6400 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 10:56am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Narada Thera - U Narada Dear Rob > >Ahh. The monk who did the Patthana trans. is U Narada of Burma >(not Narada thera- my alzheimers is really kicking in these >days). >Why was the sri lankan Narada notorious? >robert AHHH, now you really got a profound insight here! Precocious senility and imperious tones with me and I even felt guilty! Lord Buddha, I am being brainwashed!! Help!!! Indeed I already ordered in Amazon the book you suggested me about mind control, I am worried... Narada Thera from Sri Lanka is considered a great scholar and he wrote many books but his "Buddha and his Teachings" a huge volume considered a basic and valuable introduction to the fundamental principles of Buddhism. It's a kind of 'Bible' and he is very well considered in Sri Lanka and in Asia generally. He was an excellent teacher it seems. Love and take care, at your age you must be attentive ;-) Cybele >--- cybele chiodi wrote: > > > > Dear Rob > > > > > > > Thera is a title that any monk with over 10 rains can be > > >referred by. U is a prefix that even some respected > > layBurmese > > >are given. > > > > This I know Rob I have been doing the apparently 'useless' > > formal meditation > > in both Sri Lanka and Burma but the monk you are referring who > > is : Narada > > Thera from Sri Lanka or U Narada from Burma who translated the > > Patthana? > > > > You wrote: > > I have both volumes - and very good > > > > >they are too (trans. by Narada thera of burma). > > > > This I pointed out because if you use Thera for U Narada can > > be confusing > > being the Narada Thera from Sri Lanka quite notorious. > > > > Then you are not aging and I am nit-picking, do you prefer > > like this? > > I apologyse if I gave the impression of being pedantic, it was > > not my > > intention. > > > > Cybele > > 6401 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 11:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Speed of falling away (was Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Tadao and Mike (and Howard) --- ppp wrote: > Hi, Mike: > I've read your last question carefully, and I can tell you > that I am not the right person to answer your question. > You should direct the question to Nina. She is able to > answer your question from the viewpoint of Abidhamma. > Although to study things from the Abhidhammic viewpoint > differ, in nature, from the actual experiences; > at least, it provides us with theoretical/ > intellectual grasp of the issue in hand. > (I've forgot so many things about Abhidhmma and have > to stduy it again.) > tadao I believe the question of Mike's you refer to is the same question as Mike, Howard and I have been discussing. I think Nina has already given some comments on this, in her recent post to Num (she may well be able to add more, though). I re-post here the relevant part of that message-- "When sati is mindful of seeing, seeing has fallen away, but when it has just fallen away, its characteristic can be realized as a nama. The same for dosa that can be object of awareness. The question is, how far past is past. But sati that is mindful of a nama or rupa is not arising together with that nama or rupa, not sampayutta, it arises in a following process. Sampayutta refers only to citta and cetasikas arising together. "Sati is also used in the sense of recollection of what is past, even past lives. In fact there are many aspects of sati, referred to in the co. to the Milinda Panha. You may reflect with sati on the past, and at that moment there can be the realization that it is nama that reflects. So many different cittas, very intricate." Nina then goes on to remind us that the purpose of studying and discussing all these areas is to support the study of the reality appearing at the present moment. This is something it is very easy to forget, especially if we are having difficulty accepting something intellectually - it can so easily distract us from the real task. I have re-posted this part of her message below. Jon [From message #6343 in the archives] Lets be aware of what appears now. I quote Acharn Sujin, from the conversations in Cambodia: < The development of satipaììhåna is the development of paññå, and there should not be an idea of self who intends to do something particular in order to induce paññå. Then there is no sati which is aware of the characteristic of the dhamma that naturally arises and appears at this moment because of the appropriate conditions. Someone who does not have understanding of satipaììhåna may ask, while he is seeing naturally, what he should do in order to have sati. It is not the right practice if someone wishes to do something particular in order to have sati, because nobody can cause the arising of any reality. People can listen to the Dhamma, they can investigate, consider and understand what they hear, so that they will know that the dhamma appearing at this moment is real, and that it appears through one doorway at a time. Therefore, it is necessary to have more understanding about the realities appearing one at a time through each of the doorways. At this moment, for example, an object is appearing through the eyes and thus, it can be seen. However, if there is no citta, no reality or element that experiences something, thus, a reality which sees the object that appears, that object cannot appear. If someone sees naturally but he does not realize the distinction between the characteristic of the object that appears and the reality that sees, vipassanå, insight, is not being developed. Therefore, the only thing people can do is listening to the Dhamma so that they understand correctly that seeing at this moment is only a kind of reality, a dhamma. One should listen, investigate and consider what one hears, so that one can gradually understand that there are only realities, no self. Dhammas are real, they are beyond control, they arise naturally because of their appropriate conditions.> 6402 From: Larry Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 11:15am Subject: Re: Sankhara = Cetana Re: pali/abhidhamma question Dear Suan Lu Zaw, Fantastic!!! A thousand thank you's for your wonderful research. There is much to study in your message so I don't have anything to add right now except thanks again. Larry Biddinger 6403 From: ppp Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 4:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Speed of falling away (was Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! HI, Jonothan: Thank you very much for citing the previoiusly posted passage by Khun Nina and the passage by Khun Sujin. Khun Nina's comment is right on the issue (although I do not understand how/why the recollection of far past can be regarded as a type of sati). In my view, sati should be defined in its narrowest sense. tadao 6404 From: Larry Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 11:48am Subject: Re: Sankhara = Cetana Re: pali/abhidhamma question Dear Num, thank you for your reply. My knowledge of Pali has only been picked up in bits and pieces from reading translations so it's going to take awhile to sort it out. My interest in sankhara is that it seems to be a key concept, not well understood. So far to me it almost has the sense of "to cognitively grasp", but that doesn't quite fit. As "intention" seemingly it conditions kamma and if paticcasamupada=kamma, perhaps it could be said that sankhara conditions every aspect of paticcasamuppada since dukkha is conditioned by delusion and delusion is conceptual or perhaps concept itself. Paticcasamuppada is all dukkha (tanha), right? Well enough babblng for one night, thanks again. Larry 6405 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 0:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sati/panna and its object (was: The meaning of Equan... Dear Howard, A very good question. Paramattha dhammas arise and fall according to their nature. However, they arise and fall in processes. In between each process there are bhavanga cittas (the same cittas that arise and fall continually during deep sleep). In a sense they are the cushioning area between processes. I just heard on a tape someoone say to Acharn sujin that only the buddha and wise disciple like sariputta could really know bhavanga citta but Sujin said that even developed insight now can understand it (to some degree).The gist of what she was saying is that other wise it would seem like seeing and hearing, for example, blended into each other (because there is no gap between cittas) but panna (insight) sees that this is not so. Also upon awakening from deep sleep if sati arises the difference between bhavanga and the sense door and minddoor processes can be known. "We" could never see these matters but it is the function of panna to do its duty and understand. Someone might hear this and think they will try to "observe" this matter, but it cannot be comprehended by such a method. It is all happening so fast and the very idea of observing is caught up with subtle self view. In a similar vein some people think they observe rise and fall but before ther can be true insight into rise and fall there must be the understanding that clearly distinguishes nama from rupa. Sujin stresses that there must be firm understanding that knows anatta at the intellectual level before deeper insight can arise. Otherwise one will have the idea that sati and panna can be manufactured by will; not seeing the real conditions for these factors; not seeing that they are simply conditioned phenomena (not self). The cittas in the sense door and minddoor processes arise in strict order. Why? Because that is the nature, the law. Each citta is different from the last but it is intimately conditioned by the other cittas in the same process. It is an extreme to think that each citta is its own little package- it is another extreme to think they are blended together in any way. These matters are the way they are; and the Abhidhamma explains it as accurately as it is possible to be put into words. Only a Surpreme Buddha - a SammaSammBuddha- could convey this knowledge. Even a Pacceka Buddha who is enlightened by himself could not elucidate this so that others could understand. robert --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 7/16/01 11:21:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > On this issue to when we talk about moments we should > rememeber > > the various conditions such as anataraya - paccaya > (proximity > > condition)and other conditions. The present moment is > > conditioned by the preceeding moment by this condition (not > to > > mention other conditions) . > > It is not that when we talk about moments arising and > passing > > away that they are totally discrete little packages (it can > > sound that way but this is not what is meant in the > Abhidhamma). > > This is thoroughly explained in the Patthana, the last book > of > > the Abhidhamma. > > best wishes > > > ============================ > Yes, I understand that preceding cittas condition the > current citta in > various ways, and the various cetasikas within a given citta > bear relations > to each other. But there still is exactly one citta at any > time, with "sharp > boundaries" so-to-speak; that is, a citta wouldn'y be modeled > by, say, a > fuzzy interval, would it? (Or would it?) > > With metta, > Howard > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at > dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a > flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > 6406 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 1:28pm Subject: Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Dear Cybele, --- "cybele chiodi" wrote: > > Suppose my previous post to Rob and you answer the question. > But no I suppose he doesn't practice what is called an orthodox practice of > meditation. > Lord Buddha, listen to me, I will become dogmatic and fundamentalist going > on like this.....;-) OK. So, I think you classify Robert's practice as unorthodox because: a) He did not sit down cross-legged and observe the breath b) He did not employ any tools that you have observed to be useful to your own practice including: 1) Silence to avoid increasing the conceptual thoughts 2) Walking slowly to slow down mental proliferation, and to be able to keenly observe the movement. > I use the four foundations of mindfulness as described in the sutta: > > Body > Sensations/feelings > Mind > Mental contents I have a set of questions following from this. Set 1: Using the whole sutta ================== Maha-satipatthana sutta also mentions other related samatha objects including bodies, corpses and bones. Do you use all such tools? If not, then my question is, since not the entire sutta is followed in both yours and Robert's cases, how can I demarcate what is "formal" and what is "informal". In Robert's case, he is not using the sitting down as a tool, in your case, you may not be using other mentioned tools in the sutta. Hence, if I take the definition that one must peruse the entire sutta, then neither your nor Robert's practice is formal. Set 2: Observing the body movement and posture =============================== When I was going through such a retreat, I could never figure out how one observes the "sitting" posture. I ended up observing the hardness appearing on the other parts of the body as the observation object. Since you mention observing body movement, what is observed when the body moves? Do you envisioning the body moving? What are the differences between having "standing", "sitting", or "walking" as the observation object, and having "hardness" as the observation object? Set 3: Using techniques not in the sutta ========================= I think we have come to an agreement that slow walking and silence are not explicitly in the maha-satipatthana sutta. In fact, I don't know of any sutta that the buddha mentioned doing things slowly to be helpful to developing the path or developing sati. The Buddha mentioned that he has completely laid out all that are helpful in reaching the path. How come doing things slowly is not explicitly mentioned? The noble silence is indeed praised by the Buddha. But, as far as I know, it is said in the context of being superior alternative to speeches that are not useful, not referring to dhamma, not referring to vinnaya, not leading toward nibbana. Again, I don't know of any sutta that even discourages such useful speeches. At least one sutta refers to hearing the Buddha dhamma's as being a pre-requisite to insights. Since during such a retreat, all speeches are virtually prohibited (they kick you out if you talk too much!). How come is a useful speech (or reading) prohibited in such a practice, but not by Buddha? Set 4: The purpose of dhamma and Satipatthana ============================== I thought the Buddha's dhamma and Satipatthana's purpose is so one can know the realities (dhamma) as they truly are. If you agree with this, how come Robert's practice, which also leads to knowing the realities as they truly are, are not as useful as a "formal" practice? Because he doesn't employ tools that would "accelerate" his practice