have suppressed > lust > >and anger for their whole life - by true samatha - but have > no > >insight into the true nature of dhammas; that someone else > again might > >appear always calm but only have clinging to pleasant > feeling. > >If they discussed much with you they would know more about > your > >insight - then they would know that, as a disciple of the > >buddha, you can help them understand life in profound ways. > Then > >they wouldn't be so concerned about slips in behaviour. maybe > >they would think it is natural - if they understood the > >conditioned nature of dhammas. > > What? I think we're on different subjects here. > I don't confuse calm with equanimity. I have always been calm > but > equanimity is something relatively new to me. I don't know if > anyone else > is trying to estimate my wisdom, but I don't think it's a high > priority. > > >robert > > > >Metta, > > Victoria > 6250 From: Tori Korshak Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 1:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The meaning of Equanimity > >Dear Robert, Ah now I understand. Thanks for clearing the confusion! Metta, Victoria Also thanks to Howard for helpful reference in Wings to Awakening which,coincidentally, I have been reading at the moment. It does say that equanimity is a factor on the path to Awakening. >Robert, > > Now it's my turn to be puzzled by your post. More below. > > > > > > Dear Jon, > > > > > > > > Thank you for this, but I am puzzled. If developing > > equanimity > > >helps to > > > > curb lobha and dosa (and it does in my experience), is > > that not an > > >aid to > > > > knowing the true characteristic of a reality? If I am not > > blinded > > >by my own > > > > clinging or aversions , are these realities not more > > likely to be > > >seen > > > > clearly? Why is it not an advantage to panna to abandon > > clinging > > >and > > > > develop equanimity? I wouldn't trust a monk for example > > who > > >exhibited a lot > > > > of dosa to have panna. > > >______________________________ 6251 From: craig garner Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 1:38am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] re: Rules for Married couples. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:20 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] re: Rules for Married couples. > Dear kom and robert, thanks for your directions I will search around and see what else I can find on the subject. Best wishes Craig 6252 From: cybele chiodi Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 4:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The meaning of Equanimity Dear Rob But are you not supposed to be a sotapanna? A Sotapanna can go 'off topic'? I think you are ageing that's it! ;-))))) Better you are becoming wiser and a bit messy... ;-) Love Cybele 6253 From: m. nease Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 6:05am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity Dear Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > According to the Pali texts, only panna can > eradicate defilements and lead > towards the end of the volitional cycle. The > development of upekkha > (equanimity) as one of the Brahma vihara (heavenly > abidings) is an aspect > of samatha and hence is a high level of kusala but > in and of itself leads > to continuation of the volitional cycle. With the > development of high > levels of samatha, it may seem that the kilesa are > reduced, but in fact > the latent tendencies are being suppressed rather > than removed. Great post. I'm a great fan of equanimity too, meaning that I very much like anything which conditions it--a certain sign of akusala (the liking, I mean). I also think that everything in your post is spot on in the context of satipatthana in everyday life. > The development of panna is not contingent on, or > particularly assisted > by, developing equanimity. I guess it could be argued that upekkhaa contributes to paññaa and to the eradication of defilements when it is a feature of some of the advanced jhana states which lead to nibbana by way of the jhanas. As I have no experience of this and don't expect to, I don't give it that much thought. Outside this (I think) very unusual context, and certainly for the purposes of most of our experience, I think your points are very well made (for what my opinion's worth). mike 6254 From: Christine Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 7:07am Subject: was No Subject - now A Happy Married Life Hi Craig, An interesting on-line book may be of some use to you: "A Happy Married Life" by Ven. Sri K. Dhammananda http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha186.htm metta, Christine --- "craig garner" wrote: > Dear Sangha, could anybody please give me some clues to what kind of rules a buddhist couple should follow? with refference to marriage etc... I have read a bit hear and a bit there but it seems a little confusing for me, at least maybe a few of you could point me in the right dirrection it would be much