7000 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2001 5:22pm
Subject: A late welcome

 
  Dear Asterix 7 (sorry, i don't know how else to address you),

I think you quietly slipped in without my noticing or without any fanfare or
welcome:-)

I gather that, like Gayan, you live in Sri Lanka;-)

I spent quite a long time there (living in a temple) and then later joining
Khun Sujin, Nina  and many friends from this list in the 70s, so it's rather a
special place (read object of a lot of lobha) for me.  

I'm sure everyone would love to hear a little more about your background and
interest in dhamma. You suggest you did not 'take refuge in the dhamma'- at a
young age..were you brought up in Sri lanka? Where do you live?

Hope to hear more form you and to visit Sri lanka again. Thank you for joining
us here.

Sarah

p.s Do you know Gayan (one of our long-standing members now)? I notice you both
sign off in the same way:-)

-- Asterix 7 wrote: > dear cybele,
> 
> > You live in paradise. Serendipy Island! ;-)
> 
> Yeah, true to some point, only realised it after i started 
> globetrotting..
> 
...........
> 
> I wish i had found refuge in the dhamma much earlier in my life, so I 
> would have had the drive to meet the people I admire.
> But as we undertand , these things are uncontrollable.
> 
> wish you a happy journey in dhamma
> 
> rgds



 
7001 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2001 5:59pm
Subject: toeing the party line....;-)

 
  Dear Ken,

We followed up this point with Bruce in Bkk and this reminded me of your post
here:
 --- Ken wrote: > Dear Bruce, 
> As a lurker of long standing, I am familiar with your views on the
> study-verses-formal-practice issue.  If I remember correctly, it was a
> number of your earlier posts that I found particularly helpful.  They
> eloquently asked the questions that I was trying to formulate in my 
> own mind.

Yes, he has a knack for this!
> 
> 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.  For all the excellent material on the 
> overall issue, I haven't noticed any answers to precisely that 
> question.  

I'm sure there have been other repsonses by now, but let me add a little more
as I see it.

Anytime there is the delusion of self, it is wrong view and not OK in the sense
that wrong view is never OK. Of course, there can be wrong view right now while
we're reading dhamma, just as there can be wrong view whilst meditating, hiking
in Switzerland or any other time. There can be an idea of being able to control
life or realities at any of these times and the truth is totally hidden.

Again it's the citta and accompanying cetasikas at any given moment that counts
rather than the 'situation', the story which we take for being the reality.

In the same way, panna (wisdom) and awareness can arise whenever there are the
conditions for them to arise which may be at any of these times if there has
been sufficient intellectual understanding and considering about the paramattha
dhammas (realities) which are to be known. A moment of sati is very short. it
doesn't wait for a special time and place.

>>But I have my own theories!

good!
> 
> I find it helpful to think of the Dhamma as a gift given by the 
> Buddha, specifically to worldlings like us.   So at the initial stage 
> of accepting the gift, it is proper and Dhamma-consistent that we do 
> so with the [involuntary] worldling's delusion that there is a self 
> who accepts.  

I would say that at any moments of ignorance or wrong view, there is no
accepting of the gift....only at moments of wholesomeness (kusala) and
specifically at moment s with panna (wisdom) and sati (awareness).

The magic of the gift is that, at the moment we
> `take hold of it', the delusion of self slips away and we
> have understanding at the level of satipatthana.

OK
> 
> I'm not sure how far I can go with the gift simile, but perhaps
> it could be said that, while there is satipatthana, the time may be 
> right for formal practice --

I would say that at moments of satipatthana, when sati is aware of paramattha
dhamma, there is no idea of formal or any other practice.   

>while there is no satipatthana, we are 
> back to where we need to accept the gift (to listen to the
> Buddha's 
> teaching).

Moments of satipatthana can slip in while listening or at any other time...no
rules at all...but it's true that unless we listen and consider a lot about
realities and understand well in theory, there won't be conditions for the
'slipping in'.
> 
> I am wondering if formal practice might be intended for the disciple 
> in whom satipatthana is currently arising strongly and consistently 
> (in whom there is, for some considerable time, no notion of self), 
> and who is ready for a catalyst or impetus to push him on to the next 
> stage (e.g. of Stream-entry) (?)

The development of satipatthana doesn't change at different stages or levels.
It's always only the present reality which can be the object of awareness. The
understanding grows deeper and more penetrating, but this doesn't mean it ever
persists or needs a particular 'formal practice'. As wisdom grows it sees the
more subtle aspects of wrong view and there are fewer and fewer conditions for
these wrong views to arise. Thus, there are fewer conditions to have any idea
of certain places or times or postions as being more favourable as it becomes
clearer that it 's wrong view and ignorance that are blinding 'us', not
Vancouver, being a layperson, too busy at work or whatever other story seems to
be the 'block'. Not sure if this helps or confuses more!

I'm actually hoping Bruce will get back on this to you with one of his
'colourful posts', but Erik will have to give him a nudge first (and I know he
is very busy in Bkk for now).

Thanks for your thoughtful posts always,

Sarah

p.s Cybele and friends, there's no party-line to toe here....;-))) What would
there be to discuss if we all agreed on every point? 



 
7002 From: Robert Kirkpatrick 
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2001 6:48pm
Subject: From Bangkok

 
  Dear Group,
Just finished lunch with Acharn sujin, Amara and her mother, Betty, 
Sukin, Bruce, Ivan, Erik, Shin, my chidren, and others. We were at 
the Royal Bangkok Sports Cub (as the guests of Amara's mother).
There was delicious food and pleasnt conversation. 
That was the story.

 We discussed the nature of the moment. In truth there was no 
luncheon, no sports club, no robert, too. Usuallly we live in this 
world of concepts and stories about life, thinking we are doing this 
or that. But what is there is only these insignificant dhammas . 
Understanding them means there is a breaking down of the 'whole'.
There was a small tropical storm that we could see outside the room 
where we later discussed some more. In truth no storm but only seeing 
arising conditioned by visible object and then thinking processes 
that form up concepts. Panna can see the difference between 
paramattha dhammas and concepts and panna comes always associated 
with a level of detachment. Even when we discuss the dhamma we may 
have attachment to some idea -and if it is not seen as attachment (a 
dhamma that obscures) one will accumulate more attachment to that 
idea.
Acharn Sujin noted how the understanding must be very firm so that 
all namas (mental phenomena) are known as simply nama (not self). 
There is not my dosa or my lobha or my wisdom or my seeing- they are 
all simply nama dhamma.
Panna can understand too that moments of vipaka (result of past kamma)
seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling are different from 
moments during which thinking, attachemnt, understanding, or 
ignorance etc, arise. 
We spoke about how no one can stop the next moment arising. No one 
can decide that the next moment should be sound or colour, seeing or 
hearing , or feeling, or thinking. we might worry    what the next 
life will be, or we might have attachment to an idea of being born in 
a good place. However,now there is dukkha, again and again we are 
opressed by these different objects. It is by seeing dukkha that is 
occuring now that next life can be understood. And the more this is 
known the more there is detachemnt from the idea of a self who is 
reborn. There is only this moment and it can become habitual to 
investigate it.
Hard to do so though without the idea of self. We have to see for 
ourselves whether it can be done. The dfference between understanding 
at levels of thiking and at levels of direct understanding can be 
known too. It is not a fast process I think. Better to go in the 
right direction slowly though than the wrong one quickly.
robert
Ps, Very nice to meet everyone and thanks for the party on saturday 
Erik.
ert

 
7005 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2001 9:13pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Bruce's question (Ken)

 
  Ken

Thanks for your post and my apologies for being slow in replying.  I am
behind on the messages from last week, and am just starting to catch up.

--- Ken 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!"

Yes, wouldn't we all!  But as Kom's reply to you made clear, it's the same
path for everyone and there's no short cut.  We on this list are very
fortunate to have this goal in common and so hopefully can be of support
to each other in this endeavour.

> 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.

Thanks for your kind and encouraging words.  There is I hope no chance of
ever getting tired of going over the same ground, since if there is one
thing I have come to realise it is that one never gets beyond needing to
be reminded again and again of the same basic truths -- that it is the
reality appearing at the present moment that is to be known, that reality
and nothing else.

Jon



 
7006 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:09pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Derek

 
  Erik

 --- <> wrote: 
<snip>
> >  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.

This as an important, even crucial, issue.  It is intimately involved with
the whole question of the development of the path generally and role of
samatha in that development in particular.

Just to restate, I am suggesting that references in the suttas to the
factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are references to the mental factors
arising at a moment of path consciousness.  On this reading, the Noble
Eightfold Path is a path in the sense that moments of such path
consciousness lead inexorably to nibbana;  it is not a 'path of practice'
for the worldling in the sense that each factor is to be developed
separately.  This path is also known as the stream that is entered at the
first of the 4 stages of insight.  Only the stream-winner and above are
said to be on the noble eightfold path.  (Note:  there are, however,
mundane path moments -- moments of vipassana -- which are moments of
consciousness accompanied by 5 of the 8 path factors.)

This interpretation is supported by my reading of the Visuddhimagga and
the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha.  I find there references to treatment of the
factors of the N8FP as cetasikas that accompany path-moments, but so far
not to the path factors as 'guidelines for bhavana'.  Here are some
examples.

In the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation CMA VII, #24-#38, it says--

"The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble
Eightfold Path.  In the teaching of the four truths, this is the
collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors
arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths."

The Visuddhimagga in its discussion of the 4 Noble Truths [XVI, 75 - 83]
says that the different factors of the eightfold path "occur in a single
moment on the occasion of the path".  It explains how at such moments each
factor performs its own function.  Right concentration, for example,
arises conditioned by (among other things) the right mindfulness that
arises together with it--

"83.  When his mind is thus guarded by supreme mindfulness, the
unification of mind, which is associated with that right view, abolishes
wrong concentration, and that is called right concentration.   It has the
characteristic of non-distraction.  Its function is to concentrate.  It is
manifested as the abandoning of wrong concentration."

Right concentration of the Eightfold Path is explained here as the
concentration that arises with right view and right mindfulness and
abolishes wrong concentration.  As we know from the suttas, it is
concentration that is of the level of jhana, but this need only be so for
the actual moment of eightfold path consciousness.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that the idea of the Eightfold Path as a
guideline for bhavana is an approach that has developed in relatively
recent times.

Jon



 
7007 From: Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala   
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 1:37am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Digest Number 529

 
  Dear Robert,
How beautifully you described the day today. . .and any day or any moment.
Thank you for all the wonderful insights you share with us, which  become
conditions for insight to arise within for us (conventional us) as well.

Anomodhana,
Betty

 
7008 From: Howard 
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 2:28am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Derek

 
  Hi, Jon (and Erik) -

In a message dated 7/31/01 10:10:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Jonothan Abbott writes:


> 
> Erik
> 
> --- Erik wrote: 
> <snip>
> > >  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.
> 
> This as an important, even crucial, issue.  It is intimately involved with
> the whole question of the development of the path generally and role of
> samatha in that development in particular.
> 
> Just to restate, I am suggesting that references in the suttas to the
> factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are references to the mental factors
> arising at a moment of path consciousness.  On this reading, the Noble
> Eightfold Path is a path in the sense that moments of such path
> consciousness lead inexorably to nibbana;  it is not a 'path of practice'
> for the worldling in the sense that each factor is to be developed
> separately.  This path is also known as the stream that is entered at the
> first of the 4 stages of insight.  Only the stream-winner and above are
> said to be on the noble eightfold path.  (Note:  there are, however,
> mundane path moments -- moments of vipassana -- which are moments of
> consciousness accompanied by 5 of the 8 path factors.)
> 
> This interpretation is supported by my reading of the Visuddhimagga and
> the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha.  I find there references to treatment of the
> factors of the N8FP as cetasikas that accompany path-moments, but so far
> not to the path factors as 'guidelines for bhavana'.  Here are some
> examples.
> 
> In the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation CMA VII, #24-#38, it says--
> 
> "The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble
> Eightfold Path.  In the teaching of the four truths, this is the
> collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors
> arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths."
> 
> The Visuddhimagga in its discussion of the 4 Noble Truths [XVI, 75 - 83]
> says that the different factors of the eightfold path "occur in a single
> moment on the occasion of the path".  It explains how at such moments each
> factor performs its own function.  Right concentration, for example,
> arises conditioned by (among other things) the right mindfulness that
> arises together with it--
> 
> "83.  When his mind is thus guarded by supreme mindfulness, the
> unification of mind, which is associated with that right view, abolishes
> wrong concentration, and that is called right concentration.   It has the
> characteristic of non-distraction.  Its function is to concentrate.  It is
> manifested as the abandoning of wrong concentration."
> 
> Right concentration of the Eightfold Path is explained here as the
> concentration that arises with right view and right mindfulness and
> abolishes wrong concentration.  As we know from the suttas, it is
> concentration that is of the level of jhana, but this need only be so for
> the actual moment of eightfold path consciousness.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I suspect that the idea of the Eightfold Path as a
> guideline for bhavana is an approach that has developed in relatively
> recent times.
> 
> Jon
> 
==============================
       I'm sorry to say that I find this idea very odd. What about Right 
Livelihood and Right Speech? These are elements of cittas??? And what of all 
the very conventional formulations of the 8-fold noble path in the suttas? 
These are recent developments? If this is the Abhidhamma understanding, then 
it sure seems that the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka are further 
apart than i had realized.
       Perhaps I am totally missing what you are saying. Please lead me out 
of my confusion!