or "sharpen" his insights? What do you think of the view that one can use drug to sharpen one's insight also? This is also not in the sutta, but there are definitely personal anecdotes of how this is helpful to sharpen one's insights? This is somewhat of an extreme comparison, but I am just wondering how far one pursues the objective of having more, better, or sharper insights by following other people advice about how to have them? kom 6407 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 2:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity Mike I'm glad you found it useful. Sarah is the keeper of the files, so it depends if it passes her critical scrutiny (having your endorsement will be a plus ;-) ). Jon --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > This is really excellent--I think you should add it to > the files for future reference. I'm certainly adding > your quotations to my own 'toolbox'. > > mike > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Tori > > > > > Dear Jon, > > > No I guess you're right. I wonder if there isn't a > > world of difference > > > between the conceptualising that men feel so > > comfortable with as opposed > > > to > > > the more earthy realities women are keen to get to > > grips with? > > > > 'Discouraging', 'conceptualising male', if the cap > > fits, I'll just have to > > wear it! > > > > But I think this is really another form of the > > 'intellectual approach vs. > > practical approach' argument that is often made. > > Rather than labelling it > > as one thing or another, it is perhaps more useful > > to consider exactly > > what is indicated in the texts. In the Kitagiri > > Sutta (MN 70) [passage A > > below], the Buddha explained that the development of > > the path is gradual > > and involves in succession listening to someone > > knowledgeable in the > > teachings, considering what one has heard, > > understanding that fully at an > > intellectual level ("gaining a reflective > > acceptance") and applying what > > one has understood. > > > > So what many people refer to as their 'practice' is > > at best only a part of > > the "gradual training, gradual practice and gradual > > progress" teaching, > > each stage of which has its prerequisites and > > conditions. > > > > Nor is this series of gradual steps a > > once-and-for-all thing. It > > continues to be the way of progress until final > > enlightenment. Even the > > sotapanna needs to keep up the listening and > > considering [passage B below, > > same sutta]. > > > > Empty conceptualising is not a part of the path. > > Listening, discussing, > > considering is forever a necessary part of the path. > > > > Tori, I hope you, Cybele and John (and lurkers Alan > > and Rosanne) enjoy > > your afternoon with Sarah today. Wish I could be > > there! > > > > Jon > > > > A. > > MLDB translation (p. 582) > > 22. "Bhikkhus, I do not say that final knowledge is > > achieved all at once. > > On the contrary, final knowledge is achieved by > > gradual training, by > > gradual practice, by gradual progress. > > > > 23. "And how does there come to be gradual > > training, gradual practice, > > gradual progress? Here one who has faith [in a > > teacher] visits him; when > > he visits him, he pays respect to him; when he pays > > respect to him, he > > gives ear; one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; > > having heard the Dhamma > > he memorises it; he examines the meaning of the > > teachings he has > > memorised; when he examines their meaning, he gains > > a reflective > > acceptance of those teachings; when he has gained a > > reflective acceptance > > of those teachings, zeal springs up in him; when > > zeal has sprung up, he > > applies his will; having applied his will, he > > scrutinises; having > > scrutinised, he strives; resolutely striving, he > > realises with the > > [mental] body the ultimate truth and sees it by > > penetrating it with > > wisdom." > > > > B. > > MLDB translation (p. 580) > > 11. "Bhikkhus, I so not say of all bhikkhus that > > they still have work to > > do with diligence; nor do I say of all bhikkhus > > that they have no more > > work to so with diligence. > > > > 12. "I do not say of those bhikkhus who are > > arahants ... and are > > completely liberated through final knowledge, that > > they still have work to > > do with diligence. They have done their work with > > diligence; they are > > no more capable of being negligent. > > > > 13. "I say of such bhikkhus who are in higher > > training, whose minds have > > not yet reached the goal, and who are still aspiring > > to the supreme > > security from bondage, that they still have work to > > do with diligence." > > > > 6408 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 3:06pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sati/panna and its object (was: The meaning of Equan... Howard --- Howard wrote: > > Jon: > > Where the object of sati or panna is a nama, it is necessarily a nama > that > > has just fallen away, so that the nama that is the object and the > citta > > that is the moment of awareness/understanding do not arise > simultaneously. > > However, so rapid is the succession of cittas that the appearance is > as > > if both the awareness/understanding and the nama that is its object > appear > > to be occurring together (this of course assumes a number of moments > of > > each kind of citta). > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > This is something I do not "get". The "citta theory" would seem > to > imply that if the "object" of a citta is gone, then all that can be the > *current* object is a (very fresh) *memory* of the just-fallen > object,and not > the no-longer-existing object, itself. Yes, this is exactly as I understand it. I think the term "image" rather than "memory" is used. Does this present any obstacle? > Also, when you say "However, so rapid > is the succession of cittas that the appearance is as if both the > awareness/understanding and the nama that is its object appear to be > occurring together (this of course assumes a number of moments of each > kind > of citta).", I would have to ask *where* that deluded appearance of the > simultaneity of the occurrence of an object and the awareness of the > object > occurs. In yet another mind moment? Again, yes (as I understand it). There are so many different 'streams' of mind moments going on apparently simultaneously but in fact each being a succession of discrete mind moments arising repeatedly but not consecutively. For example, seeing, hearing, making sense of (conceptualising) what is being seen and heard, thinking about it, bodily movement 'commands', speech 'commands', other thoughts and feelings etc. So there is presumably room for other 'streams' also. > The more I examine the "momentary theory of cittas", a kind of > ksanavada (sp?) theory similar to that of the Sautrantikas, the more > problems > seem to arise, at least within my limited capacity. (Kalupahana finds > difficulties with it as well, BTW.) It seems to me that at least some > level > of direct knowing occurs at a trans-citta level, if, indeed, separate, > discrete moments of knowing are a reality. As I understand it, the > notion of > 'bhavangacitta' was a later commentarial one established for the express > > purpose of serving as a "fix" for non-continuity issues arising with the > > discrete-citta view. [The Sautrantikas, on the other hand, didn't adopt > that, > but simply allowed for gaps between cittas, adopting a "film-frame" view > > similar to that of Hume so many years later.] > --------------------------------------------------------------- I understand that the whole of the so-called 'cognative series' (citta-viithi) is unknown as such in the Pitakas although, according to Nanamoli, a nucleus of it, based on certain sutta-pitaka material, appears in the abhidhamma-pitaka (Vis IV, n.13). I'm sorry but I am not familiar with the other schools of thought you mention, nor with any discussion on the circumstances in which the commentarial material came to be. My initial observation on this issue would be that the writings on bhavanga have a similar pedigree to other authoratitive Theravadin writings which seem to be well supported by the texts and which purport to be received Theravadin wisdom rather than any individual's personal view. Jon 6409 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 3:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Some Additional Thoughts on: Reply to: Sati/panna and its object Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > The following also occurs to me: Nina has written in "Cetasikas" > that > > "There is only one citta at a time, cognizing one object, and each citta > is > accompanied by several cetasikas which also experience the same object, > but > which each perform their own function while they assist the citta in > cognizing that object. They arise and fall away together with the > citta." > > Moreover, sati is one of the cetasikas. Thus, the object of > sati, > when it occurs, is the very same object as the citta along with which > which > that instance of sati occurs. So, if the object of mindfulness is a > mental > one, it is the very same one that the citta discerns. If the object is a > > *previous* entire citta or any cetasika of such a citta, then, indeed, > that > is actually no longer existent, and, thus, the actual object can only be > a memory. I am not sure exactly in what terms the commentarial writings describe the object. We are talking about the moment following the falling away of the object. Whether it is regarded as a memory or image already I do not know (despite what I said in my previous post!). > A citta, then, can never take itself, or any aspect of itself, > as > object. But at any given time, there is only one citta. All past cittas > are > gone. So a mental object, an object of the mind door, is never available > for > direct observation. In that case, why call such objects ultimate > realities? We call things ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) because they have an intrinsic nature (sabhava) capable of being experienced by panna. > In fact, what leads us to think there even are such things, inasmuch as > they > are not directly observable? Do you see that there are some difficulties > here? I do not see any difficulties from the point of view of the task of the present moment. Nor particularly from a conceptual viewopint, but then I have not given this area the kind of in-depth scrutiny that you obviously have, Howard. Please feel free to expand further. Jon 6410 From: Tori Korshak Date: Mon Jul 16, 2001 11:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Meeting in the 'AgathaChristie ' village in West Sussex At 07:30 AM 7/16/01 -0700, you wrote: >--- cybele chiodi wrote: > > > >By the way, in my experience, many A-S are pretty out of > > control with their > > >emotional displays as well-so much for stereotypes! > > > > I agree and I suppose it is due to too much suppression. > > >Ha ha, very quick Cybele Yes I think so-maybe why there is so much alcoholism in northern countries. Metta, Victoria 6411 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 4:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Meeting in the 'AgathaChristie ' village in West Sussex --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > (by the way Jon, > Sarah's mother while chatting in the kitchen with me, > commented 'did you meet Jon? Very nice chap, really nice!' - > seems your prestige is going up in Sussex!). Thanks, Cybele. Must invite her to join the list - I need all the support I can get! Jon 6412 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 6:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello dsg Dear Ken, Big welcome from me. Really liked your introduction (including the part you mistake me for a 'she'). Another confirmation to my view that I am in the right group of kalyanimitr(s). May all grow in wisdom(especially me). Sukin. Ken Howard wrote: > Hello DhammaStudyGroup > > My name is Ken Howard, I am a fifty-year-old Australian who has been > lurking on this excellent list for the past seven or eight months. > In that time, I have learned more than in all of my previous twenty- > six years as a Dhamma student. > > I am posting this message, partly to say thank you for your invaluable > guidance and partly to explain my lurking behaviour. > > What a big mistake it was to think (for twenty-six years), that a > knowledge of the Abhidhamma was not important - let alone vitally > important. You (dsg) put me straight on that and, along with your > related web sites, you are making the study of a difficult subject an > absolute pleasure. > > Even more importantly, you have shown me the correct approach to the > Buddhadhamma. This Dhamma is not just another course in education or > training; we don't take it up and master it, we take refuge in > it. > Our role is to listen and learn, the rest is a matter for conditions > beyond our control. > > One of my many favourite quotes on this point is in a recent post from > Nina; > Even when satippatthana is not always expressly mentioned, it is > always implied, because it is the specific teaching of the Buddha. > His teaching is unique, not to be compared to what other teachers > before him had also taught. [end quote] > > Returning to the subject of lurking, it was Sukin who inspired me to > post this late introductory message when she wrote; > > 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. [end quote] > > Where you may be quite slow, Sukin, I am very slow - I have been all > my life and it makes me reluctant to join in conversations. So many > times I have read a reply to a dsg post and thought, "Oh, is that > what s/he meant! Am I glad no one will see the reply I had in > mind!" > > Thank you for the inspiration to come out, if only briefly. > > Kind regards to all, > Ken 6413 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 7:34pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Meeting in the 'AgathaChristie ' village in West Sussex Dear Tori Indeed and this recent discussion on alcohol was pretty interesting for me because living here I observed how people can be totally numbed by drinking alcohol. It's quite depressing sometimes. LOve Cybele > >At 07:30 AM 7/16/01 -0700, you wrote: > > >--- cybele chiodi wrote: > > > > >By the way, in my experience, many A-S are pretty out of > > > control with their > > > >emotional displays as well-so much for stereotypes! > > > > > > I agree and I suppose it is due to too much suppression. > > > > >Ha ha, very quick Cybele > >Yes I think so-maybe why there is so much alcoholism in northern countries. >Metta, >Victoria > 6414 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 8:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Dear Kom >Dear Cybele, > >--- "cybele chiodi" wrote: > > > > Suppose my previous post to Rob and you answer the question. > > But no I suppose he doesn't practice what is called an orthodox practice >of meditation. > > Lord Buddha, listen to me, I will become dogmatic and fundamentalist >going on like this.....;-) > >OK. So, I think you classify Robert's practice as unorthodox because: >a) He did not sit down cross-legged and observe the breath >b) He did not employ any tools that you have observed to be useful to your >own practice including: >1) Silence to avoid increasing the conceptual thoughts >2) Walking slowly to slow down mental proliferation, and to be able to >keenly observe the movement. Not precisely Kom, you are misreading what I said. Let me try and explain more carefully. What I call formal practice is using a determined period of time every day to dedicate to a specific mental training, not by chance the very same one Buddha himself experimented to attain enlightenment. It seems here that we are overlooking the very fact that meditation is the Buddha's way; not casually he is rafigurated sitting cross legged and engaged in meditation. What you attempt to do is creating a bit of mental space through the mental silence whether to work out this awareness exercize as for the body fitness you practice gymnastics or a sport. Let's say that Vipassana meditation is for the mental health, the tool to exercize is awareness and the formal practice aim to strenghten this very same capacity of insight into the reality of phenomena. Helps to sharpen the mind, heighten the penetrative view that will eventually lead to a clear comprehension and refines sensitivity. My query is to assess if the simple observation and investigation of reality as most of you seems to practice retaining it is the right concentration that will conduce to right understanding leading to right mindfulness is enough to justify neglecting formal meditation as a mental training. It is the Buddha's way and continues being taught as the Buddha's way everywhere. What I am trying to understand is if effectively we can renunciate meditation withour 'regrets', meaning without being arrogant to think that we can do better without the Buddha's method and we can develop wisdom only through this investigation of namarupa that very often trespass in conceptual thought. What we are taught is that the very philosophy and psychology contained in the Abhidhamma is applied while you meditate using Satipathana as a reference. We are taught to practice daily awareness as a continuum but perform the formal practice as a mental training and that meditation is the Buddha's Way of Mindfulness. I send this by now. And will continue replying. Metta Cybele 6415 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 9:06pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello dsg Ken Welcome from me, too. We are glad to have you with us. --- Ken Howard wrote: > What a big mistake it was to think (for twenty-six years), that a > knowledge of the Abhidhamma was not important - let alone vitally > important. You (dsg) put me straight on that and, along with your > related web sites, you are making the study of a difficult subject an > absolute pleasure. Yes, abhidhamma can even be fun, once you start making the connections to real life. Ken, I like what you say below-- > Even more importantly, you have shown me the correct approach to the > Buddhadhamma. This Dhamma is not just another course in education or > training; we don't take it up and master it, we take refuge in > it. > Our role is to listen and learn, the rest is a matter for conditions > beyond our control. This last sentence of yours shows I think true saddha -- the confidence (based, perhaps, on experience) that the right cause properly developed will bring the right result, even though that result may not be immediately apparent to us. Very much how I see things, too. Now, if only we had he patience to live it out! > One of my many favourite quotes on this point is in a recent post from > Nina; > Even when satippatthana is not always expressly mentioned, it is > always implied, because it is the specific teaching of the Buddha. > His teaching is unique, not to be compared to what other teachers > before him had also taught. [end quote] Yes, this is a real gem. Looking forward to seeing your posts. Jon 6416 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 9:07pm Subject: Erik in bangkok Dear Group, Just got an email from Erik. He is now in bangkok, has moved into an apartment, and sounds great. We are going to meet once I arrive on saturday week. robert 6417 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 9:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Rob and Kom - part 1 Dear Rob > >Dear Cybele, >It seems we are pretty much in agreement. >One aspect of the four foundations of mindfulness that should be >well reflected on is that if it is the correct awareness it is >grinding away the sense of self. I understand what you mean but in meditation is very much stressed the concept of 'Upadana-kkhanda'- the five aggregates of clinging, what conventionally is called 'personality' or self. We are warned to don't refer to a self experiencing anything. There is only bare attention acting out this investigation. >Even we feel non-judgemental but there can still be a veiled >idea that "I" am having bare awareness. I think we shouldn't >underestimate the importance of learning about the deep aspects >of the Dhamma . By this I mean knowing about the khandas (five >aggregates) or other classifications of realities- and other >teachings. We are used to taking what are only momentary >phenomena as a whole and so we confuse concept and reality. >Right awareness is supported by these details. Indeed but this is the purpose of meditation, through this dispassionate observation of the four foundations of mindfulness one develop this awareness that will lead to realize there is no self, all phenomena are impermanent and unsatisfactory. And realize it not conceptually but as actual knowledge, clear comprehension of the characteristics of all phenomena. >Sati is a conditioned phenomena and sati of the eightfold path, >which is satipatthana, arises only through the right conditions >(see, for instance, the kitagiri sutta that jon mentioned >yesterday)- it cannot arise simply because we intend to have it. There is no forcefulness in meditation at all. We are there witnessing whatever arises and paying attention; slowing down to allow this detailed observation and enforcing concentration and fostering awareness in the sense of sharpening the mind to perceive it. I know that sati only arise if there are the right conditions but if you don't apply and commit yourself to listen and study Dhamma you are not exactly collaborating to promote this right conditions. I don't see any incompatibility between this assertion and the practice of meditation. Rob as I wrote in the post to Kom; what I am trying to assess is the Buddha's way was traditionally taught as meditation; how can we overlook this very fact in the buddhist teachings. This I would like you explain me straightforwardly. it seems that people here considers meditation not necessary at all and this clashes with the original teaching in my understanding. I am not a person who hold a radical position as you well know, I am simply enquiring not criticizing or challenging anybody in this issue. I feel a bit perplexed and want to clarify. Bhavana is usually trasllated as meditation. You speak about Sati but what we are taught by monks and layteachers is that mindfulness cannot occur if you don't train your mind practicing meditation quite strictly. Is most evident that here nobody or mostly you don't agree with this view. Explain me in an articulate way your position. This is my query. Love Cybele 6418 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 9:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Rob and Kom - part 1 --- cybele chiodi wrote: > . > Bhavana is usually trasllated as meditation. > You speak about Sati but what we are taught by monks and > layteachers is that > mindfulness cannot occur if you don't train your mind > practicing meditation > quite strictly. > Is most evident that here nobody or mostly you don't agree > with this view. > Explain me in an articulate way your position. > This is my query. > > Love > > Cybele > ____________ Dear Cybele, before I answer this would you mind repeating what you said in a private note to me about how last night you were explaining Abhidhamma in daily life in your own words and what you noticed. best wishes robert 6419 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 9:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Dear Rob >Make no mistake, if someone wishes to develop mindfulness of >breathing he is going to have to be involved in some serious >formal meditation. The texts note that this is a difficult >subject, not suited for all. In early years I did try this >practice and in fact apparently did have some rather exciting >periods of concentration. I also developed a lot of attachment >to the concentration. I don't say that it can't be developed by >others but for myself it seems the objects of the 6 doors are >appropriate and beneficial (along with the ways of samatha I >just mentioned). Well Robert we misunderstood each other here. I don't practice Anapanasati as I told you but Vipassana and then I don't fear nimitta and attachment to 'pleasant sensations', I practice insight meditation based on the four foundations of mindfulness. The breath is an anchor, you don't develop calm and concentration purposefully, it's only a byproduct of bare attention. I never felt Anapanasati as suitable for me. I like straightforwardness and Vipassana suits me a lot. It was because of this kind of meditation that I discovered Dhamma and became a buddhist. I practiced Zen for years without never considering becoming a buddhist. It was the Theravada approach that fascinated me. I don't find meditation and Abhidhamma study not compatible, I think that one enforce another; that's why often I say Abhidhamma is like a dynamic meditation and I mean it. >I also find the study of the teachings a very strong condition >for understanding. Me too. If you don't intellectualize what happens quite often if we don't watch out. >On the other hand I know a person or two who >are knowledgeable about Dhamma but who seem to have no grasp of >the nature of this moment. Sometimes I think the best one could >do for them is to lock then in a cave for a year - make them >bring to mind their learning for its proper use. Indeed that's what I think meditation can prevent! People churning over intellectual knowledge when they are totally ignorant of their own minds and hearts. They are only 'parroting' the teachings, they don't enquiry or question, their minds are dull. >Abhidhamma can >be a refuge of concepts that distance us from the actual >happenings - and I certainly fall into this trap many times. It >is good to be reminded of that danger >robert I agree and that's why I think that the study should be tempered with meditation. Love Cybele 6420 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 10:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity (Howard) Howard --- Howard wrote: >> Jon said: > > I got stuck at the point where the author says-- > > > > "As such it [equanimity as one of the factors of Awakening > (bojjhanga)] > > 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." > > > > What is your take on this passage? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Well, I suppose it has more poetry than precision! ;-)) I think > that > the point is that the non-reactivity fostered by equanimity at the level > of > the 4th jhana results in greater clarity and enhanced mindfulness. > ------------------------------------------------------------- He seems to be saying that equanimity leads to either one thing ('greater mastery of meditaion') or another ('a state of non-fashioniung'). Presumably these would be references to samatha and vipassana? I would feel happier looking at particular sutta references. > >. Again I am puzzled by the terminology. Eg. 'transcendent' as > > meaning or connoting 'coming into play as one reaches the point of > > Awakening (where no temporal feedback [??] is possible)'. This makes > it > > difficult for me to say much, unless you can elucidate. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I, not even knowing the tip of the Abhidhammic iceberg, am > certainly in no position to shed much light on this. It seems he might > be > saying that the seven enlightenment factors are "lokuttara-only" from > the > Abhidhammic point of view, and that there is no temporality at that > level. > Whether this is actually the Abhdhammic take on the matter is something > about > which I have no idea. > ------------------------------------------------------------ As far as I understand the Abhidhamma, this is not so. But it is not clear that that is indeed what he is saying. > > > You, Jon, I believe, have Abhidhamma as your > > > main influence? > > > > Never really thought of it in those terms. Over the years I have come > to > > realise that the suttas need a knowledge of the Abhidhamma to be > > understood correctly. But I have never seen myself as a student of > the > > Abhidhamma as such; I just consult one or 2 standard references as > and > > when I want to check something. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, you certainly seem to have learned one helluva lot from > those > two references! ;-)) > --------------------------------------------------------- It's kind of you to say so, but it's really all relative. Compared to how the Abhidhamma is studied in Buddhist countries, I know hardly anything. But then, I don't think I would get far studying it in a formal way, as a series of lists etc. I have been very fortunate in having attended discussions with and listened to talks of Khun Sujin for many years now, and to have been reading Nina's books and other writings over the same period. This has given me an insight into the Abhidhamma without having to actually study it as such. It is to these 2 people that I owe all I know. The referral to texts for the purpose of posting to this list is something relatively recent for me, prompted by a wish to cite authority for any proposition I give, as far as possible. Of course, this has led to further 'discoveries' and interesting references, and so it goes on. Jon 6421 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 10:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik in bangkok Rob (and Erik) This whole thing about Erik and Bangkok comes as a surprise to me. Have I missed some posts on it while I was away? (I remember only a passing mention about it from Erik) Erik Congratulations on the move. I am sure you will find your visit/stay an interesting one. Do keep us posted on any useful dhamma chats or insights! Jon --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Group, > Just got an email from Erik. He is now in bangkok, has moved > into an apartment, and sounds great. > We are going to meet once I arrive on saturday week. > robert > 6422 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 10:24pm Subject: Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Dear Cybele, --- "cybele chiodi" wrote: > >--- "cybele chiodi" > >OK. So, I think you classify Robert's practice as unorthodox because: > >a) He did not sit down cross-legged and observe the breath > >b) He did not employ any tools that you have observed to be useful to your > >own practice including: > >1) Silence to avoid increasing the conceptual thoughts > >2) Walking slowly to slow down mental proliferation, and to be able to > >keenly observe the movement. > > Not precisely Kom, you are misreading what I said. > Let me try and explain more carefully. > What I call formal practice is using a determined period of time every day > to dedicate to a specific mental training, not by chance the very same one > Buddha himself experimented to attain enlightenment. I am sorry I jumped to the conclusion before you explained this point! (hope you didn't get too frustrated yet) OK. Robert's practice is unorthodox because he is aware of the different realities arising throughout the day, but a) he does *not* dedicate a specific time of the day to practicing mindfulness b) does not sit cross-legged and meditates, even though the sutta explicitly says that this part of the practice. > It seems here that we are overlooking the very fact that meditation is the > Buddha's way; not casually he is rafigurated sitting cross legged and > engaged in meditation. Although I have no doubt that the Buddha became enlightened while he was sitting cross-legged, I have some reservation about having to sit cross-legged in order to develop the wisdom knowing the realities as they currently arise. Here are some points that cross through my mind: a) Not all the disciples became enlightened when they are sitting cross- legged. For some of them, it is not obvious that they do any sort of samatha meditation at all. However, I have high confidence that most of them think of the buddha, his purity, his wisdom, his loving-kindness, in parts of their days, especially while they are "observing" realities as they are. Buddha's qualities can definitely be the object of samatha meditations. b) I believe the buddha did mention that any level of kusala contributes/supports enlightenment. He encouraged us to develop all levels of kusala: dana, sila, samatha bhavana, and most importantly satipathanna. c) I have no doubt that samatha meditation, if done with Samma Samathi, does contribute to the development of wisdom. > What you attempt to do is creating a bit of mental space through the mental > silence whether to work out this awareness exercize as for the body fitness > you practice gymnastics or a sport. > Let's say that Vipassana meditation is for the mental health, the tool to > exercize is awareness and the formal practice aim to strenghten this very > same capacity of insight into the reality of phenomena. > Helps to sharpen the mind, heighten the penetrative view that will > eventually lead to a clear comprehension and refines sensitivity. What I have doubts with are the techniques advocated by the different meditation schools. As I mention in the previous message, some of the practices are not supported very well by the teachings except in some specific circumstances. (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6406 about about doing things slowly and complete silence). I don't believe doing things slowly really help with insights or with the arising of kusala. Not only it is not supported by the sutta, it doesn't make any sense to me why it should. I do believe any kind of kusala helps with developing wisdom. What I am saying is that although these meditation schools teach something that on the surface look very much like something lifted from Satipatthana sutta, one has to be careful about what is being really taught. Some of these stuffs (as I mentioned) don't make any sense (to me.) Because of these, the other things that are taught are somewhat thrown into doubts in my mind whether or not the person teaching some of these practices are really transmitting the Buddha's dhamma, or are just pointing out some quick ways toward the possibly micha enlightenment. Just like any other teachings taught by anybody (meditation masters, A. Sujin, Robert, Jon, Sarah, etc.), we should be able to verify (up to a certain point), and should verify, that it is the teaching of the buddha. Otherwise, with the subtlety of the dhammas, and with the micha-ditthi that we have accumulated for endless aeons, I think we would be more prone toward doing/learning the wrong things than the right. > My query is to assess if the simple observation and investigation of reality > as most of you seems to practice retaining it is the right concentration > that will conduce to right understanding leading to right mindfulness is > enough to justify neglecting formal meditation as a mental training. If one knows how to develop samatha meditation the right way, I don't believe one should neglect developing it. However, I don't believe simply following the techniques taught by the meditation schools necessarily will bring one the right concentration unless one understands the differences between the wrong concentration (micha-samathi) and the right concentration (samma samathi). > It is the Buddha's way and continues being taught as the Buddha's way > everywhere. > What I am trying to understand is if effectively we can renunciate > meditation withour 'regrets', meaning without being arrogant to think that I, for one, do not renunciate samma samathi. I just haven't had the opportunity to run into a teacher, in whom I have confidence that he is teaching the Buddha's dhamma, who teaches samatha meditation. > we can do better without the Buddha's method and we can develop wisdom only > through this investigation of namarupa that very often trespass in > conceptual thought. > What we are taught is that the very philosophy and psychology contained in > the Abhidhamma is applied while you meditate using Satipathana as a > reference. > We are taught to practice daily awareness as a continuum but perform the > formal practice as a mental training and that meditation is the Buddha's Way > of Mindfulness. > I personally don't think of the Buddha's teachings as fixed set of method that will get one to become enlightened, but rather the teachings that will bring about knowing the realities as they are. He teaches the different conditions which will influence the development of wisdom. Knowing that, I am content to say if I adopt more and more of the Buddha's teachings into the daily life, as I start seeing the values of them, and as long as there are some development of wisdom, I am satisfied that at least I am walking on the right path. My walking may not be very fast, but I totally expect this, as how fast I walk is conditioned by how much wisdom I have accumulated, and not really how fast I *want* to walk. I think our differences are becoming clearer, don't you think? Thanks for giving me all the pointers. kom 6423 From: Tori Korshak Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 10:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Rob and Kom - part 1 Cybele wrote: as I wrote in the post to Kom; what I am trying to assess is the Buddha's way was traditionally taught as meditation; how can we overlook this very fact in the buddhist teachings. Yes and he never stopped meditating until parinibbana so shouldn't we do the same? Metta, Victoria 6424 From: Erik Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 10:42pm Subject: Re: Erik in bangkok --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob (and Erik) > This whole thing about Erik and Bangkok comes as a surprise to me. It came as quite a surprise to me as well, given only two weeks ago I had no inkling I'd be writing this message from my new apartment and new computer in BKK! So rest easy Jon, it wasn't a lack of mindfulness on your part. Imagine what a surprise it is to find out you have literally one day to clear out of your old place and move a hemisphere away, with one bag on your back, half filled with Dhamma books, the rest with the bare minimum of clothing to wear for a few days before having to start completely over again. I can barely stop laughing at the absurdity and beauty of it all! 6425 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 10:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Rob and Kom - part 1 Dear Tori Thanks for the support, I was feeling a bit lonely. ;-) Metta Cybele > >Cybele wrote: >as I wrote in the post to Kom; what I am trying to assess is if the >Buddha's way was traditionally taught as meditation; how can we overlook >this very fact in the buddhist teachings. > > >Yes and he never stopped meditating until parinibbana so shouldn't we do >the same? > >Metta, >Victoria > > 6426 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 11:14pm Subject: sharing abhidhamma in daily life >Dear Cybele, >before I answer this would you mind repeating what you said in a >private note to me about how last night you were explaining >Abhidhamma in daily life in your own words and what you noticed. >best wishes >robert > Dear Rob Yes I am very keen on sharing this experience, was very profound to me. Yesterday evening as usual me and my friend John sat down for meditation and before normally we read some text and discuss it, sharing our views. John is reading Abhidhamma in daily life that I suggested to him and he had some doubts, got stuck in some concepts and asked me to try and explain with my own words my understanding of it to help him to clarify. I decided to simplify reading aloud and John would question me and I would try to explain the passage. What I started experiencing was that more and more I concentrated on explaining it in an articulate form and making analogies to elucidate the obscure points more I felt a clear comprehension of what I was reading and concepts that I missed emerged and I could consider them and I got this sensation of mental lucidity while explaining to him. And I was not trying to show off or neither prone to intellectualize to feel myself on the 'safe path'; I was really sharing in a very openminded way. This understanding would unfold spontaneously while explaining, trying to communicate John what the text meant and realizing myself lots of new perspectives that I had previously overlooked or somehow had rippen in the meanwhile. It was very stimulating and a kind of quiet joy arised because helping John to get through the text was in fact deepening my own understanding in a very curious and relaxed manner. I felt a kind of mental disclosure, perceptions doors opening. The sensations were quite vivid and the keeness of my mind was acute; I felt like while talking I was sharpening my mind. Perhaps is just more delusion but looked like awareness. ;-) I decided to continue reading the book with John and then we can penetrate together beyond the words to reach an actual understanding, helping each other. His questions would promote this keeness in investigating and my mind was very allert indeed. Well there it is Rob; looking forward for your comments. :-) Please be merciless, don't destroy brutally my dear illusions...joking! Cybele 6427 From: Jim Anderson Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 11:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Dear Kom, >OK. So, I think you classify Robert's practice as unorthodox because: >a) He did not sit down cross-legged and observe the breath >b) He did not employ any tools that you have observed to be useful to your >own practice including: >1) Silence to avoid increasing the conceptual thoughts >2) Walking slowly to slow down mental proliferation, and to be able to >keenly observe the movement. The Buddha made a vinaya rule against the practice of silence (muugabbata) as follows: "Monks, an observance of members of other sects, the practice of silence, should not be observed. Whoever observes it, there is an offence of wrong-doing." -- The Book of the Discipline, Part 4, p. 211 trs. I.B. Horner. It also comes with a story of several pages long leading up to the Buddha making this rule. It involved several monks deciding to observe silence together during a rains-retreat (it's at the beginning of the Pavaara.naakkhandhaka, Mahaavagga). Best wishes, Jim 6428 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 17, 2001 11:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Erik in bangkok Dear Erik >Imagine what a surprise it is to find out >you have literally one day to clear out of your old place and move a >hemisphere away, with one bag on your back, half filled with Dhamma >books, the rest with the bare minimum of clothing to wear for a few >days before having to start completely over again. I can barely stop >laughing at the absurdity and beauty of it all! > I am enjoying too!!! Next time I go to Bangkok I can have hospitality!!! ;-) Best regards to you and hope you will enjoy this bizarre town. Glad to see you settled and enthusiastic. Love Cybele 6429 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 0:23am Subject: Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Dear Jim, --- "Jim Anderson" wrote: > Dear Kom, > > >OK. So, I think you classify Robert's practice as unorthodox because: > >a) He did not sit down cross-legged and observe the breath > >b) He did not employ any tools that you have observed to be useful to your > >own practice including: > >1) Silence to avoid increasing the conceptual thoughts > >2) Walking slowly to slow down mental proliferation, and to be able to > >keenly observe the movement. > > The Buddha made a vinaya rule against the practice of silence (muugabbata) > as follows: > > "Monks, an observance of members of other sects, the practice of silence, > should not be observed. Whoever observes it, there is an offence of > wrong-doing." -- The Book of the Discipline, Part 4, p. 211 trs. I.B. > Horner. It also comes with a story of several pages long leading up to the > Buddha making this rule. It involved several monks deciding to observe > silence together during a rains-retreat (it's at the beginning of the > Pavaara.naakkhandhaka, Mahaavagga). > Thank you so much for pointing this out. kom 6430 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 1:23am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: : Sati of past object? op 16-07-2001 19:03 schreef Num op Num: > Arammana-paccaya for citta and cetasika can be past, > present, future or even kala-vimutti (pannatti and nibbhana) > arammana. He said that all five khandhas can be past-, present- and > future arammana-paccaya for the PRESENT citta. He said that the > future khandha can be arammana for present citta in case of > anakataga-nana. Nina: let me just translate future khandha as object for those who have specific knowledge of the future (anagata ~naana). It is clear, also past colour or sound, etc. can be objects of citta. Some people think that when a past object is remembered the object is a concept, I used to think this. A specific odour now makes us remember an odour we smelled in the past. There are stories an account of such an odor, stories of the source of that smell, etc. but there is also the rupa odor of the past that can be remembered. ( the church bell ringing in someone's childhood, a story, but also that sound is remembered. No churchbell if there was no sound) Acharn Sujin says: if there are no paramattha dhammas can there be the concept of a person? Num: For sati, from my understanding can be mindful to the > "just fallen away" reality which being function as arammana > paccaya for the citta and cetasikas which sati co-arises at that > moment. > The arammana of citta and cetasika as I mentioned can be > kala dependent (past, present and future) or kala-vimutti. But sati > can mindful to citta or cetasika (nama) of the previous citta and > cetasikas which just has fallen away and now function as arammana- > paccaya for present mindful citta, no longer as a sampayutta-paccaya. Nina: as mentioned before, sati is mindful of what has just fallen away, but we cannot count how long, it all occurs so rapidly. The main thing: what characteristic appears now? Seeing? Sound? No need to think of how many moments ago it fell away, it presents itself, does it not? No need to think of it. Num: In case of rupa, which lasts longer that citta and cetasika. It > can be atthi-paccaya (presence condition) as well as arammana-paccaya, object condiiton, for sati. > Nina: Your question amounts to whether there can be sati of satipatthana in the sense-door process of cittas experiencing that rupa. There are many sense-door processes and mind-door processes succeeding one another. When sati of satipatthana has been developed, can one stop awareness from arising in a sense-door process? But vipassana ~naana that clearly distinguishes nama from rupa, the first stage of tender insight, has to arise in a mind-door process. But at this moment the first duty is being aware of characteristics that present themselves. Realizing nama and rupa as conditioned realities is the second stage of tender insight. It may make things complicated if we try to pinpoint what type of condition there is for a particular reality. It is useful to read about conditions, it helps us to see that realities are beyond control. It may not be so useful if we try to fit in our knowledge of conditions, while we are beginning to be mindful of realities. In Cambodia,and also before and after, Acharn Sujin repeated often, as I have mentioned already, that we should know our own limitations. She did so when people were so keen about knowing conditions and dependent origination. She was really concerned that people would overreach. I quote from Conversations in Cambodia, where it was discussed that one rupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta. This is a comparison, and we should not count. End quote. Nina. 6431 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 1:23am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Enlightenment factors lokiya and lokuttara. op 15-07-2001 21:07 schreef Howard op Howard: -about the seven factors of enlightenments (wings to awakening) > Howard: > Well, I, not even knowing the tip of the Abhidhammic iceberg, am > certainly in no position to shed much light on this. It seems he might be > saying that the seven enlightenment factors are "lokuttara-only" from the > Abhidhammic point of view, and that there is no temporality at that level. > Whether this is actually the Abhdhammic take on the matter is something about > which I have no idea. Nina: In Cambodia someone asked Acharn Sujin about the bodhipakkhiya dhammas (factors pertaining to enlightenment) whether they are lokuttara, supramundane or lokiya, mundane. The answer: they can be mundane and supramundane. These factors have to be developed so that enlightenment can be attained. They are first mundane. The factors mentioned here as wings to awakening, are confidence, energy, sati, concentration and pa~n~naa. They are also sometimes translated as the five "spiritual faculties" or indriyas. Acharn Sujin said that only when satipatthana arises, sati and the other factors of confidence etc. are indriyas. Nina. 6432 From: Howard Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 1:28am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Some Additional Thoughts on: Reply to: Sati/panna and ... Hi, Jon - Thanks much for your reply. I have nothing further to add on the topic right now, but something may occur to me later on. Again, thanks! With metta, Howard In a message dated 7/17/01 4:48:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > > The following also occurs to me: Nina has written in "Cetasikas" > > that > > > > "There is only one citta at a time, cognizing one object, and each citta > > is > > accompanied by several cetasikas which also experience the same object, > > but > > which each perform their own function while they assist the citta in > > cognizing that object. They arise and fall away together with the > > citta." > > > > Moreover, sati is one of the cetasikas. Thus, the object of > > sati, > > when it occurs, is the very same object as the citta along with which > > which > > that instance of sati occurs. So, if the object of mindfulness is a > > mental > > one, it is the very same one that the citta discerns. If the object is a > > > > *previous* entire citta or any cetasika of such a citta, then, indeed, > > that > > is actually no longer existent, and, thus, the actual object can only be > > a memory. > > I am not sure exactly in what terms the commentarial writings describe the > object. We are talking about the moment following the falling away of the > object. Whether it is regarded as a memory or image already I do not know > (despite what I said in my previous post!). > > > A citta, then, can never take itself, or any aspect of itself, > > as > > object. But at any given time, there is only one citta. All past cittas > > are > > gone. So a mental object, an object of the mind door, is never available > > for > > direct observation. In that case, why call such objects ultimate > > realities? > > We call things ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) because they have > an intrinsic nature (sabhava) capable of being experienced by panna. > > > In fact, what leads us to think there even are such things, inasmuch as > > they > > are not directly observable? Do you see that there are some difficulties > > here? > > I do not see any difficulties from the point of view of the task of the > present moment. Nor particularly from a conceptual viewopint, but then I > have not given this area the kind of in-depth scrutiny that you obviously > have, Howard. Please feel free to expand further. > > Jon > > /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) 6433 From: Howard Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 1:55am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Enlightenment factors lokiya and lokuttara. Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/17/01 1:30:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Nina van Gorkom writes: > op 15-07-2001 21:07 schreef Howard op Howard: > -about the seven factors of enlightenments (wings to awakening) > > Howard: > > Well, I, not even knowing the tip of the Abhidhammic iceberg, am > > certainly in no position to shed much light on this. It seems he might be > > saying that the seven enlightenment factors are "lokuttara-only" from the > > Abhidhammic point of view, and that there is no temporality at that level. > > Whether this is actually the Abhdhammic take on the matter is something > about > > which I have no idea. > > Nina: In Cambodia someone asked Acharn Sujin about the bodhipakkhiya dhammas > (factors pertaining to enlightenment) whether they are lokuttara, > supramundane or lokiya, mundane. The answer: they can be mundane and > supramundane. These factors have to be developed so that enlightenment can > be attained. They are first mundane. The factors mentioned here as wings to > awakening, are confidence, energy, sati, concentration and pa~n~naa. They > are also sometimes translated as the five "spiritual faculties" or indriyas. > Acharn Sujin said that only when satipatthana arises, sati and the other > factors of confidence etc. are indriyas. Nina. > > ================================== Thank you very much for this information. It makes eminent sense to me! 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) 6434 From: Num Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 2:13am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sankhara = Cetana Re: pali/abhidhamma question > "intention" seemingly it conditions kamma and if paticcasamupada=kamma, > perhaps it could be said that sankhara conditions every aspect of > paticcasamuppada since dukkha is conditioned by delusion and delusion is > conceptual or perhaps concept itself. Paticcasamuppada is all dukkha > (tanha), right? Hi Larry, My understanding about Paticcasamuppada is limited. I am going to try to explain some from my understanding. Please take it with wise, careful and critical attention. Paticcasamuppada explains about chain or process continuation by proximate and supportive causes. Avijja in the dependent origination is Moha cetasika (ignorance or delusion, opposite of panna or understanding). Sankhara as I mentioned is a cetana cetasika (volition or will) which will bring an effect (vipaka--> vinnana, nama-rupa, salayatana?, phassa and vedana) in the future. Tanha means wanting to have, (object is not there yet), (sensual, self-existense, self-anihilation), upadan means grasping and not letting it go by having tanha as a proximate cause. Bhapa is also a result, Chati is a continuation and chara and morana is an association and a result of chati. Dukkha can mean unpleasant bodily sensation as in vedana (feeling) or mean intrinsic conflictual/changing property of sankhara as in anicca-dukkha-anatta. So I think in Paticcasamuppada mentions both meaning of dhukka. I think to cease the cycle is to no stop moha (ignorance) with understanding (panna). With no more moha, the cycle will stop, that is probably reaching nibbhana stage, I guess. So again, understanding (panna) is the key. I think other dsg members can give you better and more concised explanation than me. DSG members, please do not hesitate to jump in to add, to correct and comment. Num 6435 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 6:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Dear Jim > >The Buddha made a vinaya rule against the practice of silence (muugabbata) >as follows: > >"Monks, an observance of members of other sects, the practice of silence, >should not be observed. Whoever observes it, there is an offence of >wrong-doing." -- The Book of the Discipline, Part 4, p. 211 trs. >I.B.Horner. It also comes with a story of several pages long leading up to >the Buddha making this rule. It involved several monks deciding to observe >silence together during a rains-retreat (it's at the beginning of the >Pavaara.naakkhandhaka, Mahaavagga). This is most curious as in the Theravada tradition during retreats the observance of the Noble Silence is compulsory and highlighted as a indispensable tool for the practice (I mean during retreats only). Whether the teachers are monastics or laymen; in eastern as in western countries. Could you share with us a resume of this several pages leading up to the disclosure of the motivation for this rule? I would most appreciate. "When a man knows the solitude of silence, and feels the joy of quietness, he is free from fear and sin and he feels the joy of Dhamma." The Dhammapada, verse 205 Thanks Best wishes Cybele 6436 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:15am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Erik in bangkok Thanks, Erik, and good luck with the settling in. I do hope we can meet on our (Sarah and my) next visit to Bkk. Jon --- Erik wrote: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob (and Erik) > > This whole thing about Erik and Bangkok comes as a surprise to me. > > It came as quite a surprise to me as well, given only two weeks ago I > had no inkling I'd be writing this message from my new apartment and > new computer in BKK! So rest easy Jon, it wasn't a lack of > mindfulness on your part. Imagine what a surprise it is to find out > you have literally one day to clear out of your old place and move a > hemisphere away, with one bag on your back, half filled with Dhamma > books, the rest with the bare minimum of clothing to wear for a few > days before having to start completely over again. I can barely stop > laughing at the absurdity and beauty of it all! > > 6437 From: Howard Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 1:20am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sati/panna and its object (was: The meaning of Equan... Hi, Robert - As usual, you give a very clear, and *very helpful* reply! In a message dated 7/17/01 12:16:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert writes: > Dear Howard, > A very good question. Paramattha dhammas arise and fall > according to their nature. However, they arise and fall in > processes. In between each process there are bhavanga cittas > (the same cittas that arise and fall continually during deep > sleep). In a sense they are the cushioning area between > processes. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. Between the active cittas there are the latent, bhavanga cittas. As I have read, a bhavanga citta is likened to a spider sitting in the center of his web (latent discernment waiting to "pounce"), waiting for a stimulus (phassa) to scurry after prey (to discern the next object and become active discernment instead of latent discernment). One question that occurs to me is what is the object for a bhavanga citta? It is so that every citta has an object, right? In the case of a bhavanga citta is it a replication of the object of the preceding active citta? I seem to recall reading that rebirth consciousness is a bhavanga citta, and that its object is the "same" as that of the citta at the time of death. By analogy, this would suggest that *any* bhavanga citta might take as object the "same" object as the preceding active citta. Or is there no object for a bhavanga citta, but just a "waiting" for an object? ----------------------------------------------------------- > I just heard on a tape someoone say to Acharn sujin that only > the buddha and wise disciple like sariputta could really know > bhavanga citta but Sujin said that even developed insight now > can understand it (to some degree).The gist of what she was > saying is that other wise it would seem like seeing and hearing, > for example, blended into each other (because there is no gap > between cittas) but panna (insight) sees that this is not so. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have a bit if a problem here. How can there be observation of a bhavanga citta, or of any citta for that matter, even by a Buddha? The citta has its own object. There cannot be a simultaneous second citta which has the first citta as *it's* object, because there is only one citta at a time. Moreover, the first citta, having its own object cannot also have a *second* object which is the citta, itself! Thus, no citta is ever an object! (However, the *memory* of a citta could be.) ------------------------------------------------------ > Also upon awakening from deep sleep if sati arises the > difference between bhavanga and the sense door and minddoor > processes can be known. "We" could never see these matters but > it is the function of panna to do its duty and understand. > Someone might hear this and think they will try to "observe" > this matter, but it cannot be comprehended by such a method. It > is all happening so fast and the very idea of observing is > caught up with subtle self view. In a similar vein some people > think they observe rise and fall but before ther can be true > insight into rise and fall there must be the understanding that > clearly distinguishes nama from rupa. > Sujin stresses that there must be firm understanding that knows > anatta at the intellectual level before deeper insight can > arise. Otherwise one will have the idea that sati and panna can > be manufactured by will; not seeing the real conditions for > these factors; not seeing that they are simply conditioned > phenomena (not self). > The cittas in the sense door and minddoor processes arise in > strict order. Why? Because that is the nature, the law. > Each citta is different from the last but it is intimately > conditioned by the other cittas in the same process. It is an > extreme to think that each citta is its own little package- it > is another extreme to think they are blended together in any > way. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What you say in the last two sentences is, on my opinion, very important! This goes a long way towards ameliorating the "atomistic view" by showing that even though the various cittas occur during discrete time units, they are interdependent, they are connected by conditionality!! ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > These matters are the way they are; and the Abhidhamma explains > it as accurately as it is possible to be put into words. Only a > Surpreme Buddha - a SammaSammBuddha- could convey this > knowledge. Even a Pacceka Buddha who is enlightened by himself > could not elucidate this so that others could understand. > robert > > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > > > In a message dated 7/16/01 11:21:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Robert writes: > > > > > > > On this issue to when we talk about moments we should > > rememeber > > > the various conditions such as anataraya - paccaya > > (proximity > > > condition)and other conditions. The present moment is > > > conditioned by the preceeding moment by this condition (not > > to > > > mention other conditions) . > > > It is not that when we talk about moments arising and > > passing > > > away that they are totally discrete little packages (it can > > > sound that way but this is not what is meant in the > > Abhidhamma). > > > This is thoroughly explained in the Patthana, the last book > > of > > > the Abhidhamma. > > > best wishes > > > > > ============================ > > Yes, I understand that preceding cittas condition the > > current citta in > > various ways, and the various cetasikas within a given citta > > bear relations > > to each other. But there still is exactly one citta at any > > time, with "sharp > > boundaries" so-to-speak; that is, a citta wouldn'y be modeled > > by, say, a > > fuzzy interval, would it? (Or would it?) > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > ================================= Thanks much, Robert! 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) 6438 From: ppp Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 1:45am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sati/panna and its object (was: The meaning of Equan... Hi, Robert: Your message to Horward is very well written (i.e. the right on the issue and very well explained). tadao 6439 From: ppp Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 1:56am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Hi, Jim: Is your passage taken from the Paatimokkha? Is is one of the paaciitiyaa? I am wondering if you can cite the original pali passge for me (since I do not remeber that such a offence was included as one of the wrong-doings.) Thank you in advance, tadao (Obviously, I do not have a copy of Paatimokkha booklet.) 6440 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 10:39am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) Sorry I haven't been able to come back to this group for a few days. I just wanted you to know that I intend to keep dropping in when I can. Thanks for your responses to the Hui Neng story. Very interesting. Robert E. --------------- --- Joe wrote: > As far as we can tell, the Buddha himself ate meat ... ... > > ================================ > > I don't eat meat, though I do eat sea creatures. I wouldn't > knowingly > > eat vegetables prepared with meat. But, as I see it, that is > because I am > > *only* me, at my lowly stage. ...If I were "more along", I would be more like > Hui Neng. > > As I see it, this story presents a remarkable person! > > > > With metta, > > Howard ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 6441 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 10:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > Dear Cybele, > > > >Is there a 'situation' outside what our minds have created and holding on > > >to? I think there are more important things that can be discussed. > > > > I disagree with you Sukin. > > Also this can be something that your mind have created and you are holding > > to. > > You are right, this is what I realized later in the evening. I was indeed > creating > a situation myself, one that I saw Herman being 'judged' by others. But as I > realized later, I also saw Herman strong enough to defend himself and if he > chose to say anything or remain silent who was I to come up with any > clarification for him. Besides I am trying to clarify myself now aren't I, what > is the motive? Just want you to know that it is very inspiring to see you all taking the rare step of actually stepping back and looking at your own experience and motives in a conflict situation, something that seems to be lacking on the Buddhist newsgroups, for instance. It is this kind of awareness that represents actual practice, in my view. I do not know the sutras and scriptures very well, except for a few, but I am happy to recognize real practice when I see it. Robert --------------------------- ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 6442 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 10:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Attachment to Right View - Spiritual arrogance --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > it is not the right view that is to be discarded but the > attachment to it. This is so smart. A most important distinction. > 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 very clear and goes to the heart of obstructive views. Thank you. Robert E. ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 6443 From: Ken Howard Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 10:53am Subject: Re: Hello dsg Dear Mike, Robert, Sukin, Jon, Thank you all for your kind words and also, Mike, for your empathy and, Sukin, for your forbearance. I must say, I did not mean to so vividly illustrate my confession to being slow-witted and prone to egg on the face. What I wanted to get across was my gratitude for all I have learned / am learning from your discussions and my apologies for not joining in. I should have added that it is a rare priviledge to experience the company, albeit as a lurker, of such wise, warm-hearted people (meaning dsg members as a whole). This is getting sentimental and not Dhamma-related so let's leave it at that. Kind regards Ken --- "m. nease" wrote: > Congratulations on finding and appreciating these fine > folks, Ken--I feel just the same way. If you're as > slow you say you are, we may be in direct competition > for 'Slowest'--I'll try to be a good sport. > > I'm also a great fan of Sukin's posts--who, by the > way, is a He (this was pointed out to me after one of > MY first posts...) > > mike > 6444 From: Num Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 11:23am Subject: Re: : Sati of past object? > > Butsawong: No, not at the same time. > Sujin: In between the time we see and hear there are rúpas that arose and > fell away. The citta that sees and the citta that hears are more than > seventeen moments of citta apart from each other. Therefore, the development > of paññå is not counting moments of citta. The first stage of paññå that > should be developed is pañña that clearly distinguishes the difference > between nåma dhamma and rúpa dhamma. It should know that rúpa dhamma does > not know anything at all, and that nåma dhamma is completely different from > rúpa, not mixed with it in any way.> Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply and comments. I like Archarn Sujun's quote that you have pasted. Always good to have a gentle reminder. Appreciate your input. I will ask you somemore. Dhamma studying is not easy. Num 6445 From: Jim Anderson Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 11:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Dear Cybele, >This is most curious as in the Theravada tradition during retreats the >observance of the Noble Silence is compulsory and highlighted as a >indispensable tool for the practice (I mean during retreats only). >Whether the teachers are monastics or laymen; in eastern as in western >countries. The Pali phrase for 'Noble Silence' is 'ariyo tu.nhiibhaavo'. For 'observance of silence' it's 'muugabbata'. (muuga = dumb + vata = observance or practice). It's the same 'vata' as in 'siilabbataparaamaasa'. I checked a few commentaries and the Noble Silence refers to 2nd jhana or higher and also when one takes up a meditation subject (one of the 40). However, in a group retreat situation, I think the silence rule should be examined as to whether it comes within range of the rule the Buddha made. >Could you share with us a resume of this several pages leading up to the >disclosure of the motivation for this rule? Yes. I will try to put together a summary with quotes within the next day or so and post when done. The translation of Dhp 205 that you quote below differs significantly from Narada's translation which begins with "Having tasted the flavour of supreme detachment . . .". At first I thought you gave the wrong verse number. Best wishes, Jim >I would most appreciate. > >"When a man knows the solitude of silence, >and feels the joy of quietness, >he is free from fear and sin >and he feels the joy of Dhamma." > >The Dhammapada, verse 205 > >Thanks > >Best wishes > >Cybele 6446 From: Jim Anderson Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 10:31am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Hi Tadao, >Hi, Jim: >Is your passage taken from the Paatimokkha? >Is is one of the paaciitiyaa? I am wondering if >you can cite the original pali passge for me >(since I do not remeber that such a offence >was included as one of the wrong-doings.) >Thank you in advance, tadao >(Obviously, I do not have a copy of Paatimokkha >booklet.) It isn't from the Patimokkha. It's from the 4th khandhaka of the Mahaavagga (Vinayapi.taka). The original Pali passage is: "na bhikkhave muugabbata.m titthiyasamaadaana.m samaadiyitabba.m. yo samaadiyeyya, aapatti dukka.tassa." (Vin i 159 pts). The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga contain a vast number of dukka.ta offences not found in the Patimokkha. Best wishes, Jim 6447 From: Howard Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 9:55am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sati/panna and its object (was: The meaning of Equan... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 7/18/01 12:35:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > > > Jon: > > > Where the object of sati or panna is a nama, it is necessarily a nama > > that > > > has just fallen away, so that the nama that is the object and the > > citta > > > that is the moment of awareness/understanding do not arise > > simultaneously. > > > However, so rapid is the succession of cittas that the appearance is > > as > > > if both the awareness/understanding and the nama that is its object > > appear > > > to be occurring together (this of course assumes a number of moments > > of > > > each kind of citta). > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > This is something I do not "get". The "citta theory" would seem > > to > > imply that if the "object" of a citta is gone, then all that can be the > > *current* object is a (very fresh) *memory* of the just-fallen > > object,and not > > the no-longer-existing object, itself. > > Yes, this is exactly as I understand it. I think the term "image" rather > than "memory" is used. Does this present any obstacle? ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, no obstacle at all. (Unless, of course 'image' is used in preference to 'memory' to avoid seeing that it is a memory!) ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Also, when you say "However, so rapid > > is the succession of cittas that the appearance is as if both the > > awareness/understanding and the nama that is its object appear to be > > occurring together (this of course assumes a number of moments of each > > kind > > of citta).", I would have to ask *where* that deluded appearance of the > > simultaneity of the occurrence of an object and the awareness of the > > object > > occurs. In yet another mind moment? > > Again, yes (as I understand it). There are so many different 'streams' of > mind moments going on apparently simultaneously but in fact each being a > succession of discrete mind moments arising repeatedly but not > consecutively. For example, seeing, hearing, making sense of > (conceptualising) what is being seen and heard, thinking about it, bodily > movement 'commands', speech 'commands', other thoughts and feelings etc. > So there is presumably room for other 'streams' also. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Excellent answer! Thank you. I find this very helpful!! ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > The more I examine the "momentary theory of cittas", a kind of > > ksanavada (sp?) theory similar to that of the Sautrantikas, the more > > problems > > seem to arise, at least within my limited capacity. (Kalupahana finds > > difficulties with it as well, BTW.) It seems to me that at least some > > level > > of direct knowing occurs at a trans-citta level, if, indeed, separate, > > discrete moments of knowing are a reality. As I understand it, the > > notion of > > 'bhavangacitta' was a later commentarial one established for the express > > > > purpose of serving as a "fix" for non-continuity issues arising with the > > > > discrete-citta view. [The Sautrantikas, on the other hand, didn't adopt > > that, > > but simply allowed for gaps between cittas, adopting a "film-frame" view > > > > similar to that of Hume so many years later.] > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > I understand that the whole of the so-called 'cognative series' > (citta-viithi) is unknown as such in the Pitakas although, according to > Nanamoli, a nucleus of it, based on certain sutta-pitaka material, appears > in the abhidhamma-pitaka (Vis IV, n.13). I'm sorry but I am not familiar > with the other schools of thought you mention, nor with any discussion on > the circumstances in which the commentarial material came to be. > > My initial observation on this issue would be that the writings on > bhavanga have a similar pedigree to other authoratitive Theravadin > writings which seem to be well supported by the texts and which purport to > be received Theravadin wisdom rather than any individual's personal view. > > Jon > ============================== Thanks for this wonderful reply, Jon. 