appreciated. with metta Craig. > > > 6255 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 7:15am Subject: Re: The meaning of Equanimity Dear Mike, Indifferent feeling (Upekkha cetasika) can arise in both wholesome and unwholesome dhamma. Equanimity (tatra-majjhattata cetasika) can rise *only* in wholesome dhamma. Equanimity implies the co-arising consciousness and mental factors must be wholesome. Equanimity, just like any other dhamma, comes in different strength. Equanimity in dana results in a giving. Equanimity in tranquil meditation results eventually in Jhana. Equanimity in satipatthana (as in a factor of englightenment) results eventually in the 8-fold paths. Equanimity in dana and equanimity in tranquil meditation don't directly result in the 8-fold path; otherwise, even people without the teachings of Buddha would become enlightened. Equanimity in dana and equanimity in tranquil meditation, with the concurrance of satipathana, probably support one another (I have heard TA Sujin mentioning a sutta that says any kusala "contribute"). There has been some discussions about this, although without conclusion (in my view). kom 6257 From: Joe Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 8:45am Subject: Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! I believe this may be one of the issues touched upon in a book called The Problem of Mind in Buddhism. It's out of print nowadays I think, but it's basically a review of Buddhist definitions of mind and consciousness (across sects) from the perspective of modern western philosophy. The conclusion was, if I remember correctly, that neither mind nor consciousness are ever satisfactorily defined (again, from the perspective of modern logic) in Buddhist texts, and that the explanations are contradictory. Doesn't bother me, since I don't expect Buddhism to be logical or scientific. But many people do. Joe --- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Derek - > > > I found the following on the Access to Insight site. It is from the sutta > I had in mind: > > > Ignorance > > avijja > > > The definition > > > > "And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the > > cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of > > ignorance? Not knowing about dukkha, not knowing about the origin of dukkha > > , not knowing about the cessation of dukkha, not knowing about the way > > leading to the cessation of dukkha -- this is called ignorance. With the > > arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance; with the cessation > > of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way leading to the > > cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right > > view...right concentration." ... "And what are the taints, what is the > > origin of the taints, what is the cessation of the taints, what is the way > > leading to the cessation of the taints? There are three taints: the taint > > of sensual desire, the taint of being and the taint of ignorance. With the > > arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints. With the cessation > > of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints. The way leading to the > > cessation of the taints is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right > > view...right concentration." > > >> -- MN 9 > > > Notice that this includes: "With the arising of the taints there is > the arising of ignorance; with the cessation of the taints there is the > cessation of ignorance." And yet, as you point out, ignorance, itself, is > given as one of the four taints. (So, it is a little confusing, unless > ignorance as a taint is considered to be different in some manner from > ignorance as a factor in the cycle of dependent arising.) > > 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) > 6258 From: cybele chiodi Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 9:56am Subject: Loving kindness for a friend >>Dear group >> >>I have a special appeal to make: I came to know this evening about a dear >>friend of mine, a commited buddhist and a lovely human being >>who has to >>undergoe by-pass surgery next week. >>He is going to be admitted in hospital on Monday and surgery is planned to >>Wednesday morning Asian time. >>I am concerned with him and wish I could be there to help. >>But I can't at least not physically. My heart sure will be there, close to >>this friend. >>I would like to make an appeal to whoever believe in the power of Metta >>and is in goodwill to concentrate on this person and send him >>healing >>vibrations of loving kindness. >>I am very grateful if you feel like collaborating in this mind-heart >>sinergy to give strenght to another human who is in a >>difficult moment >>joining this metta meditation. >>Thank you very much for your interest and consideration. >> >>Metta-Karuna >> >>Cybele >> 6259 From: m. nease Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 10:27am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The meaning of Equanimity Dear Kom This sort of thing is why I value your posts so