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)                    
            
                                         



 
7009 From: ppp  <tadao> 
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 1:15am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] From Bangkok

 
  Hi, Erick:
Thank you for reporting us on your convestion with
Khun Sujin. An excellent reminder, indeed. tadao

 
7010 From: Erik 
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 8:46am
Subject: Noble Eightfold Path - Jonothan

 
  ---  Jonothan Abbott  wrote:

Jonothan, what, can't go a day without spoiling for a good debate? 
The only people worse in this regard than lawyers are  Gelug-
pas! :) :) :)

> > [Erik] 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.
>
> This as an important, even crucial, issue.

You bet it is!

> Just to restate, I am suggesting that references in the suttas to 
the
> factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are references to the mental 
factors
> arising at a moment of path consciousness.

Rather than offer your own interpretation or that of commentators, 
why not examine the very words we both accept
as canonical, the words the Buddha was reputed to have spoken in the 
Magga-Vibhanga Sutta (Analysis of the Path):

Evam me suttam,

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn45-008.html

Nowhere in this Sutta does the Buddha mention anything about the 
Eightfold path
referring to abstract "mental factors" at the arising of path 
consciosuness. If he did,
please point it out to me, because these eyes can't see a single 
reference to
the maggangas as fitting your interpretation.

Let's begin at the beginning, as it were.

"And what, monks, is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, 
knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with 
regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of 
practice leading to the stopping of stress: This, monks, is called 
right view."

Note here, just for starters, the Buddha says NOTHING about 
recognizing the present moment. I just had to toss that out there for 
all those who seem to keep clinging to the IDEA about the recognizing 
realities in the present moment while totally neglecting the less 
glamorous conventional of practice the Buddha spent so much time 
harping on, if we go by how much the Buddha spoke a the conventional 
level, as in this sutta, vs. how much he spoke about the loftier 
aspects of the path, as he does in far fewer place, if one merely 
performs a quick scan of the suttas for their content. 

In other words, the Buddha understands this reality about us, and as 
a result teaches at a conventional level most of the time. In other 
words, what is suffering? What is its origination? And what is the 
way leading to its cessation? Or stated another way, what is the 
problem (First Noble Truth)? Where does this problem originate 
(Second Noble Truth)? How do we terminate the problem, now that we 
know where it lives (the Eightfold Path)?

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from 
divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle 
chatter: This, monks, is called right speech."

Certainly when there is kusala citta one will be abstaining from all 
of these activities, since these are all motivated through the 
akusala-kamma-pathas of the speech-door. But he doesn't put it in 
those terms here. No, the Buddha explicitly speaks again at the most 
conventional of levels. There is no need to be a sotapanna to 
understand the meaning of this, is there? Any child with a basic 
grasp of these terms can understand this simple message. And put it 
into practice it, for that matter. I learned these basic teachings 
from my precious parents before I was five years old!

"And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life, 
abstaining from stealing, abstaining from sexual intercourse: This, 
monks, is called right action."

Again, when kusala cittas are present none of these activities will 
have condition to arise because they lack cause (following the 
infallible law of cause-and-effect, that all things depend on 
conditions for their arising), as before. But he isn't talking about 
some abstract supramundane path-factor here, as should be apparent to 
anyone reading this without a mind filled with preconceptions about 
what is and is not the path. These activities are not even reputed to 
be possible by sotapannas! So how on earth could the Buddha be 
talking about anything supramundane here at all?

This is obviously a lokiya teaching. To suggest otherwise would 
entail the absurd consequence that the Buddha was preaching to those 
who had already terminated the conditions for the arising of these 
activities! Why would the Buddha waste precious time pedantically 
lecturing stream-winners on such points? And where here is there ANY 
mention of again, abstract notions of cittas and cetasikas and magga-
nana here?

But enough on that. And Howard has already mentioned Right 
Livelihood, etc.

Let's get to one REALLY IMPORTANT ONE for DSG (because many of the 
responses I've seen here on intention and volition and effort 
indicate seriously wrong understanding about the notion of samma-
vayama, Right Effort):

"And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk 
generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts 
his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful 
qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, 
endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the 
sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have 
arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, 
upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful 
qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, 
endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the 
maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & 
culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is 
called right effort."

What about this reads like "path consciousness" in the magga-nana 
sense? Any kindergartener with a basic understanding of the terms 
used here can easily grasp this utterly simple message, and what the 
intent of these very simple and direct words regarding effort is. The 
meaning's plain as the noonday sun!

> On this reading, the Noble
> Eightfold Path is a path in the sense that moments of such path
> consciousness lead inexorably to nibbana;  it is not a 'path of 
practice'
> for the worldling in the sense that each factor is to be developed
> separately.

I believe I have shown otherwise. Now you show me where my 
interpretation is the tiniest bit at variance with what Lord Buddha 
ACTUALLY taught in the Suttas ALL schools of Buddhism accept as the 
words of the Tathagata, the rightly self-awakened one.

"And what, monks, is right mindfulness? (i) There is the case where a 
monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, aware, & 
mindful -- putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. 
(ii) He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves -- ardent, 
aware, & mindful -- putting away greed & distress with reference to 
the world. (iii) He remains focused on the mind in & of itself -- 
ardent, aware, & mindful -- putting away greed & distress with 
reference to the world. (iv) He remains focused on mental qualities 
in & of themselves -- ardent, aware, & mindful -- putting away greed 
& distress with reference to the world. This, monks, is called right 
mindfulness. 

We all appear to agree that this aspect of practice is necessary, 
being vipassana and all. This is what I have been taught by my 
teachers and is what is taught in all systems one would associate 
with the label Buddha-dhamma.

>  This path is also known as the stream that is entered at the
> first of the 4 stages of insight.  Only the stream-winner and above 
are
> said to be on the noble eightfold path.  

Sorry, but I could not disagree more. Sotapannas and "above" (as if 
there is something like "levels" rather than the termination of 
unwholesome qualities via absence) may have actualized certain 
aspects of the Eightfold path and be practicing it for the first time 
with Right View, but there is no need to be a sotapanna to practice 
ANY of the limbs of the Noble Eightfold Path. Must one be a sotapanna 
to practice Right Concentration, for example? How is one to realize 
the fruits of the Dhamma without this indispensable component being 
THOROUGHLY established in the first place?

"And what, monks, is right concentration? (i) There is the case where 
a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from 
unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: 
rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed 
thought & evaluation. (ii) With the stilling of directed thought & 
evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & 
pleasure born of concentration, one-pointedness of awareness free 
from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. (iii) With 
the fading of rapture, he remains in equanimity, mindful & fully 
aware, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in 
the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & 
mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' (iv) 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, monks, is 
called right concentration." 

I just want to point out a key phrase here: "enters and remains in" 
as perhaps providing a clue as to the Buddha's meaning of what sort 
of jhana meditation to cultivate here. Where in these very simple 
words is there room for the notion of "khanika jhanas" that many use 
to avoid doing the specifically directed practices (Right Effort) of 
concentrating and unifying the mind? 

Where is there the slightest talk about "present moments"? Note I am 
not denying that awakening can and does often occur outside of seated 
meditation, but it would take a pretty liberal interpretation of this 
definition, repeated over and over again by Lord Buddha in so many 
places throughout his teaching career, to think that the Buddha was 
suggesting one could simply dispense with "entering AND REMAINING" in 
these states of highly-concentrated awareness for extended periods of 
time! 

And the reason for this is that concentration--true ekagatta in the 
jhana sense--is so hard to come by in the first place, that we need a 
whole slew of favorable conditions for its arising at all. And to 
forgo this type of directed meditation specifically aimed at 
cultivating concentration for extended periods of time, such that one 
attains mastery in concentration, is a recipe for further rounds in 
the wheel of samsara. Note I am not suggesting this necessarily be 
done in seated meditation, nor by following the breath. Only that it 
be done to the point master is attained to the point one can 
easily "enter and REMAIN" in this state of concentrated awareness at 
will, for extended periods of time. That may be accomplished by a 
number of means, but it is a requirement all he same. If it weren't 
you would not see this definition of Right Concentration repeated by 
the Buddha in so many places throughout the suttas.

> (Note:  there are, however,
> mundane path moments -- moments of vipassana -- which are moments of
> consciousness accompanied by 5 of the 8 path factors.)

All these are mere abstract concepts, leading nowhere but to further 
rounds on the wheel of samsara, Jonothan.

> This interpretation is supported by my reading of the Visuddhimagga 
and
> the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha.  I find there references to treatment 
of the
> factors of the N8FP as cetasikas that accompany path-moments, but 
so far
> not to the path factors as 'guidelines for bhavana'.  Here are some
> examples.

Set aside the Visuddhimagga! Set aside the Abhidhammata-Sangaha! In 
fact, take the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka, its commentaries and sub-
commentaries, and set the WHOLE THING aside, until the essential 
points above are grasped in their entirety, because it is apparent 
the confusion engendered by these volumes of abstract categories and 
classifications and interpretations of interpretations of 
interpretations are directly occluding the actual (and so incredibly 
simple and direct) meaning of the very words Lord Buddha spoke to his 
disciples, which are so simple even a child can grasp them!

> The Visuddhimagga in its discussion of the 4 Noble Truths [XVI, 75 -
 83]
> says that the different factors of the eightfold path "occur in a 
single
> moment on the occasion of the path".  It explains how at such 
moments each
> factor performs its own function.  Right concentration, for example,
> arises conditioned by (among other things) the right mindfulness 
that
> arises together with it--

Just to note, for the record, counsel, that you're saying the 
Visuddhimagga supports the notion that Right Concentration arises 
from conditions, that is has conditions as support.

> "83.  When his mind is thus guarded by supreme mindfulness, the
> unification of mind, which is associated with that right view, 
abolishes
> wrong concentration, and that is called right concentration.   It 
has the
> characteristic of non-distraction.  Its function is to 
concentrate.  It is
> manifested as the abandoning of wrong concentration."

Do you have direct experience if this type of concentration arising 
from the method of practice you've been taught? No need to answer, 
this is merely a question to reflect very carefully on, because it is 
in the most literal sense a matter of life and death. And the 
opportunities to encounter a human birth (let alone the holy Dharma 
during a Buddha-sasana) are so rare as to be nearly unfathomable:
"Suppose a man threw into the ocean a yoke with one hole in it, and 
then the east wind blew it west and the west wind blew it east and 
the north wind blew it south and the south wind blew it north; and 
suppose there were a blind turtle that came up to the surface once at 
the end of each century. How do you conceive this, bikkhus, would 
that blind turtle eventually put his head through that yoke with the 
one hole in it?

"He might, Lord, at the end of a long period.

"Bikkhus, the blind turtle would sooner put his head through that 
yoke with a single hole in it than a fool, once gone to perdition, 
would find his way back to the human state."

If this iosn't an exhortation to first rightly comprehend the intent 
of the Buddha's teachings, and then DILIGENTLY put those teachigns 
into practice with great effort, then I don't know what is.

