6800 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 3:34pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: thailand/west Dear Erik, > I recall reading somewhere that something like 75% of the Thai bikkhu- > sangha smokes, and I often see a figure of this revered old monk > (whose name I asked one shopkeeper but can no longer recall) around > BKK here, squatting, holding a big fat cigar. Does anyone recall his > name? I found it amusing to see this revered monk smoking en > flagrante this way--so shockingly un-PC for many Westerners, who > can't comperhend the idea that one can be both a smoker and a sincere > spiritual practitioner! :) I recognize the squat but not the smoking, but I think you are talking about Loong Phor Koon. You should listen to him, its worse than his smoking. Sukin. 6801 From: bruce Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 7:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: thailand/west-Derek/slightly related.... hi christine there was an excellent post by ken and visakha on the d-last many months ago explaining why they thought Theravada is definitely *not* dhammakaya.... i'll try to search the archives... bruce > Dhammakaya is Theravadin isn't it, so, if one is a meditator, is this > worthwhile to try? 6802 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 7:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: thailand/west Dear Erik > > > > > >--- Erik wrote: > > > > I still smoke cigarettes, for example > > > > > >Me too! > > > > > >Derek. > > > > > > > Bleah, disgusting! > > I give up any intention of kissing any of you! > >Forget what I said before about not quitting, I finally have some >real incentive to give it up now, Cybele!!! Wow! See I am accumulating merits with my wantoness. This is a perfect example to illustrate how akusala can lead to kusala! Hehehehehehehehehe, gigling, gigling! > > > Please quit very soon. heheheheheh ;-))) > > > > Sorry but I can't resist Sarah....:-) > >(this one is going to keep me giggling all day :) :) :) Hehehe, Sarah says that I flirt with all males in the list but I can't resist. This is like a harem reversed; all males, we are very few women, too tempting for me... :-))))) And the males here are brainy, I go mad for brainy men! hehehehehehe! Love Cybele 6803 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 7:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: note to jon and nina + re: cybelle's sharing abhidhamma in daily life Hi Derek > >Hi, Tadao, > >Yes. I think it's partly cultural. In Western cultures (and maybe >Japan too? I don't know) we don't see that many dead bodies. But if >you'd lived on the banks of the Ganges all your life, you'd probably >see dead bodies almost every day. However you would smell them. Benares along the river has the smell of death, bodies in decomposition floating in the water and people bathing themselves nearby. India is a spiritual lesson at any corner everyday; you have to SEE the naked truth. Cybele 6804 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 7:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! Hi Erik, Even though i was being selective and have done some drastic pruning, this post is still rather long, so I'm slicing it up to help digestion for anyonone other than Erik who needs no help;-) Part 1 >> you were talking >>about >> getting rid of what is unpleasant in life. >Right, which is dukkha. The entire point of the path. There are different meanings of dukkha , but when we talk about (or when the Buddha talks about) dukkha in the 4NT , what is being referred to are ALL conditioned realities which are unsatisfactory because of being impermanent: 'sankhittena pancupadanakkhandha dukkha - briefly, the five factors of attachment are suffering'. The point of the path, as I see it, is to develop understanding of any realities appearing now, not just those trying to get rid of that which seems unpleasant..... > We can easily (and indeed must) at some level speak about > conventional self, dukkha at the conventional level, practice at the > conventional level: that to do this is to get that. When this arises, > that arises; when this ceases, that ceases. It's true we use conventional language and sometimes we can and do misinterpret what others mean by it....here we only have the language to go by, but we begin to get a sense of the views being expressed by each other I think.... > > There is no other way to even discuss practice using language, and > while it is vital to understand WHAT is "self" and what is clung to > as self, there can be a degree of overkill on semantics (which I have > so often observed here) that makes communication very difficult if > too much emphasis is given to the way things are phrased rather than > their deeper meaning. Language is just another fabrication! We must > let even language go! Many would agree with you, but then, as we know, the details need a lot of fine tuning and the language is the means by which we listen and communicate. I don't hold to the school that we don't need to hear the details and should just open our hearts or see the fine example of those who have never listened to or heard the dhamma in detail. I know you don't either Erik and that you appreciate the fine tuning as much as anyone which is why I responded to your message! > What I was driving at here is that we need strategies for effectively > dealing with dukkha in its many aspects, and Right View is simply one > tool among many. What is certain is that insight alone is not enough > to get rid of dukkha until arahata magga. If anyone believes > otherwise they are in for one very rude and nasty shock! The > Sabbasava Sutta for this reason details many other methods the Buddha > expounded for terminating the asavas. I've made my comments about your first point. We read over and over again that it is the noble eightfold path which leads to the cessation of dukkha and that samma-ditthi (right view) is the first and most essential factor.: "Herein a householder is wise: he is endowed with wisdom that understands the arising and cessation (of the five aggregates of existence); he is possessed of the noble penetrating insight that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is called the accomplishment of wisdom." Anguttara Nikaya VIII.54,Vyagghapajja Sutta, Conditions of Welfare http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an08-054.html 6805 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 7:55pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! Hi Erik, Part 2 I'm reading the Sabbasava Sutta (MN2) again as I type. My quotes are from B.Bodhi's translation. (MA refers to the commentary). It discusses in detail how wise attention (yoniso manasikara) attends to what is skilful and understands what is 'unfit for attention'. In other words, comprehends what is kusala and akusala. n36 'MA makes the important point that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction conisists, rather, in the mode of attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed.' In other words it is not the object of citta that matters (however akusala or unpleasant) but the citta and cetasikas (consciousness and mental factors) cognizing it that counts. The four Noble Truths are treated as a 'subject of contemplation and insight'. n41 'MA says that up to the attainment of the path of stream-entry, attention denotes insight (vipassana), but at the moment of the path it denotes path-knowledge. Insight directly apprehends the first two truths, since its objective range is the mental and material phenomena comprised under dukkha and its origin; it can know the latter two truths only inferentially. Path-knowledge makes the truth of cessation its object, apprehending it by penetration as object (arammana). .'..When he attends wisely in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: personality view, doubt, and adherence to rules and observances. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by seeing.' (n35 'the word 'seeing' (dassana) here refers to the first of the 4 supramundane paths (sotapattimagga) so designated because it offers the first glimpse of Nibbana.' There are one of two points here I'd stress which are relevant and to the nibbana debates, but I'll try not to get side-tracked for now! (I could side-track all day;-) Nowhere here does it say that right view or right attention is one tool among many or that we need strategies. By developing right understanding , it understands what is wholesome, what is unwholesome, what is right view and what is wrong view of self. The Sutta continues to talk about restraint of the senses (with awareness, which as we know accompanies rt understanding). It then discusses other useful 'guidelines' the monks use in their daily life reflections or reminders for living such as avoiding unsuitable places or friends because 'taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not avoid these things'...For example, we read: 'Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspit, a sewer'!! Common sense as we might advise a child ....it doesn't mean there can't be awareness whilst being chased by the wild elephant though! Finally there is a discussion of the 7 bojjhanga (enlightenment factors) 'supported by seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, and ripens in relinquishment...' These factors are developed to realize the higher supramundane paths. BB says (n48) 'The terms 'seclusion' (viveka), 'dispassion' (viraga), and 'cessation' (nirodha) may all be understood as referring to Nibbana. 'MA explains the word vosagga, rendered as 'relinquishment' has the 2 meanings of 'giving up' (pariccaga) i.e. the abandonment of defilements, and 'entering into' (pakkhandana), i.e. culminating in Nibbana.' I just mention these terms as they are often interpreted in other ways. Some people read 'supported by seclusion' and think this means they have to withdraw from ordinary life, for example. Semantics? 6806 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 7:58pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! Hi Erik, Part3 > > In reality, no self, no control, no strategy, no trip...just > realities to be > > known even at these times, however/whatever/wherever conditions > lead us. > > I see we're coming into accord now--at least I think... let's > continue... ;-)) > Okay, that was a tad dogmatic-sounding. I meant this more generally, > that when we're overwhelemed by suffering we're ususually too wrapped > up in notions of "self" and pain to think of much else. I look into > my own mind for this, nowhere else. And of course we can have moments > of insight arising when overwhelmed by dukkha, ;-)) > But some situations ARE more conducive to insight. Please, Sarah, > think carefully about what you're saying here. What you say sounds so > fatalistic, as if there is no reason at all to seek out favorable > conditions for practice! Whoa!!! Why then, is there emphasis on > finding a queit place for meditation, why is there so much emphasis > in the Visuddhimagga, for example, on establishing the appropriate > external conditions conducive to meditation? Please explain your > position to me in light of what the Vis. III.28 speaks of regarding > conditions for meditation. Are these or are these not "situations?" These (as in yr ref) are favourable 'situations' for advanced levels of samatha as discussed in the Vis under the Concentration section, not under the Wisdom or Vipassana section. There have been plenty of discussion on these issues. Where does the Buddha say that for the development of insight (shown to be the 'key) for the eradication of dukkha (as in 4NT) that a certain place or time or position is necessary? It may turn out that in Rob's case there are often more moments of awareness when he's amongst the crowds in the Japanese underground, in a forest or at a karaoke bar. For me it may be that awareness arises when I'm huddled up in cattle-class, listening to my aunt's account of all the coach trips she's been on since I last saw her or playing in the snow in Switzerland. This doesn't mean that we go and try to repeat the experiences..that would show a very strong clinging to sati and wrong view of its conditioned nature....agreed? Hmm... > > Further, your reasoning here and elsewhere suonds dangerously close > to the very serious wrong view rejected by the Buddha that there is > no possibility of controlling our mind in the present via cetana. > This was explicitly refuted by Lord Buddha as a deadly view held by > some teachers, that we are 100% the product of all past actions and > have no volitional control. If I may be so bold, your reasoning sounds like most realities are conditioned and beyond control, but a few really pesky, unpleasant ones, with a little controlling cetana and conventional self should be exterminated or sent running with a few well-trained strategies which are perfectly under control until one is a sotapanna.. (I know I'll get a hammering for this ;-)) > > Volition is EVERYTHING. Please show me a Sutta that says otherwise. > In fact, our volitional "free will" is the only tool we have to get > out of here. Otherwise we may as well toss up our hands and forget > practice altogether, because nothing "we" do will ever make a > difference. Sorry, but cetana is conditioned too..It arises with every citta, even vipaka citta, as you know. It coordinates 'the associated dhammas on the object and has the function of 'willing' in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala) states. It's perfectly true that nothing 'we' do will make any difference, but this doesn't mean there is anything fatalistic about the path. The factors of the eightfold path can and must be developed. There can be awareness right now if we have heard and considered what it is and and have a clear idea of what the objects of awareness can and should be. However, if we think awareness can be aware of 'sitting' or 'eating' or that another time or place would be more suitable, there certainly won't be any awareness. Cetana (volition or intention) is not a factor of the 8fold path, so without more quotes (I'm already getting v. nervous about the length of this post), how can it be EVERYTHING? > > While it is agreed we can't control vipaka, we can (and MUST, if > we're serious about the path) strive to purify the mind with directed > practice, even practices that will by definition partake of notions > of "self"--until at least sotapatti-magga-nana. ;-((( That is the entire > point of bhavana. We need heaps of merit to even get rid of self-view > in the first place, and I believe in placing the horse before the > cart here and will simply restate the stock formula of dana, sila, > bhavana, in order, one laying the foundation for the next, knowing > that "self view" at some level is ALWAYS present until bhavana is > developed to the degree sakkayaditthi is finally terminated. Different moments..unless there begin to be moments when awareness and understanding penetrate and know realities as they are at this moment as seeing, hearing, hardness or whatever, without any self in the characteristic appearing, then deeper or higher levels of understanding won't develop...of course they will be blurry and infrequent and surrounded by doubts and wrong views in the beginning....but at those moments of insight, there is no wrong view or ignorance. (I'm not talking about anusayas or latent tendencies here). 