much. However, when I spoke of akusala it was with regard to liking (lobha) of that which conditions upekkhaa. To me that's the problem (or one of the problems) with cultivation of any of the brahma viharas--the pleasant feeling attending any of them can condition so much attachment retrospectively, to whatever conditioned them. Have I missed anything here? mike --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Mike, > > Indifferent feeling (Upekkha cetasika) can arise in > both wholesome and > unwholesome dhamma. > > Equanimity (tatra-majjhattata cetasika) can rise > *only* in wholesome > dhamma. Equanimity implies the co-arising > consciousness and mental > factors must be wholesome. > > Equanimity, just like any other dhamma, comes in > different strength. > Equanimity in dana results in a giving. Equanimity > in tranquil meditation > results eventually in Jhana. Equanimity in > satipatthana (as in a factor of > englightenment) results eventually in the 8-fold > paths. > > Equanimity in dana and equanimity in tranquil > meditation don't directly > result in the 8-fold path; otherwise, even people > without the teachings > of Buddha would become enlightened. > > Equanimity in dana and equanimity in tranquil > meditation, with the > concurrance of satipathana, probably support one > another (I have heard > TA Sujin mentioning a sutta that says any kusala > "contribute"). There > has been some discussions about this, although > without conclusion (in > my view). > > kom > 6260 From: ppp Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 3:01am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Hi, Joe: "Mind" or "Conciousness" is not well defined in the Theravada Buddhism, simply because from the Buddhist view point, there is no "mind" or "conciousness" which we can regard as an " entity". From the viewpoint of the Theravada Buddhism, each moment of experince is A mind, which may probably not last more than 10 or 15 milliseconds. Another mind will follow the previoius mind, experiencing either the same or different object (through the same or different door way). So, there is no mind or conciousness which can be located in one's body. In the stream of the moment-to-moment experiences, in fact, we cannot "find" not only mind/conciousness but a person who houses it. Since there is no mind which we can be defined as an entity in a conventional sense, the Theravada Buddhists do not get into the (Western) philosophical disuccion of the nature of mind/conciousness. tadao 6261 From: Jim Anderson Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 10:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Vakkali-Ray) Joe, >Very good. Can you translate the phrases? Meanwhile I work on it >myself. > >Thanks very much. > >Joe I think some of these phrases may be beyond my capability after having worked on them. The one I'm really stuck on is: "appati.t.thitakaara.naa ti attho." (SA i 184 pts) which I think is crucial to understanding the "unestablished". "owing to the cause of the unestablished" (tappurisa compound?) doesn't make much sense to me. -kaara.naa is the problem word which I take as the ablative sing. of kaara.na.m (cause). The Saddaniti explains this word as "attano phala.m karotii ti kaara.na.m" (it creates/makes its own fruit; perhaps better: it effects, produces, yields its own fruit). Do you or anyone else have any clue? Jim >--- "Jim Anderson" >wrote: >> Dear Joe, >> >> >Surely anyone with even an elementary knowledge of Pali can >discern >> >whether the proper translation in 'unestablished consciousness' >> >or 'consciousness unestablished'. Pali is very precise - almost as >> >precise as Sanskrit or Latin - in the attributive. >> > >> >Do you happen to know the exact Pali phrase? >> >> appati.t.t.hitena ca bhikkhave vi~n~naa.nena Vakkali kulaputto >parinibbuto >> ti. (S iii 124 pts) >> >> For further information: >> >> commentary: >> appati.t.t.hitenaa ti pa.tisandhivi~n~naa.nena appati.t.thitena. >> appati.t.thitakaara.naa ti attho. (SA i 184 pts) >> >> (with the re-linking or rebirth consciousness not re-established) >> >> subcommentary: >> appati.t.thitenaa ti patit.tha.m alabhantena. itthambhuutalakkha.ne >eta.m >> kara.navacana.m, anuppattidhammenaa ti attho. sati hi uppaade >pati.t.thita.m >> naama siyaa, a.t.thakathaaya.m pana yadeva tassa vi~n~naa.nassa >> appati.t.thaanakaara.na.m, tadeva parinibbaanakaara.nan ti vutta.m >> appati.t.thitakaara.naa ti. (SA.T i 218 cscd) >> >> Best wishes, >> Jim 6262 From: m. nease Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 11:12am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Vakkali-Ray) Jim & Joe, Glad to see some smart guys working on this--it's certainly over my head. mike --- Jim Anderson wrote: > >Very good. Can you translate the phrases? Meanwhile > I work on it > >myself. > > > >Thanks very much. > > > >Joe > > I think some of these phrases may be beyond my > capability after having > worked on them. The one I'm really stuck on is: > "appati.t.thitakaara.naa ti > attho." (SA i 184 pts) which