As I said to Robert yesterday, the methods on Right Concentration and 
the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path, as detailed in the Magga-
Vibhanga Sutta by the Buddha above, the very one my teachers have 
taught, are known in no uncertain terms to have resulted in the 
fruits of the noble path. The EMPHASIS, specifically, found in other 
pedagogical modes of instruction, are not so certain to this 
collection of khandas. Not that I'm dismissing them outright, but I 
am awaiting serious evidence they actually yielded the fruits of the 
noble path.

And that is where the rubber meets the road in the entire discussion 
of the Dharma. That is the entire point of the path, as discussed in 
Sunday's round-table with Khun Sujin. Points on which we both, by the 
way, totally agreed: that the entire reason for study and practice is 
to create the appropriate conditions for the arising of the path-
consciousness, because ONLY through the moments of path-consciousness 
are the mental afflictions permanently terminated, and the round of 
suffering on the wheel of samsara brought to complete and total 
cessation.

> I may be wrong, but I suspect that the idea of the Eightfold Path 
as a
> guideline for bhavana is an approach that has developed in 
relatively
> recent times.

I seriously doubt that one, simply based on what the Buddha is 
reputed to have actually spoken during his forty-plus years helping 
suffering sentient beings terminate that suffering once and for all.

As always, it's a pleasure, my friend in the Dhamma, 
Jonothan! :) :) :) 

(and now that you've seen my intensity firsthand you know where all 
this viriya comes from! -- plus, it's just such a great joy to be 
here in BKK sharing Dhamma with all my friends here--I find no 
activity more delightful than fully immmersing this body, speech, and 
mind in the Holy Dhamma!) :) :) :)

 
 
7011 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 10:00am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Derek

 
  Howard

Thanks for coming in with these queries which I am sure are shared by many
(most?) on this list.

Howard, I have not forgotten your earlier post where you quoted the
standard sutta description of Right Concentration (as has Erik more
recently) and also your previous comments on Right Effort as the 4
strivings.  I do intend to refer to these in my next post which will
follow on from the last one.  Whether it will resolve confusion or add to
it remains to be seen!  But certainly, I am not questioning the sutta
references for one moment -- it is a matter of how they are to be
understood.  As Erik so aptly put it, the tripitaka is to be read
holistically; this means that each pitaka must be read in the light of the
other 2 pitakas.

Just briefly on the path factors that are the 3 abstinences (right speech,
action and livelihood), yes, these too are cetasikas arising at the
supramundane path moment (moment of enlightenment).  At mundane path
moments (moments of vipassana), however, these 3 cetasikas are absent and
only the remaining 5 path-factor cetasikas arise.

Jon

 --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Erik) -
> 
> In a message dated 7/31/01 10:10:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Jonothan Abbott writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Erik
> > 
> > --- Erik wrote: 
> > <snip>
> > > >  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.
> > 
> > This as an important, even crucial, issue.  It is intimately involved
> with
> > the whole question of the development of the path generally and role
> of
> > samatha in that development in particular.
> > 
> > Just to restate, I am suggesting that references in the suttas to the
> > factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are references to the mental
> factors
> > arising at a moment of path consciousness.  On this reading, the Noble
> > Eightfold Path is a path in the sense that moments of such path
> > consciousness lead inexorably to nibbana;  it is not a 'path of
> practice'
> > for the worldling in the sense that each factor is to be developed
> > separately.  This path is also known as the stream that is entered at
> the
> > first of the 4 stages of insight.  Only the stream-winner and above
> are
> > said to be on the noble eightfold path.  (Note:  there are, however,
> > mundane path moments -- moments of vipassana -- which are moments of
> > consciousness accompanied by 5 of the 8 path factors.)
> > 
> > This interpretation is supported by my reading of the Visuddhimagga
> and
> > the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha.  I find there references to treatment of
> the
> > factors of the N8FP as cetasikas that accompany path-moments, but so
> far
> > not to the path factors as 'guidelines for bhavana'.  Here are some
> > examples.
> > 
> > In the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation CMA VII, #24-#38, it says--
> > 
> > "The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble
> > Eightfold Path.  In the teaching of the four truths, this is the
> > collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors
> > arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths."
> > 
> > The Visuddhimagga in its discussion of the 4 Noble Truths [XVI, 75 -
> 83]
> > says that the different factors of the eightfold path "occur in a
> single
> > moment on the occasion of the path".  It explains how at such moments
> each
> > factor performs its own function.  Right concentration, for example,
> > arises conditioned by (among other things) the right mindfulness that
> > arises together with it--
> > 
> > "83.  When his mind is thus guarded by supreme mindfulness, the
> > unification of mind, which is associated with that right view,
> abolishes
> > wrong concentration, and that is called right concentration.   It has
> the
> > characteristic of non-distraction.  Its function is to concentrate. 
> It is
> > manifested as the abandoning of wrong concentration."
> > 
> > Right concentration of the Eightfold Path is explained here as the
> > concentration that arises with right view and right mindfulness and
> > abolishes wrong concentration.  As we know from the suttas, it is
> > concentration that is of the level of jhana, but this need only be so
> for
> > the actual moment of eightfold path consciousness.
> > 
> > I may be wrong, but I suspect that the idea of the Eightfold Path as a
> > guideline for bhavana is an approach that has developed in relatively
> > recent times.
> > 
> > Jon
> > 
> ==============================
>        I'm sorry to say that I find this idea very odd. What about Right
> 
> Livelihood and Right Speech? These are elements of cittas??? And what of
> all 
> the very conventional formulations of the 8-fold noble path in the
> suttas? 
> These are recent developments? If this is the Abhidhamma understanding,
> then 
> it sure seems that the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka are
> further 
> apart than i had realized.
>        Perhaps I am totally missing what you are saying. Please lead me
> out 
> of my confusion!
> 
> 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)              
>      
>             


 
7012 From: cybele chiodi   
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 10:19am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Meeting DSG friends in Bkk

 
  Good gracious!!!
I am appalled, what happens with all this anglosaxons and one disguised 
scandinavian, they lost all composure!!1
All this lobha and overexcitement, they are flying high, no moderation at 
all! I am frankly shocked with your latin-like passionate behaviour.
So disgraceful!
Hope you all return to your habitual coldbloodedness otherwise I will feel 
overwhelmed by all this enthusiasm, lust for life and Dhamma.
Really I am deeply concerned about this sangha; luckily I was not there to 
join in all this unrestrained behaviour so unlike my nature... ;-)
Promise you make me feel a model of temperance.
Please stop it otherwise I will lose my role in this list. ;-)

My judicious regards

Cybele


>>Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Meeting DSG friends in Bkk
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:10:02 +0800 (CST)
>
>  Hi Erik,
>
>It's great to see and hear what a good start you've got off to in Bkk and 
>how
>hospitable everyone is to you (and would be to anyone else from here)!
>
>..and of course you're so appreciative that it makes it a pleasure for
>everyone....
> >
> > Well, Sarah, you may or may not know this but I literally DID work ON
> > the trading floor at one point on Wall St. (actually, the World
> > Financial Center--but not the "trading pits" with all the shouting
> > and hand-waving like the NYSE--these are computerized trading desks,
> > but still an extremely intense environment where people burn out
> > faster than Roman candles).
>



 
7013 From: ppp  <tadao> 
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 3:05am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Noble Eightfold Path - Jonothan

 
  Hi, Erick:
Here is just a short comment of mine with respect to your discussion
on the Noble Eightfold Path with Khun Jonothan. What I would like say
is that we are not wise enough to understand the essence of the
Dhamma just picking up a sutta or severl suttas (regardless how
important these suttas are). We have to cast our eyes rather widely
and read as many discourses as possible. Based on such background
knowldge of the discoures and favourably based on (some) understanding
of the Abhidhamma and based on what other people have been arguing
about the true nature of the Dhamma, we have to draw our
(tentative) conclusion on what the Dhamma is all about.
(Please do not think that I am saying that you are not a learned man.)
There are so many formulaic(?spelling?) definitions of various Buddhist
concepts. And I think it is rather dangerous to accept these formulaic
definitions LITERALLY. (They are almost like a doctor's prescriptions;
unless one has been trained in medicine/pharmacology, these are not
understandable.) When we read the Sutta-Pitakas, there are
hundred and hundered of discoures where the Buddha repeately describes
that seeing is impermanent/non-self/suffering etc. By way of appreciating
the signifiance of the Buddha repeating on the true nature of these phenomena,
we can slowly work on the formulaic definitions of the Buddhist concepts
(It takes time to apprecipate/understand the true meanings of these
formulaic expresions. If these expressions were something which could
be understood literally, Gotam Buddha's immeidate sucessors wouldn't
have put so much effort to establish the pradigm which now we call
"Theravada Buddhism".)
tadao

 
7014 From: cybele chiodi   
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 10:41am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] From Bangkok

 
  Dear Robert


>Dear Group,
>Just finished lunch with Acharn sujin, Amara and her mother, Betty,
>Sukin, Bruce, Ivan, Erik, Shin, my chidren, and others. We were at
>the Royal Bangkok Sports Cub (as the guests of Amara's mother).
>There was delicious food and pleasnt conversation.
>That was the story.
>
>  We discussed the nature of the moment. In truth there was no
>luncheon, no sports club, no robert, too. Usuallly we live in this
>world of concepts and stories about life, thinking we are doing this
>or that. But what is there is only these insignificant dhammas .

From the deepest of my heart, there is no intention of merely provoking or 
teasing you but are you sure that you were LIVING THE PRESENT MOMENT in that 
occasion you described?
You seem very much engrossed in ponder and elaborate the experience; 
analyzing obssessively.
Could I suggest you to put aside Dhamma books for a while and read Zorba the 
Greek by Nikos Kazantzakis.
Life and Dhamma are in your mind and your guts and you are far too much 
focussed in your mind but then what could I know - I am no expert in 
Abhidhamma nevertheless my mind is sharp and my heart is wideopen.
I plead you to consider my suggestion.
Don't lose your beginners mind, don't lose your heart.
And don't scrutinize my mail as well! ;-)
Above all don't lose your composure like your naughty friends, they are all 
overexcited - disgraceful!

Love

Cybele


 
7015 From: ppp  <tadao> 
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 3:41am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] From Bangkok

 
  Sorry Robert:
I didn't realize that it's you who has
sent us such a nice reminder on sati from Bangkok.
Thank you, tadao

 
7016 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 11:47am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Bruce's question (Ken)

 
  Ken

Just to elaborate on (perhaps 'elucidate' would be more apt) my earlier
post ...

 --- Jonothan Abbott  wrote: > Ken

> --- Ken 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!"
> 
> Yes, wouldn't we all!  But as Kom's reply to you made clear, it's the
> same
> path for everyone and there's no short cut.  We on this list are very
> fortunate to have this goal in common and so hopefully can be of support
> to each other in this endeavour.

... those disciples who took refuge on hearing the Buddha were the ones
that could 'get it'.  Because of accumulated wisdom, they understood the
Buddha's words at a level that we today can only wish for.  They were,
relativley speaking, on the brink of enlightenment.  So when in the suttas
the buddha asked, for example, 'Is seeing permanent or impermanent?',
their answer 'Impermanent' would have been given from an understanding
based on direct experience of the reality at that moment.

It is unlikely that we in this life will ever reach such a level of
understanding (speaking for myself, at least), but it remains of course
our aspiration for attainment at the appropriate time.

Jon

> > 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.
> 
> Thanks for your kind and encouraging words.  There is I hope no chance
> of
> ever getting tired of going over the same ground, since if there is one
> thing I have come to realise it is that one never gets beyond needing to
> be reminded again and again of the same basic truths -- that it is the
> reality appearing at the present moment that is to be known, that
> reality
> and nothing else.
> 
> Jon



 
7017 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 0:06pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Noble Eightfold Path - Jonothan

 
  Erik

Thanks for the comprehensive and forceful response to my post.  I intend
to come back as soon as possible.

 --- Erik wrote: > ---  Jonothan
Abbott  wrote:
> 
> Jonothan, what, can't go a day without spoiling for a good debate? 
> The only people worse in this regard than lawyers are  Gelug-
> pas! :) :) :)

I am honoured by the comparison (I think).
 
<snip>

> (and now that you've seen my intensity firsthand you know where all 
> this viriya comes from!

Not intensity, Erik, but good old-fashioned earnestness.  It was a delight
meeting you and sharing the week-end.

-- plus, it's just such a great joy to be 
> here in BKK sharing Dhamma with all my friends here--I find no 
> activity more delightful than fully immmersing this body, speech, and 
> mind in the Holy Dhamma!) :) :) :)

I am truly envious!!