6807 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 8:07pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! Hi Erik, Part4 > If you believe tears of gratitude and love > are a form of dosa, then I can only say I hope you sometime have the > experience of knowing what such tears of love and joy feel like. I believe there are different realities at these times, Erik. I don't for a moment doubt the genuine gratitude and love you have for your teachers. I'm sure there are many moments of metta too. In my experience, when there are tears, they are an indication of moments of dosa amongst those of metta. Only you can tell and I hope I didn't cause any offence and I certainly didn't mean any disrespect for your teachers or your practice > There are few pracftices which are ther equal of meditation on the > Bhramaviharas. And why, I must ask, is there practicelly NO emphasis > here given to this indispensible practice? It's not like it's even > controversial from the Theravada perspective, and all I can do is > encourage people study the Visuddhimagga IX and meditate, meditate, > meditate on the Four Immeasurables until such tears of joy and > gratitude have the conditions to arise. Can there be metta now? We're trying to help each other and others to appreciate the dhamma....isn't this a good time to show kindness or consideration? What about when you sit on a bus in Bkk? Can there be friendliness and kindness to the other people you have contact with then? I think there is a lot of emphasis on understanding all realities including metta and the other brahmaviharas in Theravada and in developing ALL kinds of wholesomeness, including the brahmaviharas with understanding. ...Another post, but in brief, for me, a lot of what I used to take for metta before I read and heard some details really wasn't metta at all. This is the value of the abhidhamma and I need to hear and read a lot more. > This is the very reason I'm studying > the Abhidhamma, because I see it as a way to "reverse-engineer" many > aspects and experiences of the Dhamma that have arisen in the course > of my own practice, as well as wishing to have a technical way to > unpack, in detail, how and why certain practices perform the > functions they do, and how they all hang together. So we agree here...though I'd say Abhidhamma is not a technical way but the practical way to unpack.......I don't distinguish between abhidhamma and practice..both are about the development of satipatthana now. Have fun unpacking in Bkk, Erik and you never know, we may follow your fine example and get a plane over on a whim too..... Thanks for the encouragement ;-) Pls know that I always enjoy our debates and when I'm unable to continue it's b/c of time restraints only. Sarah 6808 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 8:14pm Subject: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! b --- Erik wrote: > > Volition is EVERYTHING. Please show me a Sutta that says > otherwise. > In fact, our volitional "free will" is the only tool we have > to get > out of here. Otherwise we may as well toss up our hands and > forget > practice altogether, because nothing "we" do will ever make a > difference. > > ___________________ Cetana (volition)is part of sankhara khanda - the aggregate of formations. It is a conditioned phenomena. Visuddhimagga XX83 "There is removal of false view in one who sees "If formations were self, it would be right to take them as self; but being not self they are taken as self. Therefore they are not-self in the sense of no power being exercisable over them.." http://www.abhidhamma.org/majjhima_nikaaya35_i.htm an extract:""Aggivessana, do you say Matter is my self. Feelings are my self. Perceptions are my self. Determinations are my self. Conscioussness is my self.? Good Gotama, I say. matter is my self. Feelings are my self. Perceptions are my self. Determinations are my self. Consciousness is my self, so also this large crowd says it. What does this large crowd say about your view? You should dispute on your view. Good Gotama, I say, matter is my self. Feelings are my self. Perceptions are my self. Determinations are my self, and conscioussness is my self. Then, I will cross question you on this and you may reply, as it pleases you..Aggivessana, do head anointed warrior kings like king Pasenadi of Kosala, king Ajaatasattu of Magadha wield power over their kingdoms, to execute those that have to be executed, to produce those that have to be produced, and to banish those that have to be banished?Yes, good Gotama, the head anointed warrior kings such as king Pasenadi of Kosala and king Ajaatasattu of Magadha wield power in their kingdoms to execute those that have to be executed, to produce those that have to be produced, and to banish those that have to be banished. Even the leaders, gathered here, of the Vajjis and Mallas, wield power in their kingdoms to execute those that have to be executed, to produce those that have to be produced and to banish those that have to be banished, so there are no doubts, about head anointed warrior kings, like king Pasenadi of Kosala and king Ajaatasattu of Magadha. Aggivessana, you say matter is your self, do you wield power over that matter, as may my matter be thus and not thus?. When this was said Saccaka the son of Nigan.tha became silent. For the second time, the Blessed One asked, Aggivessana, you say matter is your self, do you wield power over that matter, as may my matter be thus and not thus?. [and the same for the other aggregates] robert 6809 From: Robert Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 9:48pm Subject: Re: Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message: To Robert Epstein --- Suan wrote: > > > > What do you mean by the phrase " as one's own state"? If you meant > that nibbana is a state of one's consciousness, then the Pali texts > do not support it. I have refuted Professor David Kalupahana on this > point in my research article "Three Abhidhamma Methods Under > Bodhiology" on the bodhiology website. Please go there and check it > out. > ____________ Dear Suan, Thanks for your help on these matters. I also read your excellent article showing that vinnana, citta and mano are indeed synonyms - and have made a link to your site on abhidhamma.org robert 6810 From: Erik Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 10:04pm Subject: Conditions and Insight - Sarah --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: Whew! What a fun (and challenging) this exchange is for me! :) > > But some situations ARE more conducive to insight. Please, Sarah, > > think carefully about what you're saying here. What you say sounds so > > fatalistic, as if there is no reason at all to seek out favorable > > conditions for practice! Whoa!!! Why then, is there emphasis on > > finding a queit place for meditation, why is there so much emphasis > > in the Visuddhimagga, for example, on establishing the appropriate > > external conditions conducive to meditation? Please explain your > > position to me in light of what the Vis. III.28 speaks of regarding > > conditions for meditation. Are these or are these not "situations?" > > These (as in yr ref) are favourable 'situations' for advanced levels of samatha > as discussed in the Vis under the Concentration section, not under the Wisdom > or Vipassana section. As Derek noted, where is Right Vipassana in the Noble Eightfold Path? ;) While there's no point speaking dogmatically by suggesting the approach I've been taught and practiced is the ONLY way, it is impossible to say with certainty other approaches, such as the one you appear to be advocating here, actually work. I remain skeptical and unconvinced, because I have not collected enough evidence demonstrating their efficacy at present. Based on the teachings of my lineage and my interpretation of the suttas, creating favorable conditions for insight is essential. (So is the union of samatha & vipassana, and this has been debated before in detail here.) I remain skeptical of any approach that doesn't give concentration its proper due, and Right Concentration, in my experience, and in the passages from the Suttas, requires appropriate conditions for its arising. The approach I am advocating here--practicing the union of samatha & vipassana--definitely works, and is fully supported in the Suttas, in fact emphasized. And again, Right Concentration is indispensible as a factor of the path; there can be no debate on this point by anyone who calls him or herself a Buddhist: "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful, & fully alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, and of him the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration." (SN XLV.8) > There have been plenty of discussion on these issues. Where does the Buddha say > that for the development of insight (shown to be the 'key) for the eradication > of dukkha (as in 4NT) that a certain place or time or position is necessary? Would you accept the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta on this one? "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." Is this or is this not creating a "situation?" I do not interpret the Satipatthana Sutta saying this is the ONLY way, but if I am interpreting what you're saying correctly, and you're implying that favorable situations aren't helpful or conducive to the path, then this serves as a direct refutation to that notion. Combine this passage with the instruction on Right Concentration above, and there should be little doubt special conditions are, if not extremely beneficial, essential for awakening. And let's get down to brass tacks here. What I'm parroting here is not some random interpretation; it's been demonstrated to work unequivocally--at least in my own experience and interpretation. It also happens to come down one of the most polished teaching lineages in all Tibetan Buddhism. My lama is abbot of the renowned Sera monastery, one of the "Three Pillars of Tibet." He's considered the "first among the first" as Geshe Hlarampa, the highest degree possible in the Gelug-pa lineage (the lineage of the Dalai Lamas), which represents unsurpassed excellence in scholarship and debate (and much, much more), in a lineage renowned for rigorous scholarship and debate, whose (im)personal teachers were the Dalai Lama's private tutors, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, as well as the renowned Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche. He is considered by many to be a living Buddha. It simply doesn't get any better than this in terms of representing the distilled heart-essence of the Tibetan Dharma, and if one is going to find correct Dharma coming out of Tibet, then this is where it's most likely to be found, because these are the very best possible conditions for it I can think of. And any teacher or teaching I come across will be weighed very carefully against this backdrop. So when I encounter teachings which appear at variance with what's been handed down to me and demonstated to work, then permit me some healthy skepticism. Note I am not going dogmatic and rejecting the importance of watching realities in daily life--that is in fact one important reason I am here, after all, to learn this way of understanding the Dhamma. But know well that now proximity to your teaching lineage is no longer an issue, I will be observing very, very carefully over time for evidence that it is in fact correct Dharma (and I am giving the benefit of the doubt at the moment and assuming it is). > > Further, your reasoning here and elsewhere suonds dangerously close > > to the very serious wrong view rejected by the Buddha that there is > > no possibility of controlling our mind in the present via cetana. > > This was explicitly refuted by Lord Buddha as a deadly view held by > > some teachers, that we are 100% the product of all past actions and > > have no volitional control. > > If I may be so bold, your reasoning sounds like most realities are conditioned > and beyond control, but a few really pesky, unpleasant ones, with a little > controlling cetana and conventional self should be exterminated or sent running > with a few well-trained strategies which are perfectly under control until one > is a sotapanna.. (I know I'll get a hammering for this ;-)) Not "perfectly under control." See my post to Jon earlier--cetana IS conditioned by past action, no disagreement there. But, the fact is we have cetana, volitional choice all the same, and that is the ONLY way we have of getting out of samsara. If there no volition then we'd have no hope at all. May as well put a gun to our collective head and pull the trigger. > It's perfectly true that nothing 'we' do will make any difference, but this > doesn't mean there is anything fatalistic about the path. Choice DOES make a difference, all the difference. Again, we do not disagree cetana is conditioned by accumulations, but we still have a degree of freedom in choosing our responses to situations right now, which is our tiny window of opportunity, the only one we have. > However, if we think awareness can be > aware of 'sitting' or 'eating' or that another time or place would be more > suitable, there certainly won't be any awareness. Sarah, I must strongly disagree with this, again, for the reasons listed above. Do you know for certain what you're saying here is correct? Because this directly contradicts my own experience and that of many others. In my experience suitable conditions are incredibly helpful for the arising of insight, if not necessary (by "conditions" I include everything up from dana, sila, to bhavana, to "external" factors such as time & place, etc.). Anyway, if I'm sounding all fired up in this post it's because I'm thrilled to be in BKK and coming off a high after spending the most delightful afternoon discussing the Dhamma with our friend Sukin, whose unbelievable kindness in giving me the gift of Dhamma is appreciated with the deepest gratitude I know. I again have "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" among my collection of books, as well as Bikkhu Bodhi's take on the "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma," with all the tables and charts of classifications I've been looking for for so long now. And Sarah, you and Jon need to go with your impulses and hop on that plane (what is it, a three-hour ride?), because you're invited to my apartment-warming this weekend (and besides I want to give a huge hug to everyone). 