I think is crucial to > understanding the > "unestablished". "owing to the cause of the > unestablished" (tappurisa > compound?) doesn't make much sense to me. -kaara.naa > is the problem word > which I take as the ablative sing. of kaara.na.m > (cause). The Saddaniti > explains this word as "attano phala.m karotii ti > kaara.na.m" (it > creates/makes its own fruit; perhaps better: it > effects, produces, yields > its own fruit). Do you or anyone else have any clue? 6263 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 11:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] was No Subject - now A Happy Married Life Christine, Craig Thanks, Christine, for posting the reference to this useful guide. Craig, I think by now you will see that there are no 'rules', but there is plently of guidance. Please feel free to come back with any specific queries you may have. In my view, the most valuable support a spouse can be for his/her partner is in encouraging the continued development of understanding (this of course does not mean that the conventional courtesies and standards should not also be observed). In this respect I am the most happily married man imaginable! Jon --- Christine wrote: > > Hi Craig, > > An interesting on-line book may be of some use to you: > > "A Happy Married Life" > by Ven. Sri K. Dhammananda > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha186.htm > > metta, > > Christine > --- "craig garner" wrote: > > Dear Sangha, could anybody please give me some clues to what kind > of rules a buddhist couple should follow? with refference to marriage > etc... I have read a bit hear and a bit there but it seems a little > confusing for me, at least maybe a few of you could point me in the > right dirrection it would be much appreciated. with metta Craig. > > 6264 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 11:19am Subject: Re: The meaning of Equanimity Dear Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Kom > > This sort of thing is why I value your posts so much. > However, when I spoke of akusala it was with regard to > liking (lobha) of that which conditions upekkhaa. To > me that's the problem (or one of the problems) with > cultivation of any of the brahma viharas--the pleasant > feeling attending any of them can condition so much > attachment retrospectively, to whatever conditioned > them. Have I missed anything here? > > mike I haven't seen you missing anything at all. I was just trying to add to the discussion that people sometimes confuse the different neutrality including: 1) Upekkha and Tatramajjhatta 2) Tatramajjhatta that arises with samatha, and Tatramajjhatta that arises with the satipatthana Here is a list of upekkah definition: (http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat5.html): There are 10 kinds of upekkha (indifference), namely Chalagupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika which is indifferent to the 6 arammana of the arahanta, who has eradicated all kilesa. Brahmaviharupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika which is indifferent to all entities. Bojjhagupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika which is one of the components that make enlightenment possible. Viriyupekkha, the viriya-cetasika which is right perseverance which is not too tense nor too lax in the development of bhavana. Sankharupekkha, the panna-cetasika that is indifferent when the realization of the tilakkhana of the sankhara-dhamma. Vedanupekkha, the vedana-cetasika that does not feel unhappy or happy. Vipassanupekkha, the panna-cetasika that is neutral in the consideration of the arammana that arises from causes and conditions. Tatramajjhattatupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika that is neutral, not biased or partial. Jhanupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika in the jhana which attenuates the preoccupation by other dhamma which renders the peace less steadfast. This intends especially the tatiyajjhana (from the perspective of the 4 rupa-jhana), which has abandoned piti. Parisuddhupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika in the catutthajjhana (from the perspective of the 4 rupa-jhana), which is completely peaceful and cleansed from all adversaries, without any further function to abandon the elements of jhana. 