Jon 


 
7018 From: Robert Kirkpatrick 
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 0:18pm
Subject: Five-fold path (Howard and Jon)

 
  ---  Howard wrote:
>
> > 
> ==============================
>        I'm sorry to say that I find this idea very odd. What about Right 
> Livelihood and Right Speech? These are elements of cittas??? And 
what of all 
> the very conventional formulations of the 8-fold noble path in the 
suttas? 
> These are recent developments? If this is the Abhidhamma 
understanding, then 
> it sure seems that the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka are 
further 
> apart than i had realized.
>        Perhaps I am totally missing what you are saying. Please lead me 
out 
> of my confusion!
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
________________
Dear Howard and Ji\on,
The following quote may be relevant here.
From the atthasalini, p204 where they talk about the fivefold
path:
 "For althogh the pAth is eightfold, yet, in the wordly
consciousness the tthree abstinces are not obtained at one and
the same instant. hence it is said to be fivefold only. BUT it
may be objected, there is this scripture;'The path by which one
came is a phrase for the eightfold ariyan path'(samyutta 1v
195)In this sutta the path of insight preceeding the
transcendental path is eightfold. now since the mundane path as
implied by the term 'path by which they came'is eightfold,
should it not be eightfold here also?'
Nay, it should not be. the suttanta teaching is carried out by
expounding. In this way he said, for instance, 'verily his
bodily acts, vocal acts and life were quite pure'(majhhimma 111
289). BUT this abhidhamma teaching is bare teaching without
exposition. in the worldly consciousness the three abstinces are
not obtained at one and the same instant and therefore the Path
is fivefold"ENDQUOTE.

It helps us to read the texts if we know that satipatthana and
the eighfold (fivefold) path are identical. A moment of
satipatthana is a moment of the fivefold path. it is the
beginning of insight into paramattha dhamma. 
These things gradually become clearer to me over the years.
robert

 
7019 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 0:41pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: [OffList] A late welcome - Second welcome!

 
  --- Sarah Procter Abbott  wrote: > 
> Hi Gayan,
> 
> Well it does explain why you both sign off in the same way with rgds and no
> name!!! Thanks for clearing this up.....and yes you do know each other!! I
> expect others worked this out, but I'm a bit slow with this kind of thing!
> 
> Interested to hear you're working in Boston now...sometime let us know what
> you're doing there ;-))
> 
> Thanks Gayan and perhaps we can persuade you to put a name at the end as
> you're
> using different addresses..;-))
> 
> Sarah
> 
> p.s Always glad to hear from you when you chip in on threads btw such as the
> nibbana one.
> 
> --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > oops , oops,
> > 1000 apologies sarah!  _/\_
> > 
> > asterix7 is my account, but when I respond from the site(groups.yahoo.com)
> > it only registers the email address(since I havent entered the name there).
> > 
> > i was just replying cybele, about what i think of SL's serendipity.
> > and mumbling about how less stressful it would have been for me if the
> > refuge was meaningful to me even earlier.
> > 
> > sorry for the confusion,
> > and it also states that no-one here can slip away from you :o)
> > 
> > anyway another welcome is quite OK for me.
> > 
> > regards
> > gayan
> > 
> > PS: currently I am working in Boston, another reason why I have to use
> > several email accounts.



 
7020 From: Erik 
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 1:57pm
Subject: Re: Noble Eightfold Path - Jonothan

 
  ---  ppp <tadao> wrote:
> Hi, Erick:
> Here is just a short comment of mine with respect to your discussion
> on the Noble Eightfold Path with Khun Jonothan. What I would like 
say
> is that we are not wise enough to understand the essence of the
> Dhamma just picking up a sutta or severl suttas (regardless how
> important these suttas are).

We have to begin someplace, Tadao. If beginning where we are RIGHT 
NOW were not possible, the Buddha would never have taught this Holy 
Dharma. If even those with seriously stubborn attachments to wrong 
views like Yamaka can learn to see things as they are and terminate 
the effluents--with the Buddha strategically guiding Yamaka out of 
wrong view and into Right View using only a bit of basic reasoning--
what about those with even milder affectations? 
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-085.html)  

Certainly, if were not possible to distinguish between wholesome and 
unwholesome qualities and activities, then the Buddha would never 
have assented to Brahma's request to teach the Holy Dharma at all, 
let alone instruct the "run-of-the-mill" persons, such as the 
Kalamas, thus-wise:

"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. 
When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this 
case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by 
scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by 
agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the 
thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for 
yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are 
blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these 
qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to harm & to 
suffering' -- then you should abandon them."

Again, we must begin where we are, and over time, reflecting 
thusly: "When [we] know for [ourselves] that, 'These qualities are 
unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are 
criticized by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried 
out, lead to harm & to suffering' -- then [we] should abandon them."

Likewise, "When [we] know for [ourselves] that, 'These qualities are 
skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised 
by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to 
welfare & to happiness' -- then [we] should enter & remain in them."

This teaching is something basic enough, again, for even a child to 
grasp and put into practice. And this very method will, practiced 
diligently, persistently, mindfully, over time, create the very 
conditions necessary for Right View to arise--which is the fruit of 
the ariyan path. Indeed, Lord Buddha begins his exposition on Right 
View at precisely this point:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn009.html

> We have to cast our eyes rather widely
> and read as many discourses as possible. Based on such background
> knowledge of the discourse and favourably based on (some) 
understanding
> of the Abhidhamma and based on what other people have been arguing
> about the true nature of the Dhamma, we have to draw our
> (tentative) conclusion on what the Dhamma is all about.

At least until we come to DIRECTLY know that reality, when all 
speculation is terminated and the meaning and intent of the Dhamma 
ceases to be a matter of doubt. At this point it also ceases to be 
possible to misinterpret the meaning & intent of the Buddha or the 
Dharma, since the goal, Nibbana (which is ultimately the absence of 
all fabrications and elaborations and clinging), has been experienced 
directly.

> (Please do not think that I am saying that you are not a learned 
man.)
> There are so many formulaic(?spelling?) definitions of various 
Buddhist
> concepts. And I think it is rather dangerous to accept these 
formulaic
> definitions LITERALLY. 

I really do not believe the Dhamma is at all complicated. I believe 
people tend to make it a WHOLE LOT more complicated than it really 
is. Indeed, if the Dharma is about relinquishing views, suppositions, 
fabrications, then simply letting go of all our clinging to views, 
suppositions, and fabrications by seeing how all composed things are 
ultimately suffering due to their impermanent nature, and that they 
do not belong to self, is sufficient to bring about direct knowledge 
of the ariyan path. It need not be any more complicated than this--
except we always want to make it a whole more complicated than this. 
This was rightly expounded by Anathapindika, the householder:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-093.html

> (They are almost like a doctor's prescriptions;
> unless one has been trained in medicine/pharmacology, these are not
> understandable.) 

I could not disagree more if what you are suggesting is that one 
needs to know medical theory to be cured by taking the appropriately 
prescribed medicine at the appropriate time--which is exactly what it 
sounds like you're saying here! 

Most definitely the DOCTOR needs to know the precise remedy to 
prescribe the patient based on understanding the patient's specific 
ailment. But does it require a degree in medicine to take a tablet 
and wash it down with a glass of water? Hardly. And yet that 
medicine, taken according to such a very simple prescription (if the 
doctor is in fact knowledgeable in treating that particular ailment 
and has prescribed the appropriate remedy) will cure that patient 
whether or not the patient knows the first thing about medical 
theory, whether or not the patient even WANTS to be cured or not!

> When we read the Sutta-Pitakas, there are
> hundred and hindered of discourses where the Buddha repeatedly 
describes
> that seeing is impermanent/non-self/suffering etc. 

Agreed. However, we are talking about beginning someplace, and the 
context of this specific debate was the contention that the Noble 
Eightfold Path can't be understood or practiced at the conventional, 
or so-called mundane, level. That is very clearly not the case if one 
reads the Buddha's most direct discourse on the Analysis of the Path.

In many cases where the Buddha speaks plainly, as he does very much 
so in the Magga-Vibhanga Sutta, a literal interpretation is 
simply "good enough" to begin working with right away. The teachings 
enumerated in that particular Sutta are not at all difficult to grasp 
for one of even modest intellect, let alone the sorts of minds 
populating DSG! Again, why the need to complicate what is so simple, 
so nearer-than-near?

More generally it is extremely problematic to wrongly believe that we 
can't practice the Dharma effectively unless we're trying to be aware 
of  "paramattha dhammas" all the time, to the point of unhealthy 
clinging to the VIEW of "realities arising at present." Any practice 
can be taken to extremes, including the notions of being aware of the 
present moment, and this is especially pernicious when this is used 
as an excuse to neglect the more so-called "mundane" aspects of the 
path: dana, sila, the practice of accumulating merit and general 
kusala, for example.

It is even worse when there is the wrong understanding that arises 
that wrongly believes the path to be unattainable in this very 
lifetime. To wrongly believe this way is to sign our own death 
warrant, because it will, MOST DEFINITELY, destroy the very 
aspiration and wholesome desire--not to mention directly undermine 
the persistence required--to actualize the fruits of the Holy Life IN 
THIS VERY LIFETIME, which is, if we lack direct knowledge of past and 
future lives, the ONLY ONE WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN WE WILL HAVE in which 
we have contact with the Holy Dharma and the ALL the appropriate 
conditions to bring this path to fruition, RIGHT HERE AND NOW.

> By way of appreciating
> the significance of the Buddha repeating on the true nature of 
these phenomena,
> we can slowly work on the formulaic definitions of the Buddhist 
concepts
> (It takes time to appreciate/understand the true meanings of these
> formulaic expressions. If these expressions were something which 
could
> be understood literally, Gotam Buddha's immediate successors 
wouldn't
> have put so much effort to establish the paradigm which now we call
> "Theravada Buddhism".)

Again, Tadao, I think you're making this a whole lot more complicated 
than it needs to be. Is it not possible to take what the Buddha 
stated so very simply at face-value for starters, and work from 
there? Does it have to be run through layer after layer of cognitive 
filters to understand that when the Buddha talks about "wrong 
speech," for example, it can be comprehended and applied immediately 
in its simplest sense, even if Right View is not yet fully developed? 
Can one begin by attempting to refrain from making false speech, for 
example, without understanding anatta? Can one not place oneself in 
the position of another sentient being and consider that by taking 
their property without it being given would likely create grief, 
lamentation, despair for that being? Or diddling another's spouse? 
Does it require a through-going penetration of anicca, dukkha, and 
anatta to begin working with these oh-so-basic factors of the path 
right here and now?

Again, we have to begin where we are. And that will mean there is 
wrong view until Right View has the appropriate conditions to arise. 
But the conditions for Right View to arise will never be established 
unless we actually begin at the beginning, by learning to discern 
what is and what is not wholesome--something again, possible even for 
a run-of-the-mill person who's received instruction in this most 
basic of practices.

 
7021 From: Erik 
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 2:22pm
Subject: Re: Noble Eightfold Path - Jonothan

 
  ---  Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> Erik
> 
> Thanks for the comprehensive and forceful response to my post.  I 
intend
> to come back as soon as possible.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to be THAT forceful, on careful re-
examination of my post to you. 

It's just that being here amongst all these fabulous friends in the 
Dhamma has gotten me more fired up than I've been in a long time, 
plus the relief from a lot of really intense dukkha of the past few 
years has released enormous stores of energy I haven't known in as 
long, and I'm not used to it at the moment, and have to restart 
formal samatha & concentration practice to work more skillfully with 
it. 

> > (and now that you've seen my intensity firsthand you know where 
all 
> > this viriya comes from!
> 
> Not intensity, Erik, but good old-fashioned earnestness.  It was a 
delight
> meeting you and sharing the week-end.

Likewise, likewise, my friend! :)

 
7022 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 2:56pm
Subject: Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message Re: Nibbana Annihilation? !

 
  Dear Robert E,

Thanks for taking the time reply.  I will be augmenting what you said only 
and won't be arguing because the scope of the topic is beyond my 
knowledge.

---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> 
> Well, let's say this:  even though seen objects are not conditioned by 
seeing
> consciousness, 

Whew!  At least we agree on this point!

> the seen objects are limited insofar as they are taken in by seeing
> consciousness via the form of the seeing consciousness.  