6811 From: Erik Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 10:37pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > b > --- Erik wrote: > > > Volition is EVERYTHING. Please show me a Sutta that says > > otherwise. > > In fact, our volitional "free will" is the only tool we have > > to get > > out of here. Otherwise we may as well toss up our hands and > > forget > > practice altogether, because nothing "we" do will ever make a > > difference. > > > > ___________________ > > Cetana (volition)is part of sankhara khanda - the aggregate of > formations. It is a conditioned phenomena. > > Visuddhimagga XX83 "There is removal of false view in one who > sees "If formations were self, it would be right to take them as > self; but being not self they are taken as self. Therefore they > are not-self in the sense of no power being exercisable over > them.." Robert, can we choose in a conventional sense? Yes or no? If you say no then you agree with the sectarians the Buddha refuted in the passage I quoted earlier. What is the definition of non-controlling here as a feature of anatta? It all hangs on your interpretation of what that means. I am not suggesting AT ALL there is a "driver" behind actions, because that implies a view of self. That view is explicitly refuted in the Tibetan interpretation as well, one we learn to do away with in "trangye" (study of what constitutes Right vs. wrong view). Yet anatta doesn't mean things don't exist conventionally, and cetana, volition, choice, DOES exist conventionally. If it didn't we'd have no hope of getting out of samsara at all. Thanks to your wonderful inspiration to read the Vis. (I'm still working on it, and haven't read as much lately given I've been very busy) I now know how to return fire using your ordnance, you know. :) Vis. XIX.19: "But he sees clearly with Right View that the wise say 'doer' when there is doing and 'experiencer' when experiencing simply as a mode of common usage." So Phhhhhbt!!!! :) :) :) To further go to the heart of this issue, and on this I think we're in agreement: Hence the Ancients have said: 'There is no doer of a deed or one who reaps a result; Phenomena alone flow on-- No other view than this is right. [...]' So as you can hopefully see by now (let's put this one to bed once and for all), I am not at all denying no-self by talking about volition conventionally. It is an exremely helpful convention indeed, otherwise we'll just get twisted into silly semantic contortions trying to discuss the Dhamma. How else are we to speak of practice other than in terms of mere conventions? All we have is language, and it's by definition deceptive. Again, it is ditthi all the same to get caught up in these very sorts of semantics. That is ditthi just as much as belief in a truly existent "self" or "driver" is ditthi. The Buddha expounded the Middle Way betwen extremes. Can we not use conventional designations helpfully, while not forgetting there is no "core," no ultimate controlling at the same time? That to me represents the Middle Way in terms of this issue of semantics here. 6812 From: Howard Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 6:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Robert (and Erik) - In a message dated 7/24/01 8:37:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert writes: > --- Erik wrote: > > > Volition is EVERYTHING. Please show me a Sutta that says > > otherwise. > > In fact, our volitional "free will" is the only tool we have > > to get > > out of here. Otherwise we may as well toss up our hands and > > forget > > practice altogether, because nothing "we" do will ever make a > > difference. > > > > ___________________ > > Cetana (volition)is part of sankhara khanda - the aggregate of > formations. It is a conditioned phenomena. > > Visuddhimagga XX83 "There is removal of false view in one who > sees "If formations were self, it would be right to take them as > self; but being not self they are taken as self. Therefore they > are not-self in the sense of no power being exercisable over > them.." > ============================== For sure volition is conditioned. All dhammas other than nibbana are conditioned. If something were to arise without conditions, then its arising would be random. However, how is the path to be followed except by exercise of volition? Progress on the path requires that volition be consistently exercised, a very strong volition, and a very great effort made as a result of that strong volition. 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) 6813 From: Suan Lu Zaw Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 11:03pm Subject: Re: Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana:To Derek Cameron Dear Derek How are you? The article can be found by clicking "The Science And Academic Journal Of Bodhiology". When you get there, you will see the Content page". When you click it, the content with a list of categories will appear. The article "Three Abhidhamma Methods Under Bodhiology" is in the category "Academic Articles". If you would like to read an article on Dhamma discussed from the scientific perspective, you simply click on the category "Science Articles". Hope this would help. Now your turn! I once saw your message in Triplegem long time ago with a link to a Tipitaka website when you answered someone's inquiry about "mahabuta". If you still remember it, could you please post that link again on this list for all of us? With regards Suan http://www.bodhiology.org/ --- "Derek Cameron" wrote: > --- Suan wrote: > > I have refuted Professor David Kalupahana on this > > point in my research article "Three Abhidhamma Methods Under > > Bodhiology" on the bodhiology website. Please go there and check it > > out. > > Hi, Suan, > > I tried to go to your site but couldn't see where to click to view > your paper? > > Derek. 6814 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 11:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message: To Robert Epstein --- Suan Lu Zaw wrote: > > Dear Robert Epstein > > How are you? I'm pretty well. Thanks for your response! > You wrote: > > "Please correct me if I'm wrong [and I mean that literally, not as an > expression],but it seems to me that what you are saying is that > Nibbana 'itself' [which also makes it sound like an object rather > than an awakened state] is not actually the object of consciousness, > but the concept of it is the object of consciousness both before and > after it has been experienced." > > My answer follows. > > In general, nibbana is the object of consciousness for awakeners at > the moment of transworldly resultant consciousness, for example, > while they (outside that moment) as well as the non-awakeners may > take the idea or concept of nibbana as a stimulus. I'm not quite clear whether I understand the above statement, but it sounds like you're saying that for awakeners and non-awakeners, Nibbana is only apprehended as an idea or concept, but never experienced directly as an object of mind. If that is what you are saying, that is what I thought, that Nibbana being signless could only be apprehended not as itself, but in a secondary form as a concept of idea. But I also contended that this is true of everything, that nothing is apprehended directly by the mind except as an idea or concept, because the mind filters all human experience *except* Nibbana, which overtakes the mind, but never becomes an object *of* the mind except as a concept. In other words, I believe this would mean that one would be saying that Nibbana is the only existent reality that is actual, not fabricated and not indirect. > You wrote: > > "Nibbana itself being signless, would have no way itself of being > apprehended, even while being 'experienced' as one's own state." > > What do you mean by the phrase " as one's own state"? If you meant > that nibbana is a state of one's consciousness, then the Pali texts > do not support it. I guess I'm not clear enough about how to put that, but I simply meant that when one is awakened, that this experience is still not apprehended directly by the mind. If anything the mind would be overtaken by that experience, but that experience would never be objectified by the mind, except as a concept or idea, as you put it, because it is not an object of consciousness. This came out of the discussion over whether Nibbana was the object of higher states of consciousness that were just prior to realization or awakening. My [admittedly uneducated] take on it was that Nibbana being signless, it could never *actually* be an object of any consciousness, although the idea or concept of it could be an object of consciousness which was using it to direct its efforts towards the goal of Nibbana in an advanced stage. But Nibbana itself would only be experienced as a 'reality' [whatever that means.....], not as an object of the mind. I have refuted Professor David Kalupahana on this > point in my research article "Three Abhidhamma Methods Under > Bodhiology" on the bodhiology website. Please go there and check it > out. I will do so. > You wrote: > > " But memory forming a concept in order to mark and communicate the > presence of Nibbana, would refer to the concept as a pointer towards > Nibbana itself." > > I agree with the above statement. I'm glad to hear that, because that makes sense to me. It's hard to conceive of how Nibbana could *actually itself* be directly apprehended by the mind. > I will discuss your other statements at a later date. I will very much look forward to that. Thanks for your clarity on these issues. Best, 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" 6815 From: Robert Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 0:05am Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! --- Erik wrote: > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > wrote: > > b > > --- Erik wrote: > > > > Volition is EVERYTHING. Please show me a Sutta that says > > > otherwise. > > > In fact, our volitional "free will" is the only tool we have > > > to get > > > out of here. Otherwise we may as well toss up our hands and > > > forget > > > practice altogether, because nothing "we" do will ever make a > > > difference. > > > > > > ___________________ > > > > Cetana (volition)is part of sankhara khanda - the aggregate of > > formations. It is a conditioned phenomena. > > > > Visuddhimagga XX83 "There is removal of false view in one who > > sees "If formations were self, it would be right to take them as > > self; but being not self they are taken as self. Therefore they > > are not-self in the sense of no power being exercisable over > > them.." > So as you can hopefully see by now (let's put this one to bed once > and for all), I am not at all denying no-self by talking about > volition conventionally. It is an exremely helpful convention indeed, > otherwise we'll just get twisted into silly semantic contortions > trying to discuss the Dhamma. How else are we to speak of practice > other than in terms of mere conventions? All we have is language, and > it's by definition deceptive. Again, it is ditthi all the same to get > caught up in these very sorts of semantics. That is ditthi just as > much as belief in a truly existent "self" or "driver" is ditthi. > > The Buddha expounded the Middle Way betwen extremes. Can we not use > conventional designations helpfully, while not forgetting there is > no "core," no ultimate controlling at the same time? That to me > represents the Middle Way in terms of this issue of semantics here. ___________ Dear Erik, I know you feel this is just semantics but I happen to think it goes to the heart of what the Buddha taught. Cetana arises with kusala or akusala. Conventionally, of course, someone might decide " I will get enlightened. I will follow only the true teaching. I will do whatever it takes." They can think that and next week join the moonies and still have this same strong volition. Someone wrote to me a while back who feels that no control is a dangerous idea. They want to stress control and volitional intention which is what they believe that Buddha really taught and they feel uncontrollabilty to be a 'pernicious belief leading to apathy.' "I have a choice whether to get angry in the present moment." the writer said. I replied "Yes, the processes of cittas during anger are new kamma. However, they are also conditioned. The Patthana, the last and most important book of the Abhidhamma, goes into enormous detail about the 24 paccaya (conditions). Some of which are past and some present. But even the present ones do not simply arise out of nothing. Nor do they arise because "I" want them to. The processes of mind are happening at enormous speed and there is no "person" who can do anything to stop them or change them. Even the cittas that are arising at this moment are conditioned by previous cittas as well as well as by other conditions that are present at the same time. This is not the place to go into details but it is well worth studying the Patthana. It gives us a glimpse of the profundity of the path and the wisdom of the Buddha." They further wrote that "we are not just helpless automata acting out our old kamma - that is absurd. I hope the above helps overcome the despair that comes from the belief that we are a slave to our conditioning." I said "This sounds like the debates that western Philosophy used to have (and still does) about Free-will versus Determinism. The Buddha's analysis of the world is neither, it is the middle path. Thus the statement about "we being helpless automata acting out our old kamma" misses the point. There is no "we" to be anything. And kamma is not the only condition. Hearing the teachings of Buddhism - especially the deep teachings on anatta, are a condition for understanding. This understanding leads to energy: energy to hear more, and energy to carry on with the study and practice of vipassana. It leads to the type of determination that will gladly keep developing understanding moment after moment, life after life, aeon after aeon, no matter how long it takes. And if understanding grows then there will be detachment from the idea of self and of control. Then there is no more despair about the path - because "I" have been taken out of the equation. The "I" that we love so much, the "I" that we want to be happy, get enlightened .Then, as the Visuddhimagga says, there is a path but no one on the path." robert 6816 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Jul 24, 2001 11:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! Wow, what a great discussion. If we talk about 'self' in language, and accept the idea that this is a convention, the question still arises, what then are we talking about? Are we illuminating that which we are calling 'self' by talking about it, or are we obscuring it by creating a concept which is not 'it', and implicitly substituting that subtle or not-so-subtle concept for the reality of 'self' we are trying to describe? If we talk about Nibbana and even say 'Nibbana is not an object; it is signless', etc., what is created by talking about 'Nibbana' in those statements as if the word refers to something called 'Nibbana'? Even while saying 'Nibbana is formless and signless and not subject to any conditions' the original noun-subject 'Nibbana' slips by in that sentence as an implicit 'thing'. It takes an awfully crafty and wary speaker