6265 From: cybele chiodi Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 11:24am Subject: Experience or attitude? Dear group I forward this reply of mine from another list to share with you. >So much of Dharma is about attitude.... Dharma is about life not about attitude regarding my personal experience. You cannot learn Dhamma if we don't apply it in our daily efforts to get insights into reality. Dhamma is about the awareness of present moment and there is no knowledge of texts that can ever teach you this if you don't open yourself mind and heart to the practice. I have met walking in this so called spiritual path plenty of people using Dhamma to shield themselves from reality rather than develop mindfulness of the very same reality. To create new, gratifying identities and roles rather than dismiss the self and look honestly in the emptiness. Aspiration and study are excellent tools but if you don't dive in the ocean you don't learn how to swim. The books and the erudition are not going to keep you afloat. Dhamma is in the alchemy of daily life, is the fire of attention warming up our existence, transforming our minds, our hearts. True compassion is not an attitude: is giving yourself without fear and in wholeheartedness. Wisdom is not an uplifting concept, wisdom is skilfulness that you build up everyday, practicing, experiencing, living the Dhamma. Mindfulness is about having the courage to investigate reality, facing it without denial, accepting whatever comes. It is not simply an attitude, is DOING IT, is commiting yourself. Dhamma is not a philosophical choice, Dhamma is experiencing our life considering it at every moment, whatsoever you do. Living Dhamma is the only way to learn authentic Dhamma in my experience. Great discourses point the way but if you don't walk the path you cannot reach there. As William Blake would say 'life delights in life' and Dhamma delights in Dhamma...practice. :-) LOve Cybele 6266 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 1:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity Tori --- Tori Korshak wrote: > Thank you for this, but I am puzzled. As well you might be! This is not an easy area to get a grasp of. As Kom mentions, there are at least 10 meanings of equanimity (these are given at Vis. IV, 156 ff.), but most commonly it is used in one of 3 ways— 1. Equanimity as indifferent or neutral feeling 2. Equanimity as one of the 4 ‘Divine Abidings’ (metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha) 3. Equanimity as one of the enlightenment factors (bojjhanga). As (1), it is the mental factor of feeling (vedana). Feeling can be either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. By the way, while unpleasant feeling occurs only with unwholesome citta (moment of consciousness), neutral feeling, like pleasant feeling, can arise with both wholesome and unwholesome cittas. As (2) and (3), it is a mental factor in its own right (or, as some call it, an ethical quality). To confuse things even further, as a mental factor it is also known also known as tatra-majjhattataa, which literally means ‘neutrality towards’ or ‘keeping in the middle of things’. This mental factor of upekkha/tatra-majjhattataa arises with all wholesome cittas. It has the characteristic of effecting the balance of consciousness and the accompanying mental factors; the function of preventing excessiveness and deficiency, or inhibiting partiality (Vis. XIV, 153). These are its general characteristic and function. However, its specific characteristic and function varies slightly depending on the exact nature and degree of the kusala citta it accompanies. As (2) in particular, it is the mental factor that accompanies citta of the level of samatha (of a particular kind). As (3), it is the mental factor that accompanies citta at a moment of satipatthana. > If developing equanimity helps to > curb lobha and dosa (and it does in my experience), is that not an aid > to > knowing the true characteristic of a reality? If I am not blinded by my > own > clinging or aversions , are these realities not more likely to be seen > clearly? Why is it not an advantage to panna to abandon clinging and > develop equanimity? I think we have to be careful here. The so-called practice of developing equanimity may in fact not be kusala of any kind at all. If it stems from a desire to have less lobha and dosa (whether because of the belief that lobha and dosa are antithetical to the development of understanding or for any other reason), it is bound to be akusala. It is just an aspect of the desire for more kusala/understanding or less akusala. I am not saying this is so in your case, but I mention it because one often finds references which seem to suggest that this is part of the way of practice taught by the Buddha. The real issue that you raise is whether lobha and dosa are a hindrance to the development of understanding. The answer is, yes and no. It is said in the texts that the hindrances (lobha and dosa of various kinds) ‘weaken insight’, and that of course is true as regards the moment at which they arise, since all unwholesome cittas are rooted in moha. But there can in the moment(s) following the lobha or dosa, or even in between moments of sustained lobha or dosa, be awareness of the characteristic of those realities, so we should not be closed to the potential for moments of awareness at such times, no matter how strong the lobha or dosa. If we have the idea that awareness is possible only, or is much more likely to arise, when lobha and dosa have been curbed or reduced, this will be an obstacle to the development of awareness at moments whenever lobha or dosa are present (and for all such moments for the rest of this lifetime, because its not going to change