You are saying here that the inherent characteristic of what is seen is not 
conditioned by the seeing consciousness.  On the other hand, the 
characteristic as seen by the seeing consciousness is conditioned because 
the seeing consciousness itself is conditioned.   Although I haven't seen 
this point explicitly mentioned in the text, it is certainly logical.  Each 
individiual, depending on the eyesights, definitely sees differently.

> If a conditioned [limited and particularly structured] consciousness is 
able to
> apprehend Nibbana, it will likewise be apprehending Nibbana according 
to its form
> and limitations, ie, its conditioning.  Therefore, while Nibbana may be an 
object
> for this conditioned consciousness, the view of Nibbana that the limited
> consciousness apprehends will be a limited [untrue] version of Nibbana, 
not
> Nibbana itself.

On the other hand, then none of the true nature of the dhammas (besides 
nibbana) can ever be penetrated (except maybe at some special 
moment), as it is always conditioned.  By this logic, even the Buddha 
(unless you take his consciousness as being nibbana and is not 
conditioned) cannot penetrate the true nature of the dhamma fully.  

> 
> Since Nibbana is the only unlimited, unconditioned state, only Nibbana 
itself can
> apprehend Nibbana as it truly is, but if it were to theoretically split itself 
in
> order to be able to apprehend itself, it would instantly decline into a 
limited,
> divided consciousness of subject-object, with a limited, conditioned 
version of
> Nibbana apprehending itself as a limited, objectified version of itself.

I certainly only have heard about this explanation for the first time!  

> This is the logic by which I feel that Nibbana cannot possibly be 
apprehended by
> consciousness without objectifying, limiting and dividing it into a 
conditioned
> object or concept, which is to say, not Nibbana itself, but an 
apprehendable
> version of itself.  
> I don't see how this logic can be refuted, but I'm sure if it has been 
refuted in
> the suttas themselves, then there is good reason why I am not 
understanding the
> dynamic of the advanced consciousnesses and their relation to 
Nibbana.  This is
> very possible, since my education in Buddhism is somewhat limited itself.

Thanks again for the explanation.  I think the logics is workable.  I haven't 
seen any texts (except commentaries) that explicitly refutes or supports 
this explanation.  

> But in the case of thinking of concepts, I don't see how the form of the 
thinking
> consciousness would not condition the concepts, since thoughts, unlike 
outer
> objects, are influenced by consciousness.  If my consciousness is unable 
to
> understand the color red, the concept of the color red will not show up 
as the
> color red for that consciousness.  Now maybe once again I am not 
understanding the
> use of 'consciousness' here.  If it is merely a passive recorder of 
whatever
> concepts/objects happen to land on it, then your formulation would 
make sense to
> me, and objects and concepts would have the same status, in 
conditioning the
> consciousness that apprehends them, while not being conditioned by it 
themselves.

The explanation that I have heard is that since concepts don't have actual 
characteristics.  They don't rise, don't fall, and therefore, has no 
condition.  I personally don't understand this explanation fully, as you have 
pointed, that it seems to be against logics...

kom

 
7023 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 4:17pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Five-fold path (Howard and Jon)

 
  Rob

Thanks very much for this passage from the Atthasalini, which is directly
on point (more so perhaps than anything I have been able to find myself).

 --- Erik wrote: > ---  Howard wrote:
> >
> > > 
> > ==============================
> >        I'm sorry to say that I find this idea very odd. What about
> Right 
> > Livelihood and Right Speech? These are elements of cittas??? And 
> what of all 
> > the very conventional formulations of the 8-fold noble path in the 
> suttas? 
> > These are recent developments? If this is the Abhidhamma 
> understanding, then 
> > it sure seems that the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka are 
> further 
> > apart than i had realized.
> >        Perhaps I am totally missing what you are saying. Please lead
> me 
> out 
> > of my confusion!
> > 
> > With metta,
> > Howard
> ________________
> Dear Howard and Ji\on,
> The following quote may be relevant here.
> From the atthasalini, p204 where they talk about the fivefold
> path:
>  "For althogh the pAth is eightfold, yet, in the wordly
> consciousness the tthree abstinces are not obtained at one and
> the same instant. hence it is said to be fivefold only. BUT it
> may be objected, there is this scripture;'The path by which one
> came is a phrase for the eightfold ariyan path'(samyutta 1v
> 195)In this sutta the path of insight preceeding the
> transcendental path is eightfold. now since the mundane path as
> implied by the term 'path by which they came'is eightfold,
> should it not be eightfold here also?'
> Nay, it should not be. the suttanta teaching is carried out by
> expounding. In this way he said, for instance, 'verily his
> bodily acts, vocal acts and life were quite pure'(majhhimma 111
> 289). BUT this abhidhamma teaching is bare teaching without
> exposition. in the worldly consciousness the three abstinces are
> not obtained at one and the same instant and therefore the Path
> is fivefold"ENDQUOTE.
> 
> It helps us to read the texts if we know that satipatthana and
> the eighfold (fivefold) path are identical. A moment of
> satipatthana is a moment of the fivefold path. it is the
> beginning of insight into paramattha dhamma. 
> These things gradually become clearer to me over the years.
> robert

If I may expand a little for the sake of the other members interested in
this thread.

The passage confirms, as I read it, that only at supramundane moments do
all 8 path factors arise together, while at mundane moments 5 path factors
arise.

I of course agree, as I think Rob is suggesting, that references in the
suttas to 8-fold path moments (moments which must necessarily be
supramundane) can be read as referring also to the mundane 5-fold
version(ie. moments of satipatthana) in appropriate contexts.  The point
is though that we are talking about a moment of consciousness that is
accompanied by the path-factors, and this makes it a moment of a quality
quite different to that of any other kusala moment (such as, for example,
a moment of jhana), since kusala moments that are not of the level of
satipatthana (ie. are not path-factor moments) do not lead away from
samsara but to continuation in the round of existence.

This is why the emphasis of the Buddha's teaching should be seen in terms
of the development of satipatthana rather than of other forms of kusala,
although we do not for one moment neglect the latter since without them
the opportunity for continued development of satipatthana (ie. continued
rebirth in planes where the dhamma is alive) will not be there.

Jon


 
7024 From: Howard 
Date: Wed Aug 1, 2001 6:10pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Five-fold path (Howard and Jon)

 
  Hi, Robert (and Jon) -

In a message dated 8/1/01 12:20:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Robert Kirkpatrick writes:


> ---  Howard wrote:
> >
> > > 
> > ==============================
> >        I'm sorry to say that I find this idea very odd. What about Right 
> > Livelihood and Right Speech? These are elements of cittas??? And 
> what of all 
> > the very conventional formulations of the 8-fold noble path in the 
> suttas? 
> > These are recent developments? If this is the Abhidhamma 
> understanding, then 
> > it sure seems that the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka are 
> further 
> > apart than i had realized.
> >        Perhaps I am totally missing what you are saying. Please lead me 
> out 
> > of my confusion!
> > 
> > With metta,
> > Howard
> ________________
> Dear Howard and Ji\on,
> The following quote may be relevant here.
> From the atthasalini, p204 where they talk about the fivefold
> path:
> "For althogh the pAth is eightfold, yet, in the wordly
> consciousness the tthree abstinces are not obtained at one and
> the same instant. hence it is said to be fivefold only. BUT it
> may be objected, there is this scripture;'The path by which one
> came is a phrase for the eightfold ariyan path'(samyutta 1v
> 195)In this sutta the path of insight preceeding the
> transcendental path is eightfold. now since the mundane path as
> implied by the term 'path by which they came'is eightfold,
> should it not be eightfold here also?'
> Nay, it should not be. the suttanta teaching is carried out by
> expounding. In this way he said, for instance, 'verily his
> bodily acts, vocal acts and life were quite pure'(majhhimma 111
> 289). BUT this abhidhamma teaching is bare teaching without
> exposition. in the worldly consciousness the three abstinces are
> not obtained at one and the same instant and therefore the Path
> is fivefold"ENDQUOTE.
> 
> It helps us to read the texts if we know that satipatthana and
> the eighfold (fivefold) path are identical. A moment of
> satipatthana is a moment of the fivefold path. it is the
> beginning of insight into paramattha dhamma. 
> These things gradually become clearer to me over the years.
> robert
> 
===============================
Wow! What a to-the-point post!! Very helpful. Thank you, Robert!!

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
7025 From: Derek Cameron   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 3:06am
Subject: Offline

 
  Hi, folks,

I've used up all my ISP time package so I'll be offline till around 
Aug 8 or 9.

Derek.

 
 
7026 From: Gayan Karunaratne   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 4:41am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Offline

 
  Hi derek,

if u r in either US or Canada , u can use netZero.

rgds
gayan


----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Cameron" 
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 3:06 PM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Offline


> Hi, folks,
>
> I've used up all my ISP time package so I'll be offline till around
> Aug 8 or 9.
>
> Derek.
>

 
7027 From: ppp  <tadao> 
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 3:40am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Five-fold path (Howard and Jon)

 
  Hi, Rob and Jonothan:
With respect to the Five/Eight-fold Path. I do not understand
why sila is exluced. In my understanding, even in a very very
very mudane moment of having a sati, at that moment, (in
conventional terms,) one is on a solid ground of sila
(vaca, kammanta, ajiva); without sila, one wouldn't otherwise
experience the right kind of sati which experiences
a reality. It is then not clear at all for me why these sila
factors are excluded (when they disucss such far far higher
levels of Path factors. In other words, I do not understand
WHY Attha-salini supports the Five-Fold Path argument.
tadao

 
7028 From: Robert Kirkpatrick 
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 0:09pm
Subject: Re: Five-fold path (Howard and Jon)

 
  ---  ppp <tadao> wrote:
> Hi, Rob and Jonothan:
> With respect to the Five/Eight-fold Path. I do not understand
> why sila is exluced. In my understanding, even in a very very
> very mudane moment of having a sati, at that moment, (in
> conventional terms,) one is on a solid ground of sila
> (vaca, kammanta, ajiva); without sila, one wouldn't otherwise
> experience the right kind of sati which experiences
> a reality. It is then not clear at all for me why these sila
> factors are excluded (when they disucss such far far higher
> levels of Path factors. In other words, I do not understand
> WHY Attha-salini supports the Five-Fold Path argument.
> tadao
____________
Dear Tadao,
At any moment of satipatthana there is no breaking of sila. There is 
guarding of the doors. However, there is not necessarily those specific 
types of cetasikas of "right livelihood etc.' Nevertheless, although the 
atthasalini talks only about the fivfold path it can also be sixfold if one of 
those type of cetasikas are present at moments of the fivefold path. 
However all 8factors are only present at the actual moments nibbana is 
experienced.
Because we cling to concepts and stories we tend to think that there is 
sila all day if we are not doing anything obviously wrong. However, true 
sila only arises at moments of kusala citta (some). 
robert

 
7029 From: Erik 
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 0:24pm
Subject: Re: Five-fold path (Howard and Jon)

 
  ---  ppp <tadao> wrote:
> Hi, Rob and Jonothan:
> With respect to the Five/Eight-fold Path. I do not understand
> why sila is exluced. In my understanding, even in a very very
> very mudane moment of having a sati, at that moment, (in
> conventional terms,) one is on a solid ground of sila
> (vaca, kammanta, ajiva); without sila, one wouldn't otherwise
> experience the right kind of sati which experiences
> a reality. It is then not clear at all for me why these sila
> factors are excluded (when they disucss such far far higher
> levels of Path factors. In other words, I do not understand
> WHY Attha-salini supports the Five-Fold Path argument.
> tadao

Tadoa, I agree. For me, this is a "like, duh" sorta thing! How could 
we NOT be experincing sila these moments?

And Jonothan, I hope you're not reply ony due to time constraints. 
I'm concerned the strength of my replies has made communicating 
difficult (kif so, I apologize profusely). 

If that is the case it is a cause for serious regret. Because I am 
definitely not looking to "win" ANY debate, but keep the discussion 
going until we both feel our collective understanding has been 
clarified--the entire point of Buddhist debate. 

That goes likewise for anyone, because the purpose of formal Buddhist 
debate (at least the Tibetan version) as I've been taught, is to help 
lead ALL the parcitipants (and spectators!) to understanding. In 
fact, DIRECT understanding (because Tibetan debate involves 
specifically debating emptiness and depencent origination--and there 
are some who have had had such strong moments of stipatthana arise in 
the courses of debate on emptiness they have realized the emptiness 
DURIGN the process of debate or shortly thereafter, as I recall 
reading happened to Lama Yeshe as he told Lama Zopa, both of whom 
whom Sarah has had the astonishing karma to have met).