to speak consciously enough to avoid these implicit concepts, which reduce what we want to illuminate to mere objects of conception in the mind. On the other hand, if we were to speak consciously, realizing that every word we use raises conceptual images in the mind, and actually be mindful of these concepts and images arising, trying to discern them for what they were at the time of speaking, what would be left of our original intention to say something about the realities we strive for? I think we might find that the original intention to say something about that which we call 'Nibbana' would be redirected to an intention to observe the contents of the mind, because that is what we are really in contact with. Mindfulness, I think, dictates that we make firm contact with what we are really involved with at the moment and discern *its* true nature, not the true nature of something that has been reduced to an abstraction. That is why talking about Nibbana and all the other states and signs of progress on the path, although necessary to know what the path *is*, has limited usefulness in moment-to-moment practice, and even obscures the real work when it is overdone. The mind can play freely with philosophical concepts and never get to the task of discerning the true nature of this mind now, and what our true nature really is in this moment. I am happier to use general indicators like 'true nature' and 'the mind' than 'Nibbana' in this context, because they point to what we are generally striving for, but its hard to form an image of 'true nature'. It is just a general description. When I say 'Nibbana' my mind is so full of images of the ultimate state, even though that state may be imagined to be imageless or stateless, it is like a romantic wash across consciousness, full of feelings of relief, pride, spiritual attainment, and images of broad space, emptiness, peace and vastness, what have you. It is laden with hopes and expectations, not to mention mythology. Maybe for you folks who are more seriously instated in the sure stages of the path, and really have made a lot of distinctions between what the spiritual items of the path are and are not, it is not such a false set of images and expectations. But I'll bet there's still a lot of stuff around the attainment of Nibbana. Might be interesting to inventory here what kind of baggage we're all carrying around about such things. On the other hand, the constant task of mindfulness and discernment, which actually distinguishes in the moment what items of consciousness are, and what is real and what is not real, slowly and surely, whether practiced through meditation or contemplative exploration in the mind, creates the real possibility of that which we call 'Nibbana' in this moment, and in future moments that will pick up where these moments of mindfulness leave off. It seems a lot of times that I am more comfortable talking about the flowery attainments of the path, than actually practicing it, and this is something I have to look at. When I stop talking and look at the mind, that reality is difficult, plodding, sometimes boring, and almost always hard work. Clearly to be avoided! Anyway, I hope it doesn't sound like I am anti-talking. I realize that insight can come from sharing and clarifying understandings of all the items of the path. I just think that it's important to practice mindfulness on the subtle level of observing the reality of what is said, and discerning the mental images that gather around our words. And that when we talk about 'self', even knowing that this is a convention, we still let the word 'self' slip by as if beyond the convention there is an object that the word imperfectly refers to. Do we really know 'self' and is it an object? Is there really a 'Nibbana' and can it be attained? Anyway, I'll be interested to hear what anyone has to say. I also found the conversation about volition to be very interesting and important, but I'll save any response to that for another time. Best, Robert E. --------------------------------------- --- Tori Korshak wrote: > > >Dear Sarah and Erik, (Sarah-glad you made it home safely and what a relief > >it must be to have your computer) > > Thank you for this exchange which I find relevant at the moment. > > >Okay, I'm gonna dive in on a point I've been meaning to raise here > >for some time. We talk about "self" and no controlling, so on, so > >forth. But CONVENTIONALLY we have to talk at this level. I see so > >much semantic contortionism here on DSG in HOW things are spoken of, > >that to even speak of something a certain way conventionally implies > >a view of self, etc. NO NO NO!!! Language is the problem here, I > >think, Sarah, and getting hung up on language is to miss the point > >entirely--it's actually getting caught in names & terms--views, > >again! Really. I consider this point a vital one. > > > >We can easily (and indeed must) at some level speak about > >conventional self, dukkha at the conventional level, practice at the > >conventional level: that to do this is to get that. When this arises, > >that arises; when this ceases, that ceases. > > Yes! > > > >There is no other way to even discuss practice using language, and > >while it is vital to understand WHAT is "self" and what is clung to > >as self, there can be a degree of overkill on semantics (which I have > >so often observed here) that makes communication very difficult if > >too much emphasis is given to the way things are phrased rather than > >their deeper meaning. Language is just another fabrication! We must > >let even language go! > > And more yes! > > > >Further, your reasoning here and elsewhere suonds dangerously close > >to the very serious wrong view rejected by the Buddha that there is > >no possibility of controlling our mind in the present via cetana. > >This was explicitly refuted by Lord Buddha as a deadly view held by > >some teachers, that we are 100% the product of all past actions and > >have no volitional control. > > > >Volition is EVERYTHING. Please show me a Sutta that says otherwise. > >In fact, our volitional "free will" is the only tool we have to get > >out of here. Otherwise we may as well toss up our hands and forget > >practice altogether, because nothing "we" do will ever make a > >difference. > > In The Wings to Awakening Thanissaro Bhikku writes: > The fact that the kammic process relies on input from the present moment > means that it is not totally deterministic. Input from the past may place > restrictions on what can be done and known in any particular moment , but > the allowance for new input from the present provides some room for free will. > > It seems that in fact everything we can consciously choose to do must be > within the scope of this present kamma-how we choose to practice and how we > live our lives (obviously not excluding conditions we have no control > over). This does not negate teachings on anatta, but paradoxically is the > means by which we can come to realise the teaching. > > ...And what , monks, is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the > body, with speech or with the intellect. This is called new kamma... And > what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this > noble eightfold path...this is called the path of practice leading to the > cessation of kamma. S.XXXV.145 > > > Thanissaro continues: > The teaching of dependent origination helps to provide more detailed > instructions on this point, showing precisely where the cycle of kamma > provides openings for more skillful present input. > > '. > > >While it is agreed we can't control vipaka, we can (and MUST, if > >we're serious about the path) strive to purify the mind with directed > >practice, even practices that will by definition partake of notions > >of "self"--until at least sotapatti-magga-nana. That is the entire > >point of bhavana. We need heaps of merit to even get rid of self-view > >in the first place, and I believe in placing the horse before the > >cart here and will simply restate the stock formula of dana, sila, > >bhavana, in order, one laying the foundation for the next, knowing > >that "self view" at some level is ALWAYS present until bhavana is > >developed to the degree sakkayaditthi is finally terminated. > > > >I think of, for example, my arch-nemesis kukuccha, which through a > >number of sessions I was able to pinpoint at the root, so that now, I > >can catch it (mostly, still not always) while it is still tiny, > >before it snowballs into something that drags me into the muck for > >minutes, hours, or longer. Do you realize what a coup this has been > >in my own practice? > > Many congratulations on this kusala accomplishment. I think it is good > practice to recognise these achievements when they occur as it increases > saddha and viriya for you as well as for others. Of course self-delusion is > something we always have to be aware of, but with mindfulness, we can catch > this as well. > > >There are few pracftices which are ther equal of meditation on the > >Bhramaviharas. > > Sadhu X 3 Erik for this reminder. > > >This proclivity to experiment is, I think, a function of nearly- > >insatiable curiosity, > > 'If we are truly curious, we investigate without any preconceptions. We > suspend our beliefs and and just observe, just notice.' > > > and I'm willing to try anything that may be of > >benefit (read conencted with the Goal in some way), even > >tangentially, as a way of getting to the bottom of things, the whys > >and wherefores, in other words. This is the very reason I'm studying > >the Abhidhamma, because I see it as a way to "reverse-engineer" many > >aspects and experiences of the Dhamma that have arisen in the course > >of my own practice, as well as wishing to have a technical way to > >unpack, in detail, how and why certain practices perform the > >functions they do, and how they all hang together. One of the monks > >in my bikkhu-sangha once called me the "mad scientist" because of my > >love of this sort of experimentation. It has held me in good stead so > >far, and I see no reason to stop playing, since there is so much yet > >for me to learn. > > Thanks for the interesting discussion. > Metta, > Victoria ===== 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" 6817 From: Derek Cameron Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 0:34am Subject: Re: Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana:To Derek Cameron Hi, Suan, --- Suan wrote: > Hope this would help. Yes, I found it, thanks. > I once saw your message in Triplegem long time ago with a link to > a Tipitaka website when you answered someone's inquiry about > "mahabuta". If you still remember it, could you please post that link > again on this list for all of us? I'm sorry, but I don't remember that post or the link. Derek. 6818 From: Christine Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 5:26am Subject: Re: thailand/west-Derek/slightly related.... Hi Bruce, That would be much appreciated. I'll have a look too. metta, Christine --- bruce wrote: > hi christine > > there was an excellent post by ken and visakha on the d-last many months > ago explaining why they thought Theravada is definitely *not* dhammakaya.... > > i'll try to search the archives... > > bruce > > > Dhammakaya is Theravadin isn't it, so, if one is a meditator, is this > > worthwhile to try? 6819 From: ppp Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 1:16am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: note to jon and nina + re: cybelle's sharing abhidhamma in daily life Hi, Derek: There must be many many ways of veiwing dead bodies. They may be a condition for aversion, for an indifferent feeling, or for a codition for having a wholesome thought that our body is the same in nature with what we have been seeing. Or if dead bodies are exposed to one who has developed high level of wisdo, then, the dead boy may become a conditioin (in a conventional sense) for his enlightenment. The point is that any object can be a conditon for experiencing either kusala or akusala citta. The sight of the Buddha may condition akusala for some people In contrast, the dead body, which in nature must be asobhana (unpleasant non-beatiful), could induce kusala citta, if one views it in the right frame of mind. So, whether undertakers can or cannot be enlightened in seeing a dead body depends solely on whether he has the right understandind of the Dhamma and on the right path for the development of the Dhamma. tadao 6820 From: Ken Howard Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 1:24pm Subject: Re: note to jon and nina + re: cybelle's sharing abhidhamma in daily life Dear Erik and Tadao, Thank you both for responding to my post. Tadao, I didn't mean to imply that the Dhamma includes shocking people into akusala reactions, quite the reverse. However I take your point that the cemetery meditations have a calming effect on people. So that does weaken my theory a little. While we're on the subject, I had to dispose of a rotting bullock carcass on one occasion. The gasses were so thick in the air, I could taste them as much as smell them. I had to keep backing off for fear of vomiting. Without disputing what you say, I am genuinely amazed that this could be calming. Erik, thank you for once again providing me with new and helpful information. I hope to find the Tipitaka origins of the practices you described. Kind regards Ken --- ppp wrote: > To Ken(?): About "Shocks": > (Since I deleted the oritinal mail, I cannot be quire sure whom > I am addressing.) > I do not recall even a single sutta, where the Buddha gives a talk > in order to create dosa/akusala among his listerns. So if he is shocking > his listerns, the shock he is giving cannot be akusala but kusala > (no restlessness, no aversion involved). You may have said that looking > at corpuses with their various states of decay must be quite shocking. > In reality it is not, it is rather poplar oppostie. Seeing > corpuses induce you a calming effect, which may be best described by the term > "serinity". During my Bagkok era, in a semi-regular base, a buch of > foreign monks at Wat Bown used to go to Mahidon Medical University to > obeserve corpuses with verious states of disembodyment (?spelling?). > Besides the feeling of respect to the individuals who passed away, > we always experienced a king of "serinity", knowing that one day we > will be in the same state. > So, if one has the right frame of mind, any so-called shocking > scences can be perceived as the opportunity to > develop kusala, not akusala. tadao 6821 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 2:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The meaning of Equanimity Kom --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Jon, > This clarifies what you said. I still have other questions related to > this > area. If you will be with the India trip, maybe I will get an > opportunity to > ask.. I certainly hope to be going to India. So far it still looks likely (but I have not forgotten that I had to pull out of the last trip at very short notice). I'm