any time soon!) - and this is probably most of the time if only we knew it. > … I wouldn't trust a monk for example who exhibited a > lot > of dosa to have panna. I’m not sure I want to comment on this! But the key thing to remember is the observation made by Robert, that the level of a person’s calmness (or lack of it) is no measure of his/her level of understanding. This is because the function of understanding is to understand the true characteristic of the reality that presents itself at the present moment, be it a nama or rupa, and nothing more than that, while a person’s level of calm at a given moment is a reflection of a number of things including his/her accumulated wholesomeness of various kinds (including samatha) or possibly even his/her attachment to the current object. Jon 6267 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 2:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Excellent post Tadao. robert p.s I think the speed of the falling away is even faster than you mention. --- ppp wrote: > Hi, Joe: > "Mind" or "Conciousness" is not well defined in the > Theravada Buddhism, simply because from the Buddhist view > point, there is no "mind" or "conciousness" which we can > regard as an " entity". From the viewpoint of the Theravada > Buddhism, each moment of experince is A mind, which may > probably not last more than 10 or 15 milliseconds. Another > mind will > follow the previoius mind, experiencing either the same > or different object (through the same or different door > way). So, there is no mind or conciousness which can be > located in one's body. In the stream of the moment-to-moment > experiences, in fact, we cannot "find" not only > mind/conciousness > but a person who houses it. > Since there is no mind which we can be defined as an entity in > a conventional sense, the Theravada Buddhists do not get into > the > (Western) philosophical disuccion of the nature of > mind/conciousness. > tadao > 6268 From: craig garner Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 2:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] was No Subject - now A Happy Married Life ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 12:41 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] was No Subject - now A Happy Married Life Hola Christina, thanks very much it looks really helpfull and detailed it will be very beneficial ! Thanks for your great help it is appreciated, with metta Craig > > Hi Craig, > > An interesting on-line book may be of some use to you: > > "A Happy Married Life" > by Ven. Sri K. Dhammananda > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha186.htm > > metta, > > Christine > --- "craig garner" wrote: > > Dear Sangha, could anybody please give me some clues to what kind > of rules a buddhist couple should follow? with refference to marriage > etc... I have read a bit hear and a bit there but it seems a little > confusing for me, at least maybe a few of you could point me in the > right dirrection it would be much appreciated. with metta Craig. > > > > 6269 From: craig garner Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 2:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] was No Subject - now A Happy Married Life Dear Jon, Thanks aswell and I agree in full , I just want to be as well informed because I have failed one marriage and in this new union want to do my best in all ways possible. mucho metta Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 5:19 AM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] was No Subject - now A Happy Married Life > Christine, Craig > > Thanks, Christine, for posting the reference to this useful guide. > > Craig, I think by now you will see that there are no 'rules', but there is > plently of guidance. Please feel free to come back with any specific > queries you may have. > > In my view, the most valuable support a spouse can be for his/her partner > is in encouraging the continued development of understanding (this of > course does not mean that the conventional courtesies and standards should > not also be observed). In this respect I am the most happily married man > imaginable! > > Jon > > > --- Christine wrote: > > > Hi Craig, > > > > An interesting on-line book may be of some use to you: > > > > "A Happy Married Life" > > by Ven. Sri K. Dhammananda > > > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha186.htm > > > > metta, > > > > Christine > > --- "craig garner" wrote: > > > Dear Sangha, could anybody please give me some clues to what kind > > of rules a buddhist couple should follow? with refference to marriage > > etc... I have read a bit hear and a bit there but it seems a little > > confusing for me, at least maybe a few of you could point me in the > > right dirrection it would be much appreciated. with metta Craig. > > > > > > 6270 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jul 14, 2001 2:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity Dear group Just a minor point which probably everyone knows. Equaminity (tatramajjhattat