The entire point is to get to Right View. So there are no losers in 
this, nor can there be when the spirit of such debate is properly 
understood and practiced. Just wanted to add that for those who may 
not know about this incredible tradition of learning the Dharma, and 
one very relevant to forums such as these. It is my favorite form of 
Dharma interaction, due to accumulations.

 
7030 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 0:32pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Noble Eightfold Path - Jonothan

 
  Dear Erik,

Thanks for your posts with excellent Theravada sutta citations..

 --- Erik wrote: > ---  Jonothan Abbott
 wrote:

> Set aside the Visuddhimagga! Set aside the Abhidhammata-Sangaha! In 
> fact, take the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka, its commentaries and sub-
> commentaries, and set the WHOLE THING aside, until the essential 
> points above are grasped in their entirety, <snip>

You wouldn't be moving the goalposts now, would you, Erik???;-))

What's happened to that very well-worn book you even read on flights and were
using in support of your arguments to me (on dsg) just a week ago..?
> 
> Do you have direct experience if this type of concentration arising 
> from the method of practice you've been taught? 

Erik, at any moment of rt understanding of a reality, there is always rt
concentration accompanying it . At these moments samma-samadhi focuses on the
object of the citta in the appropriate or 'right' way. When the citta falls
away, so do the rt understanding, rt concentration and other cetasikas
accompanying it. 

When (read IF) lokuttara citta arises, the samma-samadhi accompanying it is
then lokuttara and focuses on nibbana. At this moment, samma-samadhi and the
other cetasikas being discussed are factors of the supramundane N8FP. Again, as
the lokuttara citta falls away, so do the samma-samadhi and the rest.

So, rt concentration always accompanies rt understanding from the very
beginning (by conditions) and performs its function without any need to focus
or 'attend' to special objects. Indeed, due to the anattaness of all these
conditioned realities, there is no self that can determine the experiencing of
any object or direct any citta. If it were so simple, we'd all have been
arahats long ago!

Glad to see you having such fun on and off-list!

Sarah


 
7031 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 0:33pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message Re: Nibbana Annihilation? !

 
  Thanks for your response, Kom.

The summary of my thinking about Nibbana being apprehended by an advanced
consciousness is just that until the moment of entering Nibbana, Nibbana must
remain as a concept. I don't see how it can be truly apprehended by a conditioned
consciousness.  That does not mean Nibbana is unattainable, just that in the
moment of attaining Nibbana, one's condition would go beyond Nibbana being
apprehended as a separate object of consciousness and Nibbana would simply become
one's reality.

I would love to hear any other responses to this, more learned than mine.

Robert

-------------------------------

--- Kom Tukovinit  wrote:
> Dear Robert E,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time reply.  I will be augmenting what you said only 
> and won't be arguing because the scope of the topic is beyond my 
> knowledge.

===============




 
7032 From: Erik 
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 0:47pm
Subject: Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message Re: Nibbana Annihilation? !

 
  ---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> Thanks for your response, Kom.
> 
> The summary of my thinking about Nibbana being apprehended by an 
advanced
> consciousness is just that until the moment of entering Nibbana, 
Nibbana must
> remain as a concept. I don't see how it can be truly apprehended by 
a conditioned
> consciousness.  That does not mean Nibbana is unattainable, just 
that in the
> moment of attaining Nibbana, one's condition would go beyond 
Nibbana being
> apprehended as a separate object of consciousness and Nibbana would 
simply become
> one's reality.
> 
> I would love to hear any other responses to this, more learned than 
mine.

You just succinctly stated the position I have taken on all of this, 
far better that I ever have! Thank you!

 
7033 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 0:58pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message Re: Nibbana Annihilation? !

 
  --- Erik wrote:
> ---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> > Thanks for your response, Kom.
> > 
> > The summary of my thinking about Nibbana being apprehended by an 
> advanced
> > consciousness is just that until the moment of entering Nibbana, 
> Nibbana must
> > remain as a concept. I don't see how it can be truly apprehended by 
> a conditioned
> > consciousness.  That does not mean Nibbana is unattainable, just 
> that in the
> > moment of attaining Nibbana, one's condition would go beyond 
> Nibbana being
> > apprehended as a separate object of consciousness and Nibbana would 
> simply become
> > one's reality.
> > 
> > I would love to hear any other responses to this, more learned than 
> mine.
> 
> You just succinctly stated the position I have taken on all of this, 
> far better that I ever have! Thank you!

I am glad to hear it, since I feel I am slightly shooting in the dark!

Regards,
Robert E.






 
7034 From: Kom Tukovinit   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 1:18pm
Subject: Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message Re: Nibbana Annihilation? !

 
  Dear Robert E,

---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> Thanks for your response, Kom.
> 
> The summary of my thinking about Nibbana being apprehended by an 
advanced
> consciousness is just that until the moment of entering Nibbana, 
Nibbana must
> remain as a concept. I don't see how it can be truly apprehended by a 
conditioned
> consciousness.  That does not mean Nibbana is unattainable, just that 
in the
> moment of attaining Nibbana, one's condition would go beyond Nibbana 
being
> apprehended as a separate object of consciousness and Nibbana would 
simply become
> one's reality.
> 

I think the statement that the actual characteristics of nibbana cannot be 
experienced until the englightenment would be agreed on by many (if not 
all?) members in this list.  Nibbana as a concept can be experienced by 
anybody.

On the other hand, as discussed earliers, there are hypothesis (for me, 
and perhaps actuality for others) that what experience nibbana are the 
lokuttara cittas and mental factors (including the N8FP factors) which are 
conditioned realities.  This hypothesis is, of course, in contrary to the 
logics that you have already discussed, that the true characteristics of 
nibbana, as unconditioned realities, cannot be fully experienced by a 
conditioned consciousness.  I have also mentioned that with this logics, it 
implies that none of the true characteristics (conditioned and 
unconditioned) can be fully experienced.

kom

 
7035 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 1:42pm
Subject: Erik's debating skills

 
  OK Erik,

 --- Erik wrote: 

> It is my favorite form of 
> Dharma interaction, due to accumulations.
> 
> 
Let's see if i'm getting the idea..(feel free to correct;-))

1. Overwhelm your 'friend' with volume and sheer intensity

2. Move the goalposts to suit the debate in hand

3. Never concede but instead use your friend's arguments to debate with other
friends elsewhere (eg on other lists)

4. If you don't have a ready answer, smile ;-)) and say nothing

5. Come back instantly to ensure your friend has no time to check references or
do any mundane work

6. Get as far away from Head office as possible so that one really can devote
all day to debates without anyone looking over one's shoulder. Preferably,
dismiss all household and other mundane chores too

7. Learn that the more objections and the more one's name is mentioned
specifically, the better case one is presenting and the more fun your friend is
having

8. Learn that this is really the way to your friend's heart;-))

How's that? Just know, Erik, that we always enjoy discussions with you and any
lack of response or tardiness is only because we haven't quite mastered all the
points and in particular, point 6!! Give a little lee-way to beginners....

Sarah


 
7036 From: Erik 
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 2:41pm
Subject: Re: Erik's debating skills

 
  ---  Sarah Procter Abbott  
wrote:
> OK Erik,
> 
>  --- Erik wrote: 
> 
> > It is my favorite form of 
> > Dharma interaction, due to accumulations.
> > 
> > 
> Let's see if i'm getting the idea..(feel free to correct;-))
> 
> 1. Overwhelm your 'friend' with volume and sheer intensity

This is standard mode of "challenger" in Tibetan debate, actually. 
The point of this is deliberately to get the "defender" "off their 
game" and test direct understanding here & now. Khun Sujin and the 
rest of this tough group really nailed me on a few occasions there!

This is as it should be. This happens very quickly in real-time in 
the monastic debating courtyards every Gleug-pa monastery has 
specifically for this purpose. What happens here on DSG is SLOW by 
comparison, and it was refreshing to have to try to reply in real-
time to this group of VERY tough customers. Makes me realize I have 
to get this Theravada presentation down COLD.

Incidentally, at some point, if there is any interest, I will post 
here my lama's foreward to Daniel Perdue's tome "Debate in Tibetan 
Buddhism" (page 9 for those interested). It was translated by my 
teacher Artemus Engle (my lama's senior student along with Geshe 
Michael Roach), who is considered by other Tibetan scholars like 
Robert Thurman and others to be THE expert in Abhidharma in the West, 
having translated the 'kosa from Sanskrit. 

In fact, it was Art who gave me enough of a basis in Abhidharma so 
that I could come here and not get totally creamed by this group. As 
one of my sangha back in NY asked me the other day, why did you come 
all the way to to Thailand when you have the BEST right here, and 
he's already your teacher? I told her that in the same way it was Art 
translating the 'kosa (plus three years of one-on-one instruction 
from my lama in Abhidharma) that is WHY he's considered the expert, 
that to study and do a comparative analysis of these two systems of 
the Tripitaka's Abhidhamma vs. the Abhidharmakosa (and working out a 
computerized model of the categories and relations) would be my way 
of relly learning this amazing system thoroughly.

> 2. Move the goalposts to suit the debate in hand

Not at all. One essential aspect of Buddhist debate in specific is 
using ONLY those texts or arguments both debaters agree on 
completely. In other words, if one takes a line of reasoning, even if 
CORRECT reasoning, that one's "opponent" doesn't accept, then that is 
considered to be an error. Why? Because the purpose is to come to 
DIRECT understanding, to lead out of wrong views into Right View, and 
if someone doesn't accept a specific thesis, then that purpose has 
been blown. 

Knowledge will not arise if one refuses to accept a basic premise, 
and as such is considered an "error" because it does not help 
sentient beings out of confusion and into wisdom.

Consider the Yamaka Sutta for an example of how the Buddha skillfully 
used basic logic to lead Yamaka out of his annihilation view. To 
think the purpose of Buddhist debate means anything else is to have 
entirely missed the point, which is for ALL to gain Right 
Understanding.

So returning to the Suttas, which Jon and I both accept as canonical, 
and accept as primary material, really is correct method according to 
this principle. I don't necessarily accept the commentaries as-is 
without analysis, and if I have any questions I'm much more 
interested in seeing first what the Buddha actually is reputed to 
have said, and then reading the commentaries in that light. In fact, 
if I have any doubt about at all, on any point (Tibetan, Zen, 
Theravadin), I always feel it imperative to go back to the most 
primary material availble, the Suttas reputed to have been heard as 
the direct words of the Buddha.

For example, do you see me tossing "Mahayana" Sutras out here? Only 
in the rarest cases--ex. Nagarjuna, and then in light of what the 
Pali texts themselves say, as a way of clarifying that position. Why? 
Because I know not everyone HERE accepts them as canonical (though if 
I am debating Gelug-pas I can use ALL my training, inc. Nagarjuna, 
the Tibetan masters like Je Tonsgkhapa, etc.). 

This is why if there's any dout about an interpretation within a 
later text NOT reputed to have been spoken by Lord Buddha verbally 
and recorded as such, I cannot debate from that perspective here, 
because I don't accept it at that point. So this is not "moving the 
goalposts," but actually toeing the Buddhist-debate line perfectly.

> 3. Never concede but instead use your friend's arguments to debate 
with other
> friends elsewhere (eg on other lists)

I have conceded many many times! For example, Robert forced me to 
concede on what I believe is a very imporatnt point, through his 
careful argumentation and pointing me at various references I came to 
accept as correct, namely, that it is possible that there are such 
things as sukkhavipassika practitioners. This is no mean feat! And I 
have mentioned this to Robert with extreme thankfulness on many 
occasions. Anyway, the point is not to "concede" or not, but again, 
to come to correct understanding of the INNER meaning and INTENT of 
the Buddha's teachings. Without undersatnding truth from fabrication, 
liberation is imopssible.
 
> 4. If you don't have a ready answer, smile ;-)) and say nothing

In real-life, there could be many reasons for that, not always 
beacuse I lack a ready "answer." 