looking forward very much to meeting you and others and to renewing old acquaintances from the Bay Area group. Why not raise your questions now on the list? Then others can contribute or benefit also. Jon 6822 From: Ken Howard Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 3:09pm Subject: Re: Bruce's question (Ken) Jon I really would like to know the correct approach to the Buddhadhamma. I want to know exactly what those disciples in the suttas meant when they exclaimed, "I take refuge in the Dhamma from this day until life's end!" On many occasions, when I have been reading messages posted by you and other members of this list, the penny has dropped.There are lucid moment when everything seems to fall into place. I wish I could hold on to those moments but they go and I find myself making the same mistakes -- thinking I can control things. I only hope that you will not get tired of giving these explanations. I need to see them time and time again. Regards Ken --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Ken > > Thanks for articulating (below) so clearly and succinctly this concern, > which I now recall has been expressed before. It is indeed a good one. > In addition to your own helpful thoughts, I would like to add my own. > > --- <> wrote: > Dear Bruce, > > I should point out that I am now a convert to the `other > > side' -- happy to toe the party line -- but even so, we seem to > > be seeing the issue from similar perspectives. For example, you are > > asking why it seems to be OK to listen to the Dhamma with the > > delusion that there is a self who is listening, but it is not OK to > > meditate in the same way. > > Actually, neither is OK, if you are talking about moments of actual wrong > view, and perhaps no-one has said exactly that. What might have been said > is one or other of the following (or something close to it)— > > 1. Listening to or studying the dhamma is a necessary condition for the > development of awareness/understanding, while meditating is not. > > 2. Listening to or studying the dhamma is likely to help us to have more > understanding about the false idea of self and about why that notion is > not in accordance with reality, while meditating is not likely to be > conducive to that. > > Nonetheless, the question still arises, why the difference? > > I don't expect my answer to be convincing, since my own understanding of > what is at play here is only tenuous, let alone trying to explain it to > another. The best way I can answer is to say that practice of any kind > that is undertaken with the specific intention of developing awareness or > understanding, or of eradicating the idea of self, simply by virtue of > that practice, would not be conducive to the development of the path, > since there must be an idea of self involved (`if I do this correctly, > awareness/understanding may arise'). > > By `any kind of practice' I would include so-called `daily life' practice > as well as formal/seated practice. And yes, I would even include > listening to/reading the Dhamma for that matter, if done with the same > idea about the arising of awareness. It is not so much that one action is > OK while the other is not. It is rather a matter of the idea or view with > which the action is done. But in the case of, say, a meditation practice, > if the whole rationale of undertaking the practice is to give rise to > awareness or understanding, or to reduce the idea of self, then it is > almost inevitable that there will be a view of self bound up with that > practice. So despite the otherwise sincere intentions of the meditator, > the effort is misdirected and the result will be other than intended. > > I should perhaps elaborate on how listening to or studying the dhamma may > differ from this, but I'm afraid i'm out of time for this session and must > leave it for a later post. > > Ken, I don't know if you think this addresses the question you have > identified. I do know it's bound to be controversial! > > Jon > > > > For all the excellent material on the 6823 From: Victor Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 3:54pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! > The Buddha expounded the Middle Way betwen extremes. Can we not use > conventional designations helpfully, while not forgetting there is > no "core," no ultimate controlling at the same time? That to me > represents the Middle Way in terms of this issue of semantics here. Yes we can use conventional designation skillfully and helpfully. For example, the Buddha taught: "Form is not self." The word "self" can be seen as a pronoun for conventional designation, which is further specified in "Form is to be regarded as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'"* The word "self" can also be used in the expressions of speculative views such as "there is a self" and "there is no self". In these statements, the word "self" is not used for conventional designation as a pronoun. Language is used for communication. Skillful use of language can lead to truth and understanding. Unskillful use of language can be deceiving and confusing. Metta, Victor *Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html 6824 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 5:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Derek Derek --- Derek Cameron wrote: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > This omission of concentration seems to represent a later stage > in > > > the Buddha's teachings. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this, or what you base this on. > Perhaps you > > could elaborate? > > This is my take on the problem of the stratification of the nikaaya- > s. But perhaps this issue would be too academic for most people ... > no? Why don't you give it a try! I'm sure that with your evident skills of exposition, you could summarise the issue for us in a reasonably palatable form, Derek. Jon 6825 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 5:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Derek Derek --- Derek Cameron wrote: > Hi, Jon, > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > But as I am sure you will agree, *only* the development of > vipassana leads > > to enlightenment. > > And I am sure you will agree that there is NO step in the Noble > Eightfold Path called Right Vipassanaa! :-) An interesting point! You may like to consider the following. 'Vipassana bhavana' refers to the development of the understanding that knows the characteristic of a reality presently appearing. And as you know, this understanding (aka wisdom) is the cetasika (mental factor) called 'panna'. Now this same panna cetasika is in fact the factor of the Eightfold path called samma ditthi (right view). So there is actually a very direct correlation her. However, I would like to question the significance you seem to place on this connection. You refer to the factors of the Eightfold Path as 'steps', and I believe this is how they are commonly viewed. I think this perception is not particularly accurate or helpful. To my reading of the texts, the statement of the Eightfold Path is given to describe the consciousness at that moment, to tell us *what is happening* at the level of the citta, rather than to tell us *how to develop* towards achievement of that path moment. It is a snapshot of the instant, rather than a roadmap to the destination. It is suttas such as the Satipatthana Sutta that are the roadmap. Thinking of the Eightfold Path as a series of steps, or as a number of separate factors/qualities each to be developed separately, leaves a lot of questions unanswered. For a start, these factors when developed separately can only be developed at a level that is non-path. No matter to what extent they are developed in this manner, they can never somehow 'become' path factors,. A moment of satipatthana, on the other hand, is a moment of mundane path citta, at which moment all 5 path factors (the 8 less the 3 abstinences) arise and are developed together *as path factors* . Jon 6826 From: Erik Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 5:35pm Subject: Re: Bruce's question (Ken) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: Okay, a little forceful bluntness for you Jon (and please accept this in the appropriate spirit--it is not spoken in anger, but in forceful directness as your true friend in the Dhamma). > 1. Listening to or studying the dhamma is a necessary condition for the > development of awareness/understanding, Agreed. > while meditating is not. Jon, this is definitely wrong understanding of practice. Meditation is an absolutely necessary condition for the type of development that leads to Right View. At the risk of sounding dogmatic THERE IS NO OTHER WAY, unless you consider any of the steps of the Noble Eightfold Path to be optional. What is observing realities here and now if not a form of meditation? There are so many ways to meditate, standing, sitting, you name it. Some types of meditation are definitely more conducive than others to insight, and some, if you accept wha tht Buddha actually taught in the Suttas, such as Right Concentration, are necessary elements of the path. Not optional, in other words. To say otherwise is to deny the necessity of Right Concentration, to deny the Noble Eightfold Path, to deny the most essential teachigns of Lord Buddha! To recap: "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful, & fully alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, and of him the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration." (SN XLV.8) Do you agree or disagree with this, Jon? Because the arguments you've provided given flat-out reject what the Buddha acctually taught in the Suttas! To me the above passage is quite unambiguous. Forget the Abhidhamma or anything else you've herd from anyone at the moment. Do you or do you not accept this passage as a canonical teaching of the Buddha? > 2. Listening to or studying the dhamma is likely to help us to have more > understanding about the false idea of self and about why that notion is > not in accordance with reality, Agreed. > while meditating is not likely to be conducive to that. This is totally incorrect! Right Concentration is an essential aspect of the path, if you accept the 4NT an N8FP as the core teachings of the Buddha. If you really mean what you're saying here, your arguments are flat-out denying the necessity of Right Concentration as an aspect of the path, and to draw out the full impliation of your contention, you're essentially rejecting the most essential aspect of the Dhamma, and by extension the Buddha! > I don't expect my answer to be convincing, since my own understanding of > what is at play here is only tenuous, let alone trying to explain it to > another. Then permit me to be blunt here, and say that if your understanding of these realities is unclear, as you say, then I believe it is VERY unwise to make categorical-sounding statements about the lack of need for applied meditation. To say it is your mere opinion would be fine. Then we can debate that. But to speak as if mere opinion is truth is, in my opinion, to fall into serious error, not only for the reason that sort of thinking has a negative effect on one's own understandiong, but can also lead others directly into wrong forms of praice if they take those opinions as gospel. And there are many who may not yet have developed enough understanding of the Dhamma to be able to discern opinion from actual knowledge, and it is for the sake of these sentient beings my reply here is so forceful on these points. I am sorry to respond in a way that sounds so harsh, but as time goes on I am becoming less and less convinced some of the methods being expounded here in DSG can possibly lead to liberation, because what I see are examples of some very serious distortions and misrepresentations and serious omissions of the Buddha's actual, canonical teachings as found in the Pali Suttas, which are accepted by ALL extant schools of Buddhism I know of, Tibetan, Theravada, and Zen included. > The best way I can answer is to say that practice of any kind > that is undertaken with the specific intention of developing awareness or > understanding, or of eradicating the idea of self, simply by virtue of > that practice, would not be conducive to the development of the path, > since there must be an idea of self involved (`if I do this correctly, > awareness/understanding may arise'). This is wrong understanding of practice again. Aagin, over tuime, wrong views are loosened. But this doesn't happen all at once. Only thourhg careful and applied development can this occur. It is "good enough" to work even with wrong view at first. Again, therre needs to be great merit for insight to arise at all. It's not random. We can acccumulate merit even WITH wrong view, and eventually that will lead us to the appropriate teachers, teachings, and understanding. But to simlpy think we can jump into Right View without having established the basics first is seriously in error. There are no doubt SOME who have such wholesome accumulations from the past that their practice can begin observing realities as they arise without spending too much time slogging through the basics of dana and sila and kusala bhavana. But from what I've seen,, and from my own experience (I began in Zen, where they jsut toss you into emptiness without emphasizing these factors--and I made practically NO progress in practice until I adopted the more basic and mundane practices to help accumulate merit and purify heavy dosa), more often than not people seriously overestimate their own abilities in this regard, and think they can just skip the basics and go straightaway into the highest-level practices. > By `any kind of practice' I would include so-called `daily life' practice > as well as formal/seated practice. And yes, I would even include > listening to/reading the Dhamma for that matter, if done with the same > idea about the arising of awareness. It is not so much that one action is > OK while the other is not. It is rather a matter of the idea or view with > which the action is done. This is an important distinction. Again, Jon, we must recognize that there is always sakkayaditthi involved until it's terminated at the moment of sotapatti-magga-nana. So why get uptight about this unavoidable fact? That's just the way it's gonna be until Right View arises. So long as we're aware of this fact, I don't see much of a problem. Of course I believe it is essential to constantly study and meditate on the teachings on Right View, chruning, churning, churning, until the coarsest mistaken conceptions are seen for the delusions they are. And then that should be taken to the deepest levels in actual formal seated meditation whre one can observe these realities in their most subtle aspects, employing the practice of samatha, because by stilling the mind in such a way we have far better conditions for spotting the ever-incresingly subtle wrong understanding that arises in the mind from omoment-to-moment. Without this, the odds of even getting near