7400 From: Sarah Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Testing - Erik Hi Derek, No problem at all! What I appreciate about this kind of forum is that anyone can discuss anything they like and one only need respond to what one is interested in or inclined to comment on at the time. I know you must also being getting busy preparing for your trip to Thailand. Please keep us posted on that and any topics you're interested to comment on;-)) Sarah --- Derek Cameron wrote: > Hi, Sarah, > > I appreciate your post, but I'm getting bored with this study vs > practice discussion and all its ramifications, and I would prefer to > drop it and move on to something else. > > Derek. > 7401 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:51pm Subject: Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup --- "Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya)" wrote: > Dear Moderators, > > Thank you for the Welcome Msg. > > As desired I wish to detail my interests etc. as > hereunder. > > I received info about the Group thro' e-mail > forwarded by my collegue on > Subject: [BuddhistWellnessGroup] Digest Number 101 > of Friday, August 10, > 2001 10:24 AM > > I was interested in the concept "Finding the > Moment". > > I do not wish to intensely debate on intricate > deeprooted concepts/beliefs > but would use basics in abhidhamma occasionally to > sort out matters. I > prefer understanding situations on a "chain > analysis" not making analysis > complicated. > > I wish to understand rather than believe, that is in > respect of Dhamma. > > Sumane Rathnasuriya 7402 From: m. nease Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 8:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Dear Sumane, wrote: > I > prefer understanding situations on a "chain > analysis" not making analysis > complicated. > I wish to understand rather than believe, that is > in > respect of Dhamma. Well said. Your comments reminded me of this: 'This Dhamma is for one who enjoys non-complication, who delights in non-complication, not for one who enjoys & delights in complication.' Anguttara Nikaya VIII.30 Anuruddha Sutta To Anuruddha 7403 From: Herman Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 8:39pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Cognitive Science Dear Jon, > > Put another way, can the findings of cognitive science really give any > > indication either way about any crucial aspect of the teachings? > > My readings in cognitive science, and most other sciences for that matter, certainly confirm that the notion of a controlling self is without foundation. We are a mass of fermenting chemical processes, each one ultimately knowable and predicatable in its outcome, conforming as they all are to knowable laws. I take this not so much as a confirmation of the teachings, but as the honest finding of open minded enquiry. For the object of true scientific investigation is to know, not to confirm Planck, Newton or the Buddha. And how does modern science know it knows? When it is able to accurately predict and recreate. What is the basis for confidence in a Theradavin worldview? You can start with rebirth if you like. Is not all of Buddhism predicated on the notion of rebirth? Is there anything in rebirth that is knowable? Personally, I see more heuristic value in the the anatta, anicca and duhka of modern genetics. Regards Herman 7404 From: Sarah Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Dear Sumane, Welcome to dsg. You make some interesting comments here and I look forward to hearing how you find the discussions we're all having. I'm sure you will have plenty to contribute and I hope to get to know you more. Perhaps you would tell us how you use 'basics of abhidhamma occasionally to sort out matters'..... I wonder if you're from Sri Lanka too and whether you know Gayan as well? Thank you so much for joining with these comments. Best wishes, Sarah (Sumane Rathnasuriya)" > wrote: > > As desired I wish to detail my interests etc. as > > hereunder. > > > > I was interested in the concept "Finding the > > Moment". > > > > I do not wish to intensely debate on intricate > > deeprooted concepts/beliefs > > but would use basics in abhidhamma occasionally to > > sort out matters. I > > prefer understanding situations on a "chain > > analysis" not making analysis > > complicated. > > > > I wish to understand rather than believe, that is in > > respect of Dhamma. > > > > Sumane Rathnasuriya 7405 From: Howard Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 6:31pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: rapidity of the processes Hi, Herman - I think you raise important and interesting questions here. I eagerly await Nina's reply. Meanwhile, I'll chat a bit about this matter. In a message dated 8/12/01 8:22:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Herman writes: > Nina, > > Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but to my limited understanding a > person who dwelt in a realm of colours, hardnesses and softnesses, > sounds, smells, tastes, coldness and warmness etc only, and makes no > further associations and connections between these separate events, > would be a completely dysfunctional person. The diagnosis would be > along the lines of disassociative state. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What you say here makes sense to me. Certainly the Buddha had a keen conceptual ability which he constantly made use of for communication purposes. However, at the very same time, he didn't reify his concepts, but saw through them by means of wisdom. --------------------------------------------------------- > > Is it incorrect to say that the process of combining information from > separate events and so forming concepts, is the actual basis for > insight and wisdom, and that the reverse process of deconstructing > concepts into separate and non-related events would remove all > foundations for wisdom and insight? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: It would seem to me that in the process of *cultivating* wisdom, concepts play an important role, and they do so via both analysis and synthesis. To me, concepts are a kind of mental short hand which enables us to grasp patterns of interrelationships in a single step. They can also be useful as meditative tools as, for example, in the light-labelling technique of Mahasi Sayadaw. Concepts are indispensable for understanding the world in a conventional manner, but they also lay traps for us, the traps of substantialism and nihilism, and the trap of "living in one's mind", substituting intellectualization for direct seeing. I suspect that wisdom, itself, is an immediate knowing which can directly apprehend the nature of all examined dhammas and the interrelationships among them, and thereby can supercede the conceptual faculty. ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Regards > > > Herman > > ============================= 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) 7406 From: Howard Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 6:36pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Testing - Erik Hi, Erik - Thank you for the following clarification! It seems we actually agree completely on this matter. :-) With metta, howard In a message dated 8/12/01 10:16:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Erik writes: > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Erik - > > > Howard: > > I am among the first to agree that the entire path, > including Right > > Concentration, which the Buddha defined as the jhanas, is needed. > However, I > > would also like to point out that nothing that happens in time > happens at any > > time other than the present, for, as the Buddha pointed out, > neither the past > > nor the future is existent. (Of course, the present doesn't remain > for even > > an instant, and so there is an essential magical quality to time, a > kind of > > unreality.) > > On this point we do not at all disagree, just to be perfectly clear. > There IS no other moment than the present moment. HOWEVER, this is > not what I was driving at. > > I don't recall seeing the Buddha teaching in those terms. This > is not an issue of whether or not awareness--or for that matter, > awakening--occur in the present moment. They MUST! Past & future are > mere mental elaborations, constructs. So nowhere will you see me > disagree with the notion that nothing, NOTHING, happens outside of > the "present moment"! > > What I am specifically questioning is any METHODOLOGY that appears to > get hung up on the "present moment" to the point of excluding the > more convenmtional view of past, present, and future, of kusala and > akusala, and more important, of directed PRACTICE. > > All of my objections are about pedagogy--strategic pedagogy. Any > objections I raise here are not denying there is only this present > moment because, let's face it, that's all there really is. > > But when there is no mention of anything BUT recognizing the present > moment as a pathway out of dukkha, BIG objection. The Buddha didn't > teach that way. The Buddha spoke of past, present, and future. The > Buddha spoke of conventional realities arising and passing away. The > Buddha taught practices like Right Mindfulness and Right > Concentration ande all the other limbs of the Noble Eightfold Path. > > If I were to really get cooking and go all Prajnaparamita on everyone > here, there are many who would no doubt accuse me of nihilism. In the > Perfection of Wisdom there ulitmately isn't even past, or present, > not to mention eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; no Buddha, not > Path, no Path leading to cessation! There aren't even any suffering > sentient beings at all! But who really understands that directly? > > We have to begin where we are, coming back to my earlier point. And > where we are is a place where we are enmeshed in our confusion, stuck > in our stories about the past and our expectations for the future. > And we have to work with those as well. No amount of wishing to > understand realty in the present moment can change this fact. > > Therefore, we need to work SKILLFULLY with our delusions of past and > future, and to work SKILLFULLY with practices designed to finally > snap the grip of our delusion abuot how things exist (and don't > exist). What I question is just how skillful the strategy > of "recognizing realities this moment" is as a means of doing that. > > That is, and alwyas has been the question I've had about this. It's > pretty simple, I think. So again, no denial there is only now. But > HOW to recognize that--REALLY recognize that? How do we get from > point A (sufering sentient being) to point B (Buddha?). > > That is the MOST important question, in terms of putting the horse > before the cart. Can we realize this by just talking about present > moment? By just talking about paramattha dhammas? Or must there be, > in addition to this, skillfully working with the conventional > realities of sentient beings that perceive non-existent things like > the past or future? > > The Buddha taught in just this way, if you read all his suttas. The > Buddha spoke of past lives, and of future lives. The Buddha spoke of > practices that exist at the purely conventional level, like > cultivating Right Effort and Right Mindfulness and Right > Concentration. The Buddha, to the best of my knowledge, did NOT speak > about ONLY recognizing realities in the present moment as a way out > of dukkha, but taught a wide variety of skill-in-means approaches to > bringing that understanding about directly. > > To recognize there is only reality in the present moment would be a > FRUIT of these more boring, mundane practices. But then one wuold > also recognize at the same time there are not now, nor have there > ever been nor will there ever be sentient beings, the triple-realm, > no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, not > even a path leading to the cessation of suffering! > > > Erik, I seem to be missing your point here. What is the > positive > > assertion that you are making? > > I hope the above clarifies my intent & meaning some more. > > Cheers, > Erik > > /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) 7407 From: Howard Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 6:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Testing - Erik Hi, Erik - In a message dated 8/12/01 10:20:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Erik writes: > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Erik - > > > > In a message dated 8/12/01 4:57:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Erik writes: > > > > > > > --- Cybele Chiodi > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sarah > > > > > > > > Don't count on prompty replies from Erik because he is > > > > in a retreat in Angkor. > > > > > > And what a retreat it was! I thought the week before was > seriously > > > reality-bending, but this past few days takes the cake. Had > anyone > > > told me just a week ago I'd return to BKK with a new fiancee (not > in > > > tow, however), I'd have laughed them out of the room. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > REALLY!! If you are serious - that is, not metaphorical in > some way - > > then you have my heartiest congratulations!! > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes, that was SERIOUS, as in NOT metaphorical! :) (though don't think > for an instant that the metaphotrical dimension of this entire > situation isn't far greater than the conventional reality of this, > either :) :) :) > > > =========================== Wonderful! I'm very happy for you. Heartiest congratulations! 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) 7408 From: Howard Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 6:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Testing - Erik Hi, Derek - > Hi, Howard, > > > I'm a bit confused, Derek. Are you saying that someone on > this list > > is, in your estimation, like the person characterized by Ajahn > Chah? > > He was talking about people who don't actually practice. But I think > we already had the study vs practice discussion. > > Derek. > ============================ Mmm. I do think that we should keep in mind that right speech and lovingkindness are parts of the practice. 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) 7409 From: cybele chiodi Date: Mon Aug 13, 2001 10:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana hi Jon > > Indeed Jon, one can study, meditate and investigate our mind >>carefully >and therefore learn to discriminate and don't be TOO attached only to the >ancient texts and commentaries but be openminded also to different >approaches and interpretations. > >I agree (I think). True dhamma of one level or another can come from any >source, and we should not be closed to that possibility. > >But I'm not sure about the value of 'approaches and interpretations' that >are not supported by the texts and commentaries. Can these be regarded as >the teachings? Well Jon if you don't feel amenable to this possibility you are denying all Mahayana Buddhism for example as is an elaboration and expansion from the original teachings. I think that whatever teachings we learn must be necessarily supported by our capacity of assimilating them, the inner experience of understanding it properly. I don't rely on interpretations I can't relate inside me because I would be faking a knowledge I haven't attained. I maintain vivid and active my enquiring mind and I don't stick to anything at all without investigating and feeling responsive to it. > > > Sometimes our loyalty to the Tipitaka can lead to a kind of subtle > > fundamentalism and narrowmindness. > >On the other hand, and particularly when it comes to any instruction on >matters of actual 'practice', we need to be able to discriminate true >dhamma from non-dhamma. It is hardly sufficient, I think, to take things >on trust and rely on our own instincts, since these instincts are coloured >by our own (ample) ignorance and wrong view. I agree with you but as I contemplate the delusional configuration of my mind I also don't trust masters and schools for the sake of it. Our mind could be misleading us as well because that view is palatable to our conditionings. That's why I firmly believe in the power of meditation to develop right view. Only study and reasoning cannot accomplish this mental purification. The mind can figure out plenty of strategies very convincing to delude us. How can you trust that your interpretation of the traditional teachings is actually illuminating and trustworthy? > >The best source of true dhamma is of course the tipitaka and its >commentaries. We are extremely fortunate that they are still around in >relatively complete form. At some time in the future there will be only >the words of self-proclaimed teachers to go on. I think we should make the >most of the rare opportunity we have to familiarise ourselves with the >actual teachings. Very curious that you blame self proclaimed teachers as it seems you follow one of them. Nobody is 'appointed' as dhamma teacher and we follow the ones who resounds inside us. Rigidity is not discernement and avoiding contact with different sources doesn't imply in manipulating the original teachings. Considering that all traditional buddhist schools agree on meditation being the asset of the practice and in your approach is not considered fundamental I would dare to say that also you don't embrace fully the traditional teachings. Sometimes our fervour for Dhamma creates personal cults Jon and it can happens whether you use the 'true source' of Tipitaka or a Nichiren text. 'The map is not the territory.' Metta Cybele 7410 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 0:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup dear sumane, ayubowan and welcome. hope your stay here will be a pleasant and skillful experience. regards gayan 7411 From: Erik Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 2:20am Subject: Re: the object of citta --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Eric, Howard and all, > Eric wrote: > >Rather than talk about abstract notions like cittas (and until you > have had DIRECT experience of a citta, please don't come back to me > with this "paramattha dhammas" business--cittas are WAY too abstract > an concept before such direct experience of them; who but a Buddha or > nearly a Buddha directly discern the billionth of a second of > awareness each citta represents? > Nina: > I can very well understand that for several people it is difficult to > understand what citta is. Hello Nina! :) I don't think the concept of citta is at all difficult to grasp. To the contrary, for many, it appears to serve as an object of grasping all too easily! :) > Since it falls away extremely rapidly, it seems > impossible to grasp it. I would contend that it IS impossible to "grasp" (if you mean by grasp, to be aware of) a single moment of citta unless we have the omniscient mind of a Buddha or nearly so--in the same way the naked eye cannot ever hope to perceive a subatomic particle. In other words, no normal person can possibly directly cognize a single citta. Therefore, for all but Buddhas or those with some amazing degree of direct knowledge of such infinitestimally miniscule mind-moments, citta is a mere abstraction. It may be a helpful abstraction in terms of breaking out the difference between "mere awareness" (citta combined with the sabba-citta-sadharana cetasikas) vs. say "awareness accompanied by either wholesome or unwholesome qualities" (the combination of citta & cetasika, more specifically the 14 akusala cetasikas or the 25 sobhana cetasikas). Once we know that there is a difference between mere "knowing" (the most basic function of citta) and the various qualities that make up a moment of knowing, now, to me, THAT seems to be a very helpful thing to understand. Helpful in the sense that it is very useful in terms of helping us to distinguish between