If I don't know something, from your experience of me here and in 
person, am I the sort to say pretend to know something if I don't? I 
certainly hope not. In fact, I think I admit early and often that I 
have MUCH yet to learn, and hardly pretend to know everything, and 
furthermore, that I consider all beings as my teachers, and listen 
carefully to advice from any and all, because I have had, for some 
reason, the karma to hear that advice spoken, and as such it gives me 
something to ponder and reflect on carefully. 

That does not mean to say I always accept that advice as correct 
after careful condsideration. Nevertheless, there is not a being in 
the triple-realm I don't have something to learn something from. 
Ergo, everyone is in this regard my teacher.
 
> 5. Come back instantly to ensure your friend has no time to check 
references or
> do any mundane work

Again, given the ruthless grilling I was given both Saturday and 
Sunday that should work both ways! :) I was given NO breathing room 
at all to consider any answers and got hammered consistently from ten 
sides simultaneously, all taking one position, and Erik the lonely 
defender of an entirely different system of teaching, having to hold 
up against such withering (and entirely relished) challenge! It was 
exhausting, frankly. But what a great mode of instruction for me! It 
made me feel like I'm starting all over again! It also erally 
inspired me to go to my "home" monastery Sera Mey and practice formal 
debate there with the monks at lenght. I expect to do so somethime 
this next year.
 
> 6. Get as far away from Head office as possible so that one really 
can devote
> all day to debates without anyone looking over one's shoulder. 
Preferably,
> dismiss all household and other mundane chores too

Sarah, dear, if you know just how much "mundane" work I've been doing 
since arriving here you'd have no cause to say that! I've been 
working harder here, now, than I EVER did back in NY. Trust me!
 
> 7. Learn that the more objections and the more one's name is 
mentioned
> specifically, the better case one is presenting and the more fun 
your friend is
> having

I sure hope so! :)

> 8. Learn that this is really the way to your friend's heart;-))

And I sure hope that as well!
 
> How's that? Just know, Erik, that we always enjoy discussions with 
you and any
> lack of response or tardiness is only because we haven't quite 
mastered all the
> points and in particular, point 6!! Give a little lee-way to 
beginners....

Phhhbbbbttt!!!! I love and deeply admire and respect you both, as you 
know. So let's keep it coming! :) :) And, I must say, Sarah, I'm 
impressed. You seem to have gotten that "challenger" thing going here 
pretty well yourself (although Sat. & Sun. was I ever in 
the "defender's" hotseat! Talking about making me WORK for my Dhamma! 
Phew!)

I wound up sleeping nearly tweleve hours Sun. night from the sheer 
intensity of this past weekend and yours (and others) ruthless (in 
the very kindest sense of the word) grilling! I look forward to much 
much more of this!

 
7037 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 2:45pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Five-fold path (Howard and Jon)

 
  Erik (and Howard, Herman and others)

Just coming in here to assure you my silence is due solely to time
constraints and nothing else.  My apologies for not getting back promptly,
but other commitments sometimes make this difficult for a few days or so. 
(And I have never been one for instant replies anyway.)

Jon

 --- Erik wrote:
 
> And Jonothan, I hope you're not reply ony due to time constraints. 
> I'm concerned the strength of my replies has made communicating 
> difficult (kif so, I apologize profusely). 
> 
> If that is the case it is a cause for serious regret. Because I am 
> definitely not looking to "win" ANY debate, but keep the discussion 
> going until we both feel our collective understanding has been 
> clarified--the entire point of Buddhist debate. 
> 
> That goes likewise for anyone, because the purpose of formal Buddhist 
> debate (at least the Tibetan version) as I've been taught, is to help 
> lead ALL the parcitipants (and spectators!) to understanding. In 
> fact, DIRECT understanding (because Tibetan debate involves 
> specifically debating emptiness and depencent origination--and there 
> are some who have had had such strong moments of stipatthana arise in 
> the courses of debate on emptiness they have realized the emptiness 
> DURIGN the process of debate or shortly thereafter, as I recall 
> reading happened to Lama Yeshe as he told Lama Zopa, both of whom 
> whom Sarah has had the astonishing karma to have met).
> 
> The entire point is to get to Right View. So there are no losers in 
> this, nor can there be when the spirit of such debate is properly 
> understood and practiced. Just wanted to add that for those who may 
> not know about this incredible tradition of learning the Dharma, and 
> one very relevant to forums such as these. It is my favorite form of 
> Dharma interaction, due to accumulations.



 
7038 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 4:39pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: thailand/west

 
  Dear Tadao,

It's really great to be in touch again and to share dhamma reminders....Some of
your posts have been very helpful indeed.

However, I just can't understand this one:

--- ppp <tadao> wrote: > Dear Kom and Mike:
> In this real society we live (especially, if one lives outside
> the so-called Buddhist countries), there aren't many opportunities
> of having kusala cittas.  Any opportunity of having kusal cittas
> is precious. tadao
> 

What about now, Tadao, wherever we live? Aren't there opportunities for kusala
cittas? Aren't there opportunities to consider others, to have metta, to
refrain from ill speech and most of all to have sati at the level of
satipatthana, having read and heard so much (in your case in Pali as well as
Thai and English) about seeing, visible object and all the rest? I fail to see
why there are fewer opportunities in Canada than Thailand even if our kilesa
mean that there is in fact far less kusala in a day than we'd like.  

I'd also like to add that rt view is the most important aspect; so even if one
has been away from dhamma books and discussions for a long time, if rt view has
been accumulated, this is more valuable than having studied and practised for
these years with wrong view. In other words, don't feel that all your time in
Canada has been wasted or less useful than if you'd been elsewhere as this is
just thinking with dosa and regrets, isn't it? I'm sure there have been many
moments of kusala at different levels according to your accumulations each day.

Best wishes,
Sarah

p.s glad to hear your health is getting better....I'm sure all the dhamma
consideration will be helping. By the way, one of the links here (the www.metta
link)is to some of the Tipitaka in Pali, but you've probably seen it. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links




 
7039 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 5:22pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] the moment in between

 
  Dear Loke,

 --- "Loke ChaiLiang (EWMA/MEO2)"  wrote: > Dear
all,
> 
> 	I was lurking a while because I couldn't really make head or tail
> what are all of you are discussing... however I have a question..

do feel free to 'chip' in and ask anyone for clarification (or else just ignore
the posts that are too confusing and come in with your own thread as you've
done here;-)
> 
> 	in between the arising and falling of a resultant kamma, is there
> 	1) a moment where no resultant kamma arise (be it bad or good)
> 
> 	ex... say a resultant kamma having a cycle of 10 days, will the next
> resultant kamma follow immediately after the dissipation of the first
> resultant kammic energy ?... or
> 
> 	2) will there be a reprieve of a few minutes or days or event
> moments... where nothing happens... sort of like waiting for the next
> resultant kamma to happen kind of thing...???
> 
> I hope you get what I am trying to say....

To be quite frank, I don't get it actually (and I suspect this may be why
others haven't replied either!)

I wonder if by resultant kamma you mean vipaka, the result of kamma?
So, for example, seeing now is vipaka, the result of kamma and so is hearing,
smeeling, tasting, touching and there are many other vipaka cittas (moments of
consciousness). We have no idea when the kamma (the cetana , intention) action
was performed to bring about this result of seeing or hearing now. Some kamma
will have been done in this life and some in previous lives, but it doesn't
help to try and speculate about what and when, I think. 

There are no fixed time spans for when vipaka will arise. When there aren't
moments of vipaka arising, then there are other kinds of citta
(consciousness).There is never a moment (for us) when there is no consciousness
arising.

I've tried to put this simply, but actually the subject is complex. I think you
have a few confusions and I highly recommend 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' by Nina
Van Gorkom which is on some of the websites (on Amara's Dhamma Study website I
know) at:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links

There's also a good paper on Kamma by Khun Sujin on this website.

You may also find it useful to read some of the past posts on 'Useful Posts'
under subject headings such as kamma, vipaka, rounds of existence
at:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/USEFUL%20POST%20LINKS

If you have questions about any of these books or letters, please let us know. 

> May you all be well and happy...

you too ....

Sarah

p.s.(dui m joh, ngoh yiga ho mong, soh yi m ji ching choh ne)


 
7040 From: Sarah Procter Abbott   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 5:45pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Animals - Nivarana/Jhananga

 
  Dear Christine,

I understand your concern and wish to help animals around you to have a happier
rebirth.

 --- Christine wrote: > Dear All,
> So, with regard to the Hindrances - perhaps one can help by having  a 
> well-trained and disciplined animal,who is prevented(?) from doing 
> too much wrong in order to assist it in having a better likelihood of 
> a more favourable rebirth? 

It's an interesting idea! Truly we have no idea what deeds from the past will
bring what rebirth. As Erik pointed out with the apt turtle sutta, being born
as a human with the chance to develop wholesomeness of any kind with wisdom of
any level is a very precious gift. 

I don't think we can prevent another being (human, animal or other) from having
hindrances or other unwholesome states of mind. All we can do is show kindness
in anyway and as with a child, this can include training and discipline, which
can give the animal an easier life perhaps. 

When there is attachment to another being, of course there is also attachment
to a happy outcome or rebirth for that being. But, we're beginning to see that
conditions are so very complex and so very out of 'our' control.

An animal birth is considered an unhappy rebirth, it's akusala vipaka, partly
because there is not the opportunity to develop wisdom of any kind (let alone
highly developed jhanas or vipassana). Being born a human is kusala vipaka,
however ghastly the circumstances may seem. Even if we, as humans, perform
many, many good deeds in this life and develop some wisdom along the way,
there's no way of knowing what the next rebirth will be and no self to help it.

However, as we read in the example of the bats which Rob gave, we never know
what conditions may have some beneficial effect.

Some of the mental states you mention such as ekaggata, vitakka and vicara
arise for all beings (kusala and akusala) and some like ekaggata at each
moment......but not as jhananga.

Christine, thanks for your comments which i don't think I've done justice to.
Others may be able to help further;-)  Wishing your pets well in the meantime!

Sarah


 



 
7041 From: cybele chiodi   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 6:53pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: thailand/west

 
  Dear Sarah

Must endorse your post fully this time.

Dear Tadao

Aversion is very much evident in your remarks about living in a western 
country but if you cannot adapt why you indulged staying there for 20 years?
Buddhism is a legacy of humanity not of so-called 'buddhist countries'.
This is only prejudice out of your own discomfort.
To practice you don't need to be in Thailand or Japan, it's a question of 
INNER GEOGRAPHY.
Having 'a mind' is the only condition to thread the path.

Metta

Cybele

>  Dear Tadao,
>
>It's really great to be in touch again and to share dhamma 
>reminders....Some of
>your posts have been very helpful indeed.
>
>However, I just can't understand this one:
>
>--- ppp <tadao> wrote: > Dear Kom and Mike:
> > In this real society we live (especially, if one lives outside
> > the so-called Buddhist countries), there aren't many opportunities
> > of having kusala cittas.  Any opportunity of having kusal cittas
> > is precious. tadao
> >
>
>What about now, Tadao, wherever we live? Aren't there opportunities for 
>kusala
>cittas? Aren't there opportunities to consider others, to have metta, to
>refrain from ill speech and most of all to have sati at the level of
>satipatthana, having read and heard so much (in your case in Pali as well 
>as
>Thai and English) about seeing, visible object and all the rest? I fail to 
>see
>why there are fewer opportunities in Canada than Thailand even if our 
>kilesa
>mean that there is in fact far less kusala in a day than we'd like.
>
>I'd also like to add that rt view is the most important aspect; so even if 
>one
>has been away from dhamma books and discussions for a long time, if rt view 
>has
>been accumulated, this is more valuable than having studied and practised 
>for
>these years with wrong view. In other words, don't feel that all your time 
>in
>Canada has been wasted or less useful than if you'd been elsewhere as this 
>is
>just thinking with dosa and regrets, isn't it? I'm sure there have been 
>many
>moments of kusala at different levels according to your accumulations each 
>day.
>
>Best wishes,
>Sarah
>
>p.s glad to hear your health is getting better....I'm sure all the dhamma
>consideration will be helping. By the way, one of the links here (the 
>www.metta
>link)is to some of the Tipitaka in Pali, but you've probably seen it.
>



 
7042 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 7:14pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The meaning of Equanimity

 
  Anders

Thanks for your comments.

> >   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. :-)

Yes, I think I know what you mean.  Here's a question for you, Anders. 
What in your view/experience is happening at such moments, when the
fingers become 'visually interesting'.  Is this because of what is
happening in the eye-door process, or in the mind-door process, (assuming
it's not changes in the finger!)?  Is it kusala of some kind
(understanding, perhaps) or is it akusala?