to right understanding of what paramattha dhammas really are are is quite slim, in my opinion. Just to add a bit of detail, it is vital to understand what anatta really means, what anicca means, what dukkha means intellectually. That is a form of meditation in itself, in fact, this sort of intellectual meditation and pariyatti serves as the basis for knowing precisely what to look for in our concentration practice. I feel it important to emphasize we can't meditate with any expectation of a result (which is definitely wrong practice), nevertheless, it is ESSENTIAL that the appropriate conditions be present for insight to arise. They MUST be present, though even with the appropriate conditions for insight, there is is no guarantee true insight and Right Understanding will arise (which is why clinging to notions of progress in meditation is a hindrance), what IS certain is that if the appropriate conditions are absent, then insight will NEVER have opportunity to arise. This point cannot be emphasized enough. It is a basic fact. > But in the case of, say, a meditation practice, > if the whole rationale of undertaking the practice is to give rise to > awareness or understanding, or to reduce the idea of self, then it is > almost inevitable that there will be a view of self bound up with that > practice. It is inevitable anyway, Jon, but over time, through careful study AND MEDITATION on what we have studied (both in daily life AND in seated meditation where we devlop what the Buddha actually taught in the Suttas as Right Concentration (if we believe the Pali Suttas record the words of the Buddha), we will gradually loosen our fixed conceptions of self, and at some point, all the appropriate conditions will come together and true insight will arise fof the fiirst time and finally put to end all fabrications and conceptions of self. But we have to begin where we are, and that always means we begin with wrong view, with the idea of "self." This is just a simple, unavoidable fact, and again there's no reason to get overwrought about this fact. It just is. It is also key to understand that clinging too tightly to worries about the threat of self view is absolutely a hindrance! Our Dhamma practice need not be perfect, it need merely be "good enough." > So despite the otherwise sincere intentions of the meditator, > the effort is misdirected and the result will be other than intended. I could not possibly disagree more with you on this, and the entire contents of this post, strenuously. Okay, enough harshness for the day! :) As you know I deeply respect you Jonothan, and truly appreciate our exchanges, and as always look forward to more, and especially to meet you in the flesh as soon as possible! :) 6827 From: Erik Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 5:45pm Subject: Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Derek --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Derek > > --- Derek Cameron wrote: > Hi, Jon, > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > But as I am sure you will agree, *only* the development of > > vipassana leads > > > to enlightenment. > > > > And I am sure you will agree that there is NO step in the Noble > > Eightfold Path called Right Vipassanaa! :-) > > An interesting point! You may like to consider the following. 'Vipassana > bhavana' refers to the development of the understanding that knows the > characteristic of a reality presently appearing. And as you know, this > understanding (aka wisdom) is the cetasika (mental factor) called 'panna'. Actually, I'm not denying the need for vipassana even a little--I just tossed that one out for fun. I interpret dhamma-vicaya, among the bojjhangas, as representing this. > Now this same panna cetasika is in fact the factor of the Eightfold path > called samma ditthi (right view). So there is actually a very direct > correlation her. Agreed. > However, I would like to question the significance you seem to place on > this connection. You refer to the factors of the Eightfold Path as > 'steps', and I believe this is how they are commonly viewed. I think this > perception is not particularly accurate or helpful. Steps, not steps, I see them more holistically, nevertheless, all are necessary. > To my reading of the > texts, the statement of the Eightfold Path is given to describe the > consciousness at that moment, to tell us *what is happening* at the level > of the citta, rather than to tell us *how to develop* towards achievement > of that path moment. It is a snapshot of the instant, rather than a > roadmap to the destination. I see them as representing both ways--the N8FP can be read and understood at many levels, lokiya as well as lokuttara, in terms of path-factors as well as guidelines for bhavana. 6828 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:06pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Anders ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 2:30 PM Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Anders > > Dear Anders > > > > > >Yup. But Nietszche's words are certainly worth noting. > > > > > > Everything is worth noting for me Anders. > > > And is curious you quotate Nietszche on a remark against my assumed > >attack > > > on 'nationalism'. > > > >Yes, isn't it? Nonetheless, the test of those words lies in your own use of > >them, not some German philosopher's. > > > Yes but you cannot dismiss the fact that quotating the philosopher you > burden the message of a particular indeniable significance 'connected'. > Difficult noting without considering the cultural/social aspect in this case > for me. > Cultural conditionings are extremely hard to uproot. All of this that you are talking about here is just the fabrications of your own mind. If I had said that it was said by Ajahn Mun instead, I bet your perception of it would be quite different, wouldn't it? There are no 'but's when it comes to truth. Accept it or deny it, but no buts. 6829 From: m. nease Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:41pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! Just thought I'd add this to the thread: "But as for any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy life even when having made a wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results. Bhumija Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn126.html mike 6830 From: Victor Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 9:00pm Subject: Re: kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts! > Anyway, I hope it doesn't sound like I am anti-talking. I realize that insight > can come from sharing and clarifying understandings of all the items of the path. > I just think that it's important to practice mindfulness on the subtle level of > observing the reality of what is said, and discerning the mental images that > gather around our words. The reality observed is impermanent, dukkha, to be regarded as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self."* And that when we talk about 'self', even knowing that > this is a convention, we still let the word 'self' slip by as if beyond the > convention there is an object that the word imperfectly refers to. When there is speculation about "what a self is", the word "self" is used beyond the conventional usage as a pronoun. Examples for such usage are the expressions of the views "there is a self" and "there is no self".** Do we really > know 'self' and is it an object? A description of 'self' is a speculative view.*** Metta, Victor *Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html **Ananda Sutta, To Ananda http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html ***Maha-Nidana Sutta, The Great Causes Discourse http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn15.html 6831 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 9:41pm Subject: Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Bruce's question (Ken) Dear Erik >--- Jonothan Abbott wrote: >Erik: >Okay, a little forceful bluntness for you Jon (and please accept this >in the appropriate spirit--it is not spoken in anger, but in forceful >directness as your true friend in the Dhamma). > >Jon: > > 1. Listening to or studying the dhamma is a necessary condition >for the development of awareness/understanding, > >Agreed. >Jon: > > while meditating is not. > >Eric: >Jon, this is definitely wrong understanding of practice. Meditation >is an absolutely necessary condition for the type of development that >leads to Right View. At the risk of sounding dogmatic THERE IS NO >OTHER WAY, unless you consider any of the steps of the Noble >Eightfold Path to be optional. Erik, I am delighted!!!!!! I declare unconditional love to you! I am your devoted slave! But don't take it too literally...;-) You are my hero, my model, my guru! This is truly wonderful, better than chocolate, better than sex (almost) Pure bliss, I have been projected into Jhana states with this assertion! Celestial visions and peacefulness... Eric you saved my day!!!! I surrender to your wisdom. From your devoted slave Cybele > >What is observing realities here and now if not a form of meditation? >There are so many ways to meditate, standing, sitting, you name it. >Some types of meditation are definitely more conducive than others to >insight, and some, if you accept wha tht Buddha actually taught in >the Suttas, such as Right Concentration, are necessary elements of >the path. Not optional, in other words. To say otherwise is to deny >the necessity of Right Concentration, to deny the Noble Eightfold >Path, to deny the most essential teachigns of Lord Buddha! To recap: > >"And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- >quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) >qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure >born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. >With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & >remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, >unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- >internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in >equanimity, mindful, & fully alert, and physically sensitive of >pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, and of him the >Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable >abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the >earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in >the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither >pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration." (SN XLV.8) > >Do you agree or disagree with this, Jon? Because the arguments you've >provided given flat-out reject what the Buddha acctually taught in >the Suttas! To me the above passage is quite unambiguous. Forget the >Abhidhamma or anything else you've herd from anyone at the moment. Do >you or do you not accept this passage as a canonical teaching of the >Buddha? > > > 2. Listening to or studying the dhamma is likely to help us to >have more > > understanding about the false idea of self and about why that >notion is > > not in accordance with reality, > >Agreed. > > > while meditating is not likely to be conducive to that. > >This is totally incorrect! Right Concentration is an essential aspect >of the path, if you accept the 4NT an N8FP as the core teachings of >the Buddha. If you really mean what you're saying here, your >arguments are flat-out denying the necessity of Right Concentration >as an aspect of the path, and to draw out the full impliation of your >contention, you're essentially rejecting the most essential aspect of >the Dhamma, and by extension the Buddha! > > > I don't expect my answer to be convincing, since my own >understanding of > > what is at play here is only tenuous, let alone trying to explain >it to > > another. > >Then permit me to be blunt here, and say that if your understanding >of these realities is unclear, as you say, then I believe it is VERY >unwise to make categorical-sounding statements about the lack of need >for applied meditation. To say it is your mere opinion would be fine. >Then we can debate that. But to speak as if mere opinion is truth is, >in my opinion, to fall into serious error, not only for the reason >that sort of thinking has a negative effect on one's own >understandiong, but can also lead others directly into wrong forms of >praice if they take those opinions as gospel. And there are many who >may not yet have developed enough understanding of the Dhamma to be >able to discern opinion from actual knowledge, and it is for the sake >of these sentient beings my reply here is so forceful on these points. > >I am sorry to respond in a way that sounds so harsh, but as time goes >on I am becoming less and less convinced some of the methods being >expounded here in DSG can possibly lead to liberation, because what I >see are examples of some very serious distortions and >misrepresentations and serious omissions of the Buddha's actual, >canonical teachings as found in the Pali Suttas, which are accepted >by ALL extant schools of Buddhism I know of, Tibetan, Theravada, and >Zen included. > > > The best way I can answer is to say that practice of any kind > > that is undertaken with the specific intention of developing >awareness or > > understanding, or of eradicating the idea of self, simply by virtue >of > > that practice, would not be conducive to the development of the >path, > > since there must be an idea of self involved (`if I do this >correctly, > > awareness/understanding may arise'). > >This is wrong understanding of practice again. Aagin, over tuime, >wrong views are loosened. But this doesn't happen all at once. Only >thourhg careful and applied development can this occur. It is "good >enough" to work even with wrong view at first. Again, therre needs to >be great merit for insight to arise at all. It's not random. We can >acccumulate merit even WITH wrong view, and eventually that will lead >us to the appropriate teachers, teachings, and understanding. But to >simlpy think we can jump into Right View without having established >the basics first is seriously in error. > >There are no doubt SOME who have such wholesome accumulations from >the past that their practice can begin observing realities as they >arise without spending too much time slogging through the basics of >dana and sila and kusala bhavana. But from what I've seen,, and from >my own experience (I began in Zen, where they jsut toss you into >emptiness without emphasizing these factors--and I made practically >NO progress in practice until I adopted the more basic and mundane >practices to help accumulate merit and purify heavy dosa), more often >than not people seriously overestimate their own abilities in this >regard, and think they can just skip the basics and go straightaway >into the highest-level practices. > > > By `any kind of practice' I would include so-called >`daily life' >practice > > as well as formal/seated practice. And yes, I would even include > > listening to/reading the Dhamma for that matter, if done with the >same > > idea about the arising of awareness. It is not so much that one >action is > > OK while the other is not. It is rather a matter of the idea or >view with > > which the action is done. > >This is an important distinction. Again, Jon, we must recognize that >there is always sakkayaditthi involved until it's terminated at the >moment of sotapatti-magga-nana. So why get uptight about this >unavoidable fact? That's just the way it's gonna be until Right View >arises. So long as we're aware of this fact, I don't see much of a >problem. Of course I believe it is essential to constantly study and >meditate on the teachings on Right View, chruning, churning, >churning, until the coarsest mistaken conceptions are seen for the >delusions they are. > >And then that should be taken to the deepest levels in actual formal >seated meditation whre one can observe these realities in their most >subtle aspects, employing the practice of samatha, because by >stilling the mind in such a way we have far better conditions for >spotting the ever-incresingly subtle wrong understanding that arises >in the mind from omoment-to-moment. Without this, the odds of even >getting near to right understanding of what paramattha dhammas really >are are is quite slim, in my opinion. > >Just to add a bit of detail, it is vital to understand what anatta >really means, what anicca means, what dukkha means intellectually. >That is a form of meditation in itself, in fact, this sort of >intellectual meditation and pariyatti serves as the basis for knowing >precisely what to look for in our concentration practice. > >I feel it important to emphasize we can't meditate with any >expectation of a result (which is definitely wrong practice), >nevertheless, it is ESSENTIAL that the appropriate conditions be >present for insight to arise. They MUST be present, though even with >the appropriate conditions for insight, there is is no guarantee true >insight and Right Understanding will arise (which is why clinging to >notions of progress in meditation is a hindrance), what IS certain is >that if the appropriate conditions are absent, then insight will >NEVER have opportunity to arise. This point cannot be emphasized >enough. It is a basic fact. > > > But in the case of, say, a meditation practice, > > if the whole rationale of undertaking the practice is to give rise >to > > awareness or understanding, or to reduce the idea of self, then it >is > > almost inevitable that there will be a view of self bound up with >that > > practice. > >It is inevitable anyway, Jon, but over time, through careful study >AND MEDITATION on what we have studied (both in daily life AND in >seated meditation where we devlop what the Buddha actually taught in >the Suttas as Right Concentration (if we believe the Pali Suttas >record the words of the Buddha), we will gradually loosen our fixed >conceptions of self, and at some point, all the appropriate >conditions will come together and true insight will arise fof the >fiirst time and finally put to end all fabrications and conceptions >of self. > >But we have to begin where we are, and that always means we begin >with wrong view, with the idea of "self." This is just a simple, >unavoidable fact, and again there's no reason to get overwrought >about this fact. It just is. It is also key to understand that >clinging too tightly to worries about the threat of self view is >absolutely a hindrance! Our Dhamma practice need not be perfect, it >need merely be "good enough." > > > So despite the otherwise sincere intentions of the meditator, > > the effort is misdirected and the result will be other than >intended. > >I could not possibly disagree more with you on this, and the entire >contents of this post, strenuously. > >Okay, enough harshness for the day! :) As you know I deeply respect >you Jonothan, and truly appreciate our exchanges, and as always look >forward to more, and especially to meet you in the flesh as soon as >possible! :) > > > 6832 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 9:54pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Anders Hi Anders > > Dear Anders > > > > > > > > >Yup. But Nietszche's words are certainly worth noting. > > > > Me: > > > > Everything is worth noting for me Anders. > > > > And is curious you quotate Nietszche on a remark against my > > >> > > > >assumed attack on 'nationalism'. > > > > > >Yes, isn't it? Nonetheless, the test of those words lies in your own >use >of > > >them, not some German philosopher's. > > Me: > > Yes but you cannot dismiss the fact that quotating the philosopher you > > burden the message of a particular indeniable significance 'connected'. > > Difficult noting without considering the cultural/social aspect in this >case > > for me. > > Cultural conditionings are extremely hard to uproot. You: > >All of this that you are talking about here is just the fabrications of >your own mind. If I had said that it was said by Ajahn Mun instead, I bet >your >perception of it would be quite different, wouldn't it? >There are no 'but's when it comes to truth. Accept it or deny it, but no >buts. > I disagreee. You deny social and cultural reality: you deny INTENTIONS. The intentions of what a person declares can pollute the words or distort the significance or reveal another facet of the issue. Things are not so plain and transparent only because we would like them to be so. Conditionings and prejudices are there and manipulate reality. However we live inside a historycal, cultural and social context and being buddhists doesn't change the fact that you have to understand things in the right perspective. As I carry past accumulations and my background and this influence my mentality and choices in life, the very same applies to Nietszche or Ajah Mun. And yourself for that matters. Love Cybele 6833 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:41pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] A Path with heart it was Re: Practice and Ajahn Chah ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 3:54 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] A Path with heart it was Re: Practice and Ajahn Chah > I am ardent, passionate, intuitive, misruled, never abstract, always > referring to actual experience, very openminded to different sources of > knowledge. Sounds very Zen :-) But it's quite ironic that the school which is 'a teaching outside the scriptures' is also the school that has produced the most literature of any Buddhist school in China to this day. Seems the point is missed. > Sometimes communication just doesn't occur, the right conditions are not > there and my skills are limited by my own conditionings and I feel quite > frustrated, powerless. I get impatient. > I try to 'listen' to others and not only to my self just seeking reassurance > on my 'beliefs'. > But often I don't feel 'exchange', there is a kind of impermeability. > Whether no one is listening or I am totally unable to communicate in a > intelligible language for this list. Or both. > Perhaps I should consider the Zen saying: > > Say one word with your mouth shut! I tried, but all I got out was: "moun ouurgh" :-) > And as Erik say mind 'my own bhavana' instead of struggling to communicate. > Anyway whatever I have to express is certainly not so important uttering. Or > listening. I do appreciate your thoughts on the group myself and hope you decide to stay on. I hope that you do learn to be more patient, because that is really all that's needed on a group like this. Kind regards Anders Honore ************************************************* Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ ************************************************* 6834 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 9:28pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Meeting Scandinavians Re: Meeting in the 'AgathaChristie ' village ... ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Meeting Scandinavians Re: Meeting in the 'AgathaChristie ' village ... > Translate sweetheart, my knowledge of Newton is only worse than my cooking > and I can tell you my cooking is cathastrofic. > > > > >Why limit yourself to males? Is this some sort of moralistic > >repression? :-) If I remember correctly, his fourth law was: For every 'action', a responding an equally strong re-action must take place. Something like that anyway. > Why? Because I am heterosexual but no prejudices. > Now you should ask me why I am so sure of being heterosexual considering > mostly I base my knowledge on actual experience... ;-) One of my gay friends tried to score me last year (he conveniently decided that I should be the first to know he was gay when he started kissing me). I considered it, but it just didn't appeal to me. 6835 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 4:15 PM Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity > OK. I thought perhaps you were referring to kamma and vipaka. But my > comment still applies. I was trying to make the point that understanding > 'cause and effect' is not the same as understanding the characteristic of > a reality presently appearing. Vipassana involves the latter. It is only > this that leads eventually to the eradication of defilements. Our task in > this life is to develop understanding at the level of vipassana to the > degree possible. To what extent there is understanding of dependent > origination is another matter. > Glad you agree, Anders! As I'm sure you know, applicable objects include > rupas as well as mental factors and consciousness, something that people > sometimes overlook. Everyone wants to know the mind, but no-one seems > interested in boring old visible object, sound etc. When you stare at them long enough, your fingers are actually quite visually interesting. :-) > In fact, we have > exactly the same misconceptions (ie. wrong view) about these objects when > they appear as we do about mental objects -- we take them for self (not > always 'our' self, but self nonetheless), so they need to be known as they > are, too. Yup. It's always 'I' am thinking, but that 'I' is another mental construct. A clever one at that, but if the path were easy... > It's there all the time, if only we knew how to recognise it. Again, I > think there is often a tendency, for obvious reasons, to want to see the > realities that are kusala rather than those that are akusala (eg, the > equanimity rather than the clinging). In fact, there is so much of the > latter but so little of the former. Yeah, there is often a tendency to dwell on one's attainments rather than faults, thinking 'I am equanimous about my clingings'. But already you are b eing dragged around around by another clinging when you do that (even though there is no 'I' to be dragged around). > Having the idea that certain realities are more desirable or more worth > knowing about than others can be an obstacle to the arising of awareness > of a reality appearing at the present moment. Yes, I recall a Mahayana Sutra which says: "All defilements are equal [in reality]. I have realized that equality through right practice. Therefore, I neither detach myself from the defilements nor abide in them. If a sramaga or brahmin claims that he has overcome passions and sees other beings as defiled, he has fallen into the two extreme views. What are the two? One is the view of eternalism, maintaining that defilements exist; the other is the view of nihilism, maintaining that defilements do not exist. " (http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/demonstration-of-buddhahood-s utra.htm) That's equanimity as I see it. 6836 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 9:22pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 1:25 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom > Yet anytime I hear "THIS IS THE ONLY WAY" regarding any aspect of the > path I only recall the last of the Four Bonds that wrongly > believes "This alone is truth..." Four Bonds? Would you mind elaborating on them for me? > I'm not disputing the necessity of insight, and yet, I wonder if it > really IS the only way. Perhaps there are other ways as well. I mean, > the Buddha NEVER went further in his own statements (to my limited > knowledge at least) than saying other teachers' systems and teachings > may not (MAY, not dogmatically WON'T)) to lead to the same result as > the Buddha's way. And that leaves things somewhat open, as I see it. Yup, me too. I'm glad to find that I am not alone in that regard. BTW, could you provide some sutta reference for that point? > Even in Zen, for example, you hear talk > of one's "Original Face" (which I think fits in with some f what > Ansders has been talking about if I read his points as he intended > them) and even, Indra forbid, Self! Even though all Zennists > adamantly deny self-existence and remain in perfect accord on this > point with all other systems of Dharma (this so-called "Self" in this > case has nothing to do with atta, not being "truly" or "inherently" > existent). > Does anyone else here have any thoughts on this? If so, I'd be quite > curious to hear other interpretations. Well, in Zen (and Mahayana in general) the notion of self=Nirvana is actually quite accepted. Those Zennists who claim that Zen teaches that there is no self should start to read some original Zen literature, rather than listening to modern day 'pop' Zen teachers. Hui-neng, the Sixth patriarch, who is generally acknowledged as the 'true' founder of Zen explicitly stated that Nirvana is the self-nature. Nagarjuna, whom most Mahayanist schools trace their lineage back to (or at least they would like to) said the same thing. I can provide tons of quotations, both from Zen and the canon Mahayana Sutras to support this if you would like to. The Shurangama Sutra even says: "If this [true Mind i.e.. Nirvana) is not your true self, then what is?" To tell you the truth, I have yet to find support in the Pali canon for the belief that there is no self. 6837 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 10:06pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: note to jon and nina + re: cybelle's sharing abhidhamma in daily life ----- Original Message ----- From: Derek Cameron Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 6:22 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: note to jon and nina + re: cybelle's sharing abhidhamma in daily life > --- ppp wrote: > > Hi, Derek: > > It's very interesting, isn't it? Usually we think that we would be > > disgusted with seeing dead bodies. Somehow we wouldn't. > > (I had hard time living in Sri Lanka, encoutering snakes regulary. > > I HATE snakes. They caused me a real Shock more than a few times. I love snakes! They are so wonderful to touch. You could learn a trick or two from that Australian Steve Irwin fella. He's plain crazy ("Oh, would you look at that. This is one of the most poisonous snake in the world." And of course he has to go and pick it up in front of the camera). 