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) 6448 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 4:55pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sati/panna and its object (was: The meaning of Equan... Dear Howard, Thanks for the nice response. --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > > > > Dear Howard, > >Robert: A very good question. Paramattha dhammas arise and fall > > according to their nature. However, they arise and fall in > > processes. In between each process there are bhavanga cittas > > (the same cittas that arise and fall continually during deep > > sleep). In a sense they are the cushioning area between > > processes. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Okay. Between the active cittas there are the latent, > bhavanga cittas. > As I have read, a bhavanga citta is likened to a spider > sitting in the center > of his web (latent discernment waiting to "pounce"), waiting > for a stimulus > (phassa) to scurry after prey (to discern the next object and > become active > discernment instead of latent discernment). _______ Robert:I haven't read this. _________ One question that > occurs to me is > what is the object for a bhavanga citta? It is so that every > citta has an > object, right? In the case of a bhavanga citta is it a > replication of the > object of the preceding active citta? I seem to recall > reading that rebirth > consciousness is a bhavanga citta, and that its object is the > "same" as that > of the citta at the time of death. By analogy, this would > suggest that *any* > bhavanga citta might take as object the "same" object as the > preceding active > citta. Or is there no object for a bhavanga citta, but just a > "waiting" for > an object? > ----------------------------------------------------------- The bhavanga cittas are the same type of citta as rebirth consciousness (patisandhi citta). It is vipaka citta (result of kamma ) and has as its object that same object that appeared shortly before death in the previous life. We are human now so that object must have been a wholesome one. It does not take as object the preceding active citta: it always has the same object which conditioned rebirth. _______ > > > I just heard on a tape someoone say to Acharn sujin that > only > > the buddha and wise disciple like sariputta could really > know > > bhavanga citta but Sujin said that even developed insight > now > > can understand it (to some degree).The gist of what she was > > saying is that other wise it would seem like seeing and > hearing, > > for example, blended into each other (because there is no > gap > > between cittas) but panna (insight) sees that this is not > so. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I have a bit if a problem here. How can there be > observation of a > bhavanga citta, or of any citta for that matter, even by a > Buddha? The citta > has its own object. There cannot be a simultaneous second > citta which has the > first citta as *it's* object, because there is only one citta > at a time. > Moreover, the first citta, having its own object cannot also > have a *second* > object which is the citta, itself! Thus, no citta is ever an > object! > (However, the *memory* of a citta could be.) > ------------------------------------------------------ robert: I think we make assumptions about what panna (wisdom)can know and how it knows it. Panna is not us and doesn't see things because of our will or because we think it should know something. There are different tyes and levels of panna and panna of satipatthana understands paramatha dhammas as they are. As we have said panna arises in a process and understands preceeding processes but it is happening all so fast. 'Observation' is a word that has certain connotations and we may have an idea of how we think panna performs its function. But this is conceptualising. What we can see, directly, is that panna does understand, it does comprehend dhammas . -------------------- > > Also upon awakening from deep sleep if sati arises the > > difference between bhavanga and the sense door and minddoor > > processes can be known. "We" could never see these matters > but > > it is the function of panna to do its duty and understand. > > Someone might hear this and think they will try to "observe" > > this matter, but it cannot be comprehended by such a method. > It > > is all happening so fast and the very idea of observing is > > caught up with subtle self view. In a similar vein some > people > > think they observe rise and fall but before ther can be true > > insight into rise and fall there must be the understanding > that > > clearly distinguishes nama from rupa. > > Sujin stresses that there must be firm understanding that > knows > > anatta at the intellectual level before deeper insight can > > arise. Otherwise one will have the idea that sati and panna > can > > be manufactured by will; not seeing the real conditions for > > these factors; not seeing that they are simply conditioned > > phenomena (not self). > > The cittas in the sense door and minddoor processes arise in > > strict order. Why? Because that is the nature, the law. > > Each citta is different from the last but it is intimately > > conditioned by the other cittas in the same process. It is > an > > extreme to think that each citta is its own little package- > it > > is another extreme to think they are blended together in any > > way. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What you say in the last two sentences is, on my > opinion, very > important! This goes a long way towards ameliorating the > "atomistic view" by > showing that even though the various cittas occur during > discrete time units, > they are interdependent, they are connected by > conditionality!! > -----------------------------------------------------------------Yes, exactly. __________________> robert 6449 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 5:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sharing abhidhamma in daily life Dear Cybele, I thought others might remark on your post. It is a confirmation of my own experience. Here are some scriptual references that show that what you saw is just as the Buddha said: Kindred sayings on the limb of wisdom IV On Hindrances (viii) restraint and Hindrance "At the time, monks, when the Ariyan disciple makes the Dhamma his object, gives attention to it, with all his mind considers it, with ready ear listens to the Dhamma, at such a time the five hindrances exist not in him, at such times these seven limbs of wisdom ( mindfulness, dhamma-vicaya - investigation, effort, piti, tranquility, concentration, equanimity)go to fulfilment". The Digha Nikaya DN 33 explains the different ways that wisdom is fulfilled and vimutti (liberation) attained(this is a summary, a little imprecise. I don't have the actual translation in front of me) 1. when a Master or a reverend fellow disciple teaches the Dhamma to a brother.[he listens]...... 2. while he himself teaching others the Dhamma in detail . . . 3. when he is reciting the doctrines of the Dhamma in detail . . . 4. when he applies his thought to the Dhamma . . . 5. when he has well grasped some given clue (nimitta) to concentration, has well applied his understanding, has well thought it out, has well penetrated it by intuition (pa~n~naa) . . . _______ robert --- cybele chiodi wrote: > Dear Rob > > Yes I am very keen on sharing this experience, was very > profound to me. > > Yesterday evening as usual me and my friend John sat down for > meditation and > before normally we read some text and discuss it, sharing our > views. > John is reading Abhidhamma in daily life that I suggested to > him and he had > some doubts, got stuck in some concepts and asked me to try > and explain with > my own words my understanding of it to help him to clarify. > I decided to simplify reading aloud and John would question me > and I would > try to explain the passage. > What I started experiencing was that more and more I > concentrated on > explaining it in an articulate form and making analogies to > elucidate the > obscure points more I felt a clear comprehension of what I was > reading and > concepts that I missed emerged and I could consider them and I > got this > sensation of mental lucidity while explaining to him. > And I was not trying to show off or neither prone to > intellectualize to feel > myself on the 'safe path'; I was really sharing in a very > openminded way. > This understanding would unfold spontaneously while > explaining, trying to > communicate John what the text meant and realizing myself lots > of new > perspectives that I had previously overlooked or somehow had > rippen in the > meanwhile. > It was very stimulating and a kind of quiet joy arised because > helping John > to get through the text was in fact deepening my own > understanding in a very > curious and relaxed manner. > I felt a kind of mental disclosure, perceptions doors opening. > The sensations were quite vivid and the keeness of my mind was > acute; I felt > like while talking I was sharpening my mind. > Perhaps is just more delusion but looked like awareness. ;-) > I decided to continue reading the book with John and then we > can penetrate > together beyond the words to reach an actual understanding, > helping each > other. > His questions would promote this keeness in investigating and > my mind was > very allert indeed. > Well there it is Rob; looking forward for your comments. :-) > Please be merciless, don't destroy brutally my dear > illusions...joking! > > Cybele > 6450 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 7:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Thank you Jim. I look forward for yoiur post. And by the way, I prefer the Narada translation as well. I am fond of Narada. But in that case seemed pertinent use this one. ;-) Love Cybele >> >Yes. I will try to put together a summary with quotes within the next day >or >so and post when done. The translation of Dhp 205 that you quote below >differs significantly from Narada's translation which begins with "Having >tasted the flavour of supreme detachment . . .". At first I thought you >gave >the wrong verse number. > >Best wishes, >Jim > > >I would most appreciate. > > > >"When a man knows the solitude of silence, > >and feels the joy of quietness, > >he is free from fear and sin > >and he feels the joy of Dhamma." > > > >The Dhammapada, verse 205 > > > >Thanks > > > >Best wishes > > > >Cybele > 6451 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 8:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Rob and Kom - part 1 Rob You told me that you have posted a reply to me but is never arrived on my account, must be delayed. Could you send it privately and I forward into the account, otherwise it will take a long time to reach. Thank you Cybele >> >--- cybele chiodi wrote: > > >. > > Bhavana is usually translated as meditation. > > You speak about Sati but what we are taught by monks and > > layteachers is that > > mindfulness cannot occur if you don't train your mind > > practicing meditation > > quite strictly. > > Is most evident that here nobody or mostly you don't agree > > with this view. > > Explain me in an articulate way your position. > > This is my query. > > > > Love > > > > Cybele > > ____________ >Dear Cybele, >before I answer this would you mind repeating what you said in a >private note to me about how last night you were explaining >Abhidhamma in daily life in your own words and what you noticed. >best wishes >robert > > 6452 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 8:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sharing abhidhamma in daily life Cybele First, congratulations on your and John's kusala in reading and discussing together. This sort of thing can be very useful for helping both one's own understanding and the other person's. I think your choice of ADL as a text is an excellent one - so much meat there to consider. > Yesterday evening as usual me and my friend John sat down for meditation > and > before normally we read some text and discuss it, sharing our views. > John is reading Abhidhamma in daily life that I suggested to him and he > had > some doubts, got stuck in some concepts and asked me to try and explain > with > my own words my understanding of it to help him to clarify. > I decided to simplify reading aloud and John would question me and I > would > try to explain the passage. > What I started experiencing was that more and more I concentrated on > explaining it in an articulate form and making analogies to elucidate > the > obscure points more I felt a clear comprehension of what I was reading > and > concepts that I missed emerged and I could consider them and I got this > sensation of mental lucidity while explaining to him. > And I was not trying to show off or neither prone to intellectualize to > feel > myself on the 'safe path'; I was really sharing in a very openminded > way. > This understanding would unfold spontaneously while explaining, trying > to > communicate John what the text meant and realizing myself lots of new > perspectives that I had previously overlooked or somehow had rippen in > the > meanwhile. > It was very stimulating and a kind of quiet joy arised because helping > John > to get through the text was in fact deepening my own understanding in a > very > curious and relaxed manner. > I felt a kind of mental disclosure, perceptions doors opening. > The sensations were quite vivid and the keeness of my mind was acute; I > felt > like while talking I was sharpening my mind. > Perhaps is just more delusion but looked like awareness. ;-) I wouldn't want to say it was or wasn't awareness -- only you could know that. And you could only know by having a good understanding about awareness at an intellectual level -- its characteristic and function, what can be its object etc. That's why it is important to have studied these things -- so that if it arises it can be recognised. Otherwise one is left wondering about the nature of the moment (and perhaps clinging to the experience afterwards). The interesting thing to me is that this experience which you think may have been kusala involving awareness at a certain level (let's assume it was, for the purpose of this discussion!) happened without your intention to 'practice' or to have any awareness at that moment.. But because you have read a lot of dhamma over the years and considered it at length and critically, and because the right kind of reflection was being conditioned by the discussion of the useful text, the conditions were ripe and so it happened. At that moment the effort was right, without your having to 'have effort' in the conventional sense. This is how awareness can arise naturally, without one's intending to have it. > I decided to continue reading the book with John and then we can > penetrate > together beyond the words to reach an actual understanding, helping each > > other. > His questions would promote this keeness in investigating and my mind > was > very allert indeed. Good luck with your further studies together. But don't expect a repeat experience! As Ken indicated, if we develop the right conditions we can have confidence that the appropriate result will follow, but we have no way of knowing when or in what circumstances that will be. Jon 6453 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 9:03pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sati/panna and its object (was: The meaning of Equan... Howard --- Howard wrote: > > > > Jon: > > > > Where the object of sati or panna is a nama, it is necessarily a > nama > > > that > > > > has just fallen away, so that the nama that is the object and the > > > citta > > > > that is the moment of awareness/understanding do not arise > > > simultaneously. > > > > However, so rapid is the succession of cittas that the appearance > is > > > as > > > > if both the awareness/understanding and the nama that is its > object > > > appear > > > > to be occurring together (this of course assumes a number of > moments > > > of > > > > each kind of citta). > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > This is something I do not "get". The "citta theory" would > seem > > > to > > > imply that if the "object" of a citta is gone, then all that can be > the > > > *current* object is a (very fresh) *memory* of the just-fallen > > > object,and not > > > the no-longer-existing object, itself. >> > > Jon: > > Yes, this is exactly as I understand it. I think the term "image" > rather > > than "memory" is used. Does this present any obstacle? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, no obstacle at all. (Unless, of course 'image' is used in > preference to 'memory' to avoid seeing that it is a memory!) > ---------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, but I didn't make myself clear. I meant, does the explanation, ie. that the nama that is the object of awarenss has actually just fallen away, does that present any obstacle. I can tell you have given a lot of thought to this area, and I hope I am not just creating more confusion! Sorry about the ambiguity. (As I said in a subsequent post, I am not sure exactly what term is used to describe the just-fallen-away reality.) Jon 6454 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 9:41pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! Joe I am just getting around to one or two posts that were sent during my recent time away. I was interested in this question. --- Joe wrote: > Jon > >In my view, we are not > > in the realm of precepts/sila here, but in the realm of right or > wrong > > view. > > This is exactly what I was thinking. > >> Jon: > >That is, what is the development of the path as taught by the > > Buddha? Just because certain substances give experiences that > > (subjectively) appear to match descriptions found in the texts this > does > > nothing to indicate that this is an alternative or supplementary > form of > > practice. > > As I have said elsewhere, the same could be said of any activity or > > practice. Sure, there are lots of techniques that when practised > can > be > > interpreted as bringing signs of progress on the path, but if the > practice > > is not correct from the beginning the result will not be the > development > > of the path taught by the Buddha. > Joe: > Can't wisdom arise during any activity, assuming right view is > present? Is this the same thing, would you say, as saying that awareness or wisdom may take any reality as its object and may arise at any time? That is certainly so, I believe. However, since awareness and right view/wisdom are conditioned realities, there is no way of knowing when they will arise or in what circumstances. Any idea, for example, that one can 'apply' right view to an activity or situation is mistaken (I am not suggesting this is what you are saying, Joe, but it is an idea that one comes across from time to time). Even more mistaken is the idea that one can do anything as long as it's done with right view. That idea implies a strong notion of control over the arising of right view. Jon 6455 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 10:00pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup]drugs) Re: kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! Erik, New flat, new computer (with internet access, I presume). Sounds good! In a not too distant post you said-- > It is very important to recall that there are many many strategies > out there, from the emptiness strategy to the one of watching the > arising and passing away of dhammas, even koan practice. Very > different approaches. There is no "one size fits all" approach to the > Dharma, never has been, never will be. …. There are indeed many stategies out there claiming to support the path - far more than the few you have mentioned. Erik, I would be interested to know how you would say one should determine whether a given strategy does in fact support the path. Presumably this would not be a purely subjective thing. What criteria should be applied? Jon 6456 From: ppp Date: Wed Jul 18, 2001 4:30am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: : Sati of past object? To Khun Nina: How have you been? With respect to your converstion with Khun Num, you make an excllent arugment on how we should study the Abhidhamma. Many people who have studied the Abhidhamma extensively tend to become overly zellous (?spelling?) to constrast every experience of theirs with the pieces of information they've acquired in the Abhidhamma. It would be nice if our own intelecual understanding of the Abhidhamma is mapped into our understanding of the realities in the one-to-one fashion. Unfortunately, our pannaa does not grow as quickly as we would like it to. Being reminded by such a phrase as "Kantiyo paramag na vijjati" (there is nothing superior than patience), we should, as Khun Sujin reminds as time and again, develop the right understanding so that, not the self but, sati can start seeing things as they are. I've neglected the study of Dhamma for a long long time, but there are many (Pali) phrases which I would never forget, and, which remind me how lucky I am for having encountered the Buddhas' teaching in this life. Due simply to various "conditions" (including this Internet link as one of them, I am here again, resuming my study of Dhamma. Best Wishes, tadao 6458 From: bruce Date: Thu Jul 19, 2001 0:42am Subject: note to jon and nina + re: cybelle's sharing abhidhamma in daily life hi cybelle this is just great to hear, all your study sounds as though it is paying off, although i would also add to jon's note about paccaya that perhaps your years of sitting meditation played a part too, especially if while sitting you were able to accurately notice realities as they appeared....that is what you do (or rather what you intend to do) when you practice "formally", am i right cybelle? -- of course whether noticing arises or not doesn't depend on the intention for it to arise....although i must admit i find that dedicating time every day to cultivation works much better for me than only waiting to notice throughout the day, with the result that the more regularly i sit, the more i seem to remember to note during non-sitting times...i wonder if that is perhaps because formal practice time doesn't demand conceptualization/papanca.... and a solid "yes" to the idea of the breath-as-anchor for the four foundations -- rings true with the Anapanasati Sutta.... i'm interested in hearing more about your sitting practice, as i'm certainly going to be continuing mine :-) hi jon and nina apologies for not following up on your responses to my "listening to and considering" query a long way back there (before you left, actually jon)...conditions didn't allow a good response (iow: i was incredibly busy!) though i have been lurking all along... i have to admit i still don't undertand what "considering" the Dhamma entails....i understand (only conceptually of course) that there is no one doing the considering....does this mean that the considering just arises and is beyond our control? is it a paramattha dhamma? or is it just papanca?...or can it be both at different times? is considering the Dhamma simply another way of saying "noting realities as they ppear at the six doors"? for that matter, is "listening to the Dhamma" something we can do willingly? "listening" seems to bespeak willing and control....perhaps a better word would be "hearing", which arises, as opposed to listening, which seems forced....reminds me of a Sayadaw here in japan who liked to remind me: "no listening -- just hearing"....he would also say the same with looking/seeing, which made me wonder if the idea of a controlling self wasn't something that required prepositions for those verbs, ie looking *at*, listening *to*....all makes me think that we can neither decide to listen to the Dhamma, nor consider the Dhamma.... just some recent mental notes... bruce ps: i'll be in bkk 26 july -14 aug if anyone would like to get together... At 20:44 2001/07/18 +0800, you wrote: > Cybele > > First, congratulations on your and John's kusala in reading and discussing > together. This sort of thing can be very useful for helping both one's > own understanding and the other person's. I think your choice of ADL as a > text is an excellent one - so much meat there to consider. > > > Yesterday evening as usual me and my friend John sat down for meditation > > and > > before normally we read some text and discuss it, sharing our views. > > John is reading Abhidhamma in daily life that I suggested to him and he > > had > > some doubts, got stuck in some concepts and asked me to try and explain > > with > > my own words my understanding of it to help him to clarify. > > I decided to simplify reading aloud and John would question me and I > > would > > try to explain the passage. > > What I started experiencing was that more and more I concentrated on > > explaining it in an articulate form and making analogies to elucidate > > the > > obscure points more I felt a clear comprehension of what I was reading > > and > > concepts that I missed emerged and I could consider them and I got this > > sensation of mental lucidity while explaining to him. > > And I was not trying to show off or neither prone to intellectualize to > > feel > > myself on the 'safe path'; I was really sharing in a very openminded > > way. > > This understanding would unfold spontaneously while explaining, trying > > to > > communicate John what the text meant and realizing myself lots of new > > perspectives that I had previously overlooked or somehow had rippen in > > the > > meanwhile. > > It was very stimulating and a kind of quiet joy arised because helping > > John > > to get through the text was in fact deepening my own understanding in a > > very > > curious and relaxed manner. > > I felt a kind of mental disclosure, perceptions doors opening. > > The sensations were quite vivid and the keeness of my mind was acute; I > > felt > > like while talking I was sharpening my mind. > > Perhaps is just more delusion but looked like awareness. ;-) > > I wouldn't want to say it was or wasn't awareness -- only you could know > that. And you could only know by having a good understanding about > awareness at an intellectual level -- its characteristic and function, > what can be its object etc. That's why it is important to have studied > these things -- so that if it arises it can be recognised. Otherwise one > is left wondering about the nature of the moment (and perhaps clinging to > the experience afterwards). > > The interesting thing to me is that this experience which you think may > have been kusala involving awareness at a certain level (let's assume it > was, for the purpose of this discussion!) happened without your intention > to 'practice' or to have any awareness at that moment.. But because you > have read a lot of dhamma over the years and considered it at length and > critically, and because the right kind of reflection was being conditioned > by the discussion of the useful text, the conditions were ripe and so it > happened. At that moment the effort was right, without your having to > 'have effort' in the conventional sense. > > This is how awareness can arise naturally, without one's intending to have > it. > > > I decided to continue reading the book with John and then we can > > penetrate > > together beyond the words to reach an actual understanding, helping each > > > > other. > > His questions would promote this keeness in investigating and my mind > > was > > very allert indeed. > > Good luck with your further studies together. But don't expect a repeat > experience! As Ken indicated, if we develop the right conditions we can > have confidence that the appropriate result will follow, but we have no > way of knowing when or in what circumstances that will be. > > Jon > 6459 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 19, 2001 0:42am Subject: Practice and Ajahn Chah Dear everybody I just got it from a friend and I thought of sharing with you as we are or were discussing on the subject of meditation. No offense meant, just a viewpoint. > >An intellectual Buddhist once asked the Ajahn Chah an annoying >intellectual question, quoting all sorts of sutras and so forth. Ajahn Chah >asked her about her daily practice and she admitted that she had no >practice, but rather she spent much time analyzing sutras. Chah >replied, "Madame, you are the farmer who, each morning, goes out to >the chicken coop and collects the chicken shit instead of the eggs." > Love Cybele 6460 From: Anders Honoré Date: Thu Jul 19, 2001 2:36am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Equanimity and Bhante ----- Original Message ----- From: Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Equanimity and Bhante > Dear Cybele, > > You are welcome. > > One thing I have had over the years is a good sense of humor. I think that > the Blessed One probably had a very good one, too. > > The important thing is for us to be honest --- but not hurt others with > words --- even when truthful. > > The other day I met two young men who were preaching Islam to me. I > listened. And having had perhaps a bit more on the ball in terms of > theological background, and having studied Islam and the Koran, I could have > been critical and made them look like fools, but what would this serve? In > the end, I was told by one of the young men that it was my "type of person" > that Islam badly needed! Why? Because when we live the Holy Life it shows. > No need to have any pride and no need to be ostentatious or to ostracize! > > I know you did not make a declaration that I was nervy! LOL!!! > > But what is interesting is how you mentioned I was not the ""conventionally > the classic 'calm almost [apathetic], meaning by > this aloof, Theravada monk." > > Isn't interesting how stereotypes prevail? Being gentle is not to be so > aloof, and aloofness is detachment not lethargy and apathy. And another > thing, too, is that the Sangha is not a heard