> >  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...

But not only that.  We also take the seen and the heard for being 'self',
in the sense that it has existence in a manner similar to ourself.  In
whatever terms we perceive ourself, we are likely to 'project' to other
'objects'.

Jon




 
7043 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 7:42pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Derek

 
  Derek

Thanks for the interesting and, to me, new perspective on the suttas.  I
am not really in a position to comment for the most part since I have
never looked into this aspect.

However, I have snomething to say on your 4th point--

> (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.

This seems to assume that the Noble Eightfold Path and the
Mahasatipatthana Sutta are talking about the development of the path from
the same point of view.  As you may have noticed from another thread going
on at the moment, this is something I would not agree with.  The
description of the N8FP makes it clear what factors are present at moments
of path-consciousness, while DN 22 tells us how that path is to be
developed.

To my understanding, there is no inconsistency between the 2, so I would
not wish to accept any conclusion based on an assumption that there was.

Jon


 --- Derek Cameron  wrote: > 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.




 
7044 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 8:35pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Teachings Then / Now

 
  Herman

As usual, Herman, a challenging question.

--- Herman wrote: 
> [Jon:]
> > I can't really see where this is leading, but you are welcome to 
> > relate it to the teachings if possible.
> > 
> 
> Do you believe it is possible and necessary to fit all experience 
> into the idiom of the teachings?

Let me comment on what follows first.

> For example:
> 
> I think that not many people today would actively use the periodic 
> table of the elements as expounded in the Abhidhamma, to describe 
> physical realities (rupas). This is not ascribing a deficiency to the 
> Abhidhamma roadmap of rupas, it was sufficient for its time, and way 
> beyond it in insight.
> 
> But these days the equipment used to investigate physical realities 
> has a far greater resolution than the sense bases, and consequently 
> different depths of the same realities are being observed and 
> described. Hence the periodic table of elements containing things 
> such as Na , Cl, H , O is in use. And it's use has significant 
> consequences for humanity today. Anyone who has ever taken medicine 
> has benefitted from the efforts of those who have sought to 
> investigate realities beyond what was accepted as final in their time.

Different kinds of knowledge lead to different goals.  The knowledge that
leads to breakthroughs in the sciences, is not the same knowledge that.
leads to escape from the kind of existence we have been born.

The 'physical realities' that are represented by the scientific terms
'elements' or 'matter' are not the same physical realities that are
represented by the term 'rupas'.  There is absolutely no common ground
between the 2 frames of reference/idioms, as far as I can see.  

I remember that in an earlier post you said you were interested in 
pursuing knowledge about reality (I hope I've got that right, Herman).  I
suppose it depends on how 'reality' is defined, but we need to have a
working definition of 'reality' otherwise we may find ourselves pursuing
the wrong goal.

In explaining what are the realities to be studied and understood, the
Buddha was pointing us in a certain direction.  Even in his time there
would have been an equivalent of 'modern technology', but he explained why
that frame of reference would not lead to the goal that he had realised.

On the other hand, the realities about which he spoke are exactly the same
now as then.  There are the same objects appearing through the same
sense-doors, to be studied and known as and when they appear.  The seeing
and visible object appearing now are exactly the same in nature for you
and for me and for people through all the ages.

> The reality at this moment is that we are all using 21st century 
> technology to communicate at a very impersonal level with each other.

That is 'reality' at a conventional level, of course.  It is not
'absolute' in any sense.  It could equally be described as a marvel that
has made an entirely new form of communication available -- it all depends
on the perspective of the speaker.  Paramattha dhammas are not like that. 
They are realities that are the same for everyone.  But without the
explanation given by the Buddha they would not be apparent us as they
really are.

> Apparently it is very useful to be more discriminating than to have 
> just two types of reality, absolute and  conventional.

I'm not sure I understand this comment, but to answer your opening
question, Herman, if the Buddha's teaching is what it claims to be, then
it is as appropriate an 'idiom' today as it was in his time.

> Regards
> 
> 
> Herman

Jon



 
7045 From: Anders Honoré   
Date: Thu Aug 2, 2001 11:45pm
Subject: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation

 
  Before I proceed with this question, I just wanna make sure that we're in
agreement on the presuppositions the question is based, mainly that the
experience of Nibbana remains after Parinibbana (not necessarily in the
subject/object way, or any *way* for that matter). Otherwise, how would it
be possible to know it it's there? Just to underline this:
-----------------------
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard:
Monks, there are these two forms of the Nibbana property. Which two? The
Nibbana property with fuel remaining, and the Nibbana property with no fuel
remaining.

And what is the Nibbana property with fuel remaining? There is the case
where a monk is a worthy one devoid of mental effluents, who has attained
completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal,
destroyed the bonds of becoming, and is released through right knowing. His
five sense faculties still remain, and owing to their being intact, he is
cognisant of the pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure &
pain. That which is the passing away of passion, aversion, & delusion in him
is termed the Nibbana property with fuel remaining.

And what is the Nibbana property with no fuel remaining? There is the case
where a monk is a worthy one...released through right knowing. All that is
sensed by him, being unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed
the Nibbana property with no fuel remaining.

These two
Nibbana properties
proclaimed by the one with vision
    the one independent
    the one who is Such:

one property, here in this life
with fuel remaining
    from the ending of craving,
    the guide to becoming

and that with no fuel remaining
after this life
in which all becoming
    completely stops.

Those who know this state uncompounded
their minds released
through the ending of craving,
    the guide to becoming,

they, attaining the Teaching's core,
    delighting in the ending of craving,
have abandoned all becoming:
        they, the Such.

Iti 44
--------------------------------------
What I am wondering is how can this possibly be discerned, since the arising
of Nibbana (just to speak of  'arising' and 'dependent' in relation to
Nibbana seems absurd to my mind) is dependent on the formation of
consciousness (which ceases upon Parinibbana)?

Basically, what I am reading from the 'experience of Nibbana is dependent on
the formation of consciousness' doctrine is annihilation, because with the
cessation of consciousness, there would be no way to know about the
existence of Nibbana after Parinibbana, and so it would be ridiculous for
the Buddha to speak of Nibbana after Parinibbana, since there would be no
way to know or experience this with the cessation of consciousness. What
this theory seems to propose to me is that cessation of all things, leaving
nothingness behind (thus affirming the doctrine of annihilation). Anyone
care to clarify this point for me?

 
7046 From: Anders Honoré   
Date: Fri Aug 3, 2001 0:33am
Subject: re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Bruce's question (Ken)

 
  ----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Epstein 
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my
day ; it was Re: Bruce's question (Ken)
> Now imagine having a teenage girl and saying to her:  'How do you really
feel when
> you're with this person?  Have you ever really paid attention and seen
what he's
> up to?   Do you think he really likes you?  How do you think you'll feel
if you go
> through with this plan?  Do you think you're ready?  Why don't you try
touching,
> holding hands, talking, and see how that feels.  Are you really together,
is there
> a mutual acknowledgment?  Are you aware of who you are and how you feel
when
> you're with him?  Please pay attention and see what is real when you are
with this
> person.  Don't turn sex into something you *have* to do or *have to* not
do.
> Where's your freedom here?'

And then we have someone like U.G. Krishnamurti, who commented on a
situation when J. Krishnamurti asked a young couple "why don't you just hold
hands?" U.G.'s response: "Bah, he probably said that because he used to have
premature ejaculation himself and can't stand the thoughts of others having
it."

 
7047 From: Anders Honoré   
Date: Fri Aug 3, 2001 0:41am
Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] No-Self - Anders

 
  ----- Original Message -----
From: <Erik>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 6:31 PM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] No-Self - Anders


---  "Anders Honoré" 
wrote:
> 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?

>I can't recall the specific Sutta unfortunately, but I do recall
>clearly the intent. I guess you'll just have to trust me on this
>one :)

When you do find the source, be sure to let me know. It would really mean a
lot to me.

 
7048 From: Anders Honoré   
Date: Fri Aug 3, 2001 0:56am
Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] No-Self - Anders

 
  ----- Original Message -----
From: <Howard>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] No-Self - Anders
>        He has another pseudonym as well - "Tom Bombadil". I believe 'Tom'
is
> his true given name. Tom used to be on several Buddhist groups that I and
> others here were also on. He is a brilliant "troublemaker" with whom I
became
> rather much of a cyber-friend despite his tendency to walk (and often
cross
> over) the thin line between right and wrong speech. Please tell him Howard
> says "hello" in case you correspond with him.

Nah, from what he has told me, he uses Tom Bombadil simply because Tom
Bombadil is his favourite character in the "Lord of the Rings" series. It's
a small world though. But then again, DT is some of the closest you can come
to a 'Usenet celebrity'. I'm not sure if I would say that me and DT are
friends as such, because we've never conversed via email or anything like
that, but we certainly have friendly discussions from time to time.

 
7049 From: Anders Honoré   
Date: Fri Aug 3, 2001 0:57am
Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: No-Self - Anders

 
  ----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Cameron 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:32 PM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: No-Self - Anders


> ---  Howard wrote:
> >        He has another pseudonym as well - "Tom Bombadil". I
> believe 'Tom' is
> > his true given name.
>
> I thought his real name was Gary McCullough?

You know him too? Haha, what a small world!

 
7050 From: Anders Honoré   
Date: Fri Aug 3, 2001 0:58am
Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: No-Self - Anders

 
  ----- Original Message -----
From: <Erik>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 5:06 PM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: No-Self - Anders


> ---  Howard wrote:
> > Hi, Anders -
> >
> > In a message dated 7/26/01 3:58:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > Anders:
> >
> >
> > > And to totally destroy the views of the opposition, mighty Anders
> strikes a
> > > telling blow, by convincing Nagarjuna to join forces with him!
> > > Sorry, I just read a post on another newsgroup from a guy named
> Dharmatroll,
> > > who likes to write stuff like that :-)
> > >
> > ========================
> >        He has another pseudonym as well - "Tom Bombadil". I
> believe 'Tom' is
> > his true given name. Tom used to be on several Buddhist groups that
> I and
> > others here were also on.
>
> Do you include in this talk.religion.buddhism on Usenet? If so, ever
> read the writings of Professor Richard Hayes of Montreal's McGill
> University (aka Mubul aka Dayamati Dharmachari)? I consider him among
> Buddhism's greatest living scholar/practitioners (though he would
> never accept such fawning)--the rarest of the rare, a truly precious
> treasure, and absolutely one of my greatest gurus. A true Buddhist
> Master in ever sense of the word.

Yeah, I've talked with Richard P. Hayes from time to time myself too. A
great guy. I always enjoyed his posts, although I think he has been offline
(at least not frequenting Usenet) for quite some time now.

 
7051 From: Anders Honoré   
Date: Fri Aug 3, 2001 1:00am
Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom

 
  ----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Epstein 
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Theravada and Satipathana - Kom


>
> --- <> wrote:
> > 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
>
> I went and read the excerpt you referred to in the Sutta, and I cannot see
it as
> refuting the existence of a self, only refuting wrong views of self.
According to
> Sutta, Buddha is confirming that:
>
> 1/ there is no permanent, unchanging soul [that does not mean there is no
self]
> 2/ that consciousness is not annihilated with the death of the body
[certainly
> doesn't mean that there is no self]
> 3/ that all phenomena are not-self [this would mean that a self would have
to be
> outside of phenomena]
> 4/ that it is wrong to assert that there is no self [since it would lead
to the
> idea that one's previous self no longer existed]
>
> Based on the above, the only possible self that could be accepted by the
Buddha
> would be a self that was ouside of conditioned phenomena.  The only
existent
> beyond phenomena is Nirvana, and so the true self would have to be Nirvana
and
> nothing else.
>
> This is, I believe, Anders' contention, that the true self is neither a
soul nor
> an existent phenomena, and that it is not personal, but is Nirvana itself,
and
> that Nirvana is the true identity of all beings.
>
> Anders, I may have overspoken.  If you're around, please correct.

Well, 'identity' is not exactly a word I'd use, but that pretty much sums it
up yes.

 
7052 From: Anders Honoré   
Date: Fri Aug 3, 2001 1:04am
Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: No-Self - Anders Part 2

 
  ----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Cameron 
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: No-Self - Anders Part 2

> Yes. I think there's an approach to