6838 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 8:54pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana anihilation? (was Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 5:16 AM Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana anihilation? (was Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! > Anders and Erik > > Sorry to be coming in late (just when you're ready to drop the subject, > Anders). Well, I felt it was a stale-mate :-) > I think this represents the orthodox Theravadin doctrine. Thanks for the input. 6839 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 10:03pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: thailand/west ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: thailand/west > > Dear Erik > Dear Derek > > > > >Erik, > > > >--- Erik wrote: > > > I still smoke cigarettes, for example > > > >Me too! > > > >Derek. > > > > Bleah, disgusting! > I give up any intention of kissing any of you! > Please quit very soon. heheheheheh ;-))) > > Sorry but I can't resist Sarah....:-) Then you'll be happy to know that I only smoke cigars on special occasions. -:) I used to smoke regularly when I was around 14-15. Then I ran out of money and had to quit ("alright! It's either the beers or the cigarettes. What's it gonna be?"). Haven't bothered touching cigarettes since. On the other hand, I am sure my breath could knock down a cow when I wake up in the morning after a night out on bars and discos :-) 6840 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 9:36pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Ajaan Chaa ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 2:22 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Ajaan Chaa > Hi All, > > Thank you Cybele, Tadao, Bruce for your discussion of the relative > merits of the style and content of the teachings of Ajahn Chah. I > benefit immensely from all the posts on this list, though I lack the > ability to join in the debates. Even unpopular or unsupported views > teach me a lot, because I spend much time with Google seeking out > further information to help me understand. > This time I found a link which may be familiar to all of you, but > which may be helpful to any others like myself still struggling > across the misty flats with the mountain ahead yet to be climbed! > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/theravada-writings.htm > > Three or four complete books here by Ajahn Chah, as well as others. Haha, small world. That is actually my website that you managed to come across there. I am surprised that it's found on Google. 6841 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 9:32pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Erik ----- Original Message ----- From: Derek Cameron Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 4:22 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Erik > Question 2: Is Theravaada Buddhism the only way? > > On that one, it seems that for me personally Theravaada Buddhism is > the best way, the one that's most suited to me. But I wouldn't say it > was the only way for everyone everywhere. I've found wise sayings of > Jesus, and in the Bhagavad Giitaa, and so on. And in real life I've > come across some wonderful teachers, not all of whom have been > Buddhists. Yes, teachings of Christians like Dionysius the Areopagite and Meister Eckart on God are so similar to the Buddha's teachings on Nibbana that I found it hard to believe at first. Different expedient means for different people. 6842 From: Derek Cameron Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 10:26pm Subject: Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Derek Hi, Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Why don't you give it a try! Okay, here goes. There's various clues you can use to differentiate between earlier and later material. Tadao mentioned one a few days ago -- namely, the use of archaic word-forms in early material. I won't list all possible tools used to stratify the nikaaya-s. Instead I'll just refer to those that are relevant to our discussion of the Mahasatipa.t.thaana Sutta (DN 22). (1) Over time, ordinary words become used in specialized, technical meanings. Look at the word dhamma. In the early materials, it just means teaching. But later on it comes to have the specifically Buddhist meaning of mind-object. And in DN 22 we can already see the word used in this later sense. The fourth section of DN 22, the section on dhammaanupassanaa uses the word dhamma not only for teachings, but also for mind-objects such as the five hindrances. So, this is an indication of the lateness of the material. (2) Literary form. The early material consists of simple statements and propositions. Later materials take the form of explanations, analysis and commentary. Now, look at the presentation of the Four Noble Truths toward the end of DN 22. We have the usual statement that birth is suffering, old age is suffering, etc. But THEN in DN 22 we have analysis of each of these terms -- what is birth? what is old age? Each of these terms is commented upon within the sutta itself. The use of the commentarial formal is again an indication of relative lateness. (3) Elaboration of simple ideas comes after the simple ideas themselves. The early material presents sati (mindfulness) without much in the way of elaboration. But here we have a whole discourse on what just this one point means. Again, this suggests it is later than the simple proposition of the Noble Eightfold Path. (4) Absence of concentration meditation as part of the path. The Noble Eightfold Path is a core, early teaching -- it occurs almost everywhere. But in DN 22 we have sati without samaadhi. Since the early teachings and the Buddha's own practice included samaadhi, and this one doesn't, we can infer that DN 22 is late rather than early. Derek. 6843 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 10:55pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] A Path with heart it was Re: Practice and Ajahn Chah Dear Anders Actually you are the only one who notice my messageand caught my intention, nobody gave a toss - this people here don't indulge to my whinings! ;-) >> > > I am ardent, passionate, intuitive, misruled, never abstract, always > > referring to actual experience, very openminded to different sources of > > knowledge. > >Sounds very Zen :-) But it's quite ironic that the school which is 'a >teaching outside the scriptures' is also the school that has produced the >most literature of any Buddhist school in China to this day. Seems the >point >is missed. Ahi,Ahi, Ahi you dare to read something else than Tipitaka? Horror, scandle, disgraceful, you should be ashamed of yourself!!! In another list I quotated a Zen teacher Charlotte Joko Beck and have been warned that by my heresy I could reborn in a lower realm. I am already resigned to be a cockroach. Well you will keep me company. > > > Sometimes communication just doesn't occur, the right conditions are not > > there and my skills are limited by my own conditionings and I feel quite > > frustrated, powerless. I get impatient. > > I try to 'listen' to others and not only to my self just seeking >reassurance > > on my 'beliefs'. > > But often I don't feel 'exchange', there is a kind of impermeability. > > Whether no one is listening or I am totally unable to communicate in a > > intelligible language for this list. Or both. > > Perhaps I should consider the Zen saying: > > > > Say one word with your mouth shut! >I tried, but all I got out was: "moun ouurgh" :-) My problem is that 'I cannot keep my mouth shut!!!' hehehehehehe > > > And as Erik say mind 'my own bhavana' instead of struggling to >communicate. > > Anyway whatever I have to express is certainly not so important >uttering. >Or listening. > >I do appreciate your thoughts on the group myself and hope you decide to >stay on. I hope that you do learn to be more patient, because that is >really all that's needed on a group like this. > >Kind regards >Anders Honore > Yes please indulge me, yes, yes. Love it! ;-) And regarding patience, is the most important thing on the path, otherwise we 'freak out'! LOve Cybele 6844 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 11:00pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: thailand/west Hi Anders > > > > > >--- Erik wrote: > > > > I still smoke cigarettes, for example > > > > > >Me too! > > > > > >Derek. > > > > > > > Bleah, disgusting! > > I give up any intention of kissing any of you! > > Please quit very soon. heheheheheh ;-))) > > > > Sorry but I can't resist Sarah....:-) > >Then you'll be happy to know that I only smoke cigars on special >occasions. -:) I used to smoke regularly when I was around 14-15. Then I >ran >out of money and had to quit ("alright! It's either the beers or the >cigarettes. What's it gonna be?"). Haven't bothered touching cigarettes >since. >On the other hand, I am sure my breath could knock down a cow when I wake >up >in the morning after a night out on bars and discos :-) > My...a bit more of romanticism. Like this you don't inspire me! Ah these scandinavians, no poetry, no latin sugary talk... ;-) Do an effort please. Cybele 6845 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 11:10pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Bruce's question (Ken) ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 3:41 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Bruce's question (Ken) > > Dear Erik > > >--- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >Erik: > >Okay, a little forceful bluntness for you Jon (and please accept this > >in the appropriate spirit--it is not spoken in anger, but in forceful > >directness as your true friend in the Dhamma). > > > >Jon: > > > 1. Listening to or studying the dhamma is a necessary condition > >for the development of awareness/understanding, > > > >Agreed. > > >Jon: > > > while meditating is not. > > > >Eric: > >Jon, this is definitely wrong understanding of practice. Meditation > >is an absolutely necessary condition for the type of development that > >leads to Right View. At the risk of sounding dogmatic THERE IS NO > >OTHER WAY, unless you consider any of the steps of the Noble > >Eightfold Path to be optional. > > > Erik, I am delighted!!!!!! > I declare unconditional love to you! > I am your devoted slave! But don't take it too literally...;-) > You are my hero, my model, my guru! > This is truly wonderful, better than chocolate, better than sex (almost) > > Pure bliss, I have been projected into Jhana states with this assertion! > Celestial visions and peacefulness... > Eric you saved my day!!!! > I surrender to your wisdom. > > From your devoted slave > > Cybele hrmm, at the risk of ruining your good mood............ I disagree.... 6846 From: Victor Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 11:12pm Subject: Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom Hi Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" wrote: [snip] > To tell you the truth, I have yet to find support in the Pali canon for the > belief that there is no self. If interested, you might want to refer to Ananda Sutta, To Ananda http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html Metta, Victor 6847 From: Anders Honoré Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 11:20pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Anders ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 3:54 PM Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Anders > I disagreee. You deny social and cultural reality: you deny INTENTIONS. > The intentions of what a person declares can pollute the words or distort > the significance or reveal another facet of the issue. Intention is valid for the speaker of those words and his own progression. When it comes to the perception created in the mind of others of another saying, then it is a created image, not actual fact, but merely sense data which your own mind interprets, hence creating more volition. > Things are not so plain and transparent only because we would like them to > be so. Indeed, they aren't reliable at all! Yet you rely on the conditioned (and uncertain if the Buddha is to believed) information on Nietszche as a person to affect your own conditioned perception of his sayings. > Conditionings and prejudices are there and manipulate reality. Should say "and manipulate conditioned reality." > However we live inside a historycal, cultural and social context and being > buddhists doesn't change the fact that you have to understand things in the > right perspective. True. That's what I was aiming at. As long as you have a perspective, you're off the track. > As I carry past accumulations and my background and this influence my > mentality and choices in life, the very same applies to Nietszche or Ajah > Mun. > And yourself for that matters. All of this asserts that there is an 'I' being influenced. 6848 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 11:29pm Subject: Re: Bruce's question (Ken) Dear Ken, I would like to contribute to this thread a little. --- <> wrote: > Jon > I really would like to know the correct approach to the > Buddhadhamma. I want to know exactly what those disciples in the > suttas meant when they exclaimed, "I take refuge in the Dhamma > from this day until life's end!" On many occasions, when I > have > been reading messages posted by you and other members of this list, > the penny has dropped.There are lucid moment when everything seems to > fall into place. I wish I could hold on to those moments but they go > and I find myself making the same mistakes -- thinking I can control > things. I think the most important thing is obviously hearing the dhamma, contemplating (considering) the dhamma, and knowing the characteristics of the realities as they truly are. Beyond that, I heard K. Sujin say that one of the meaning of taking refuge is to adopt other Buddha's teachings in increasing one kusala to "let go" of the akusala (when one is not doing kusala, for the most part, one has akusala). When I post a mesage to DSG, sometimes I am reminded of the Sutta that teaches us when to say something about the dhamma, that has the following pattern: (will have to look it up): can't get the person out of the akusala -> don't say it. can get the person out of the akusala, even when it may make the other person uncomfortable, and even it may be an uncomfortable position for the speaker -> know the proper time and the proper way and say it. Obviously, this teaching is very subtle, just like many other Buddha's teachings. What is dhamma? How do we know what we say will condition kusala in other people? How do you know what we say is correct and in accord with the Buddha teachings? What is kusala? What is akusala? What is the proper time and the proper way to say such things? I consider saying something that refers to the dhamma, refers to Vinaya, that would increase the kusala in other people (and myself) good things indeed. kom 6849 From: Suan Lu Zaw Date: Wed Jul 25, 2001 11:37pm Subject: Re: Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message: To Robert Kirkpatrick Dear Robert How are you? You are very welcome, and glad to know that they make sense to you. But, there are some who found the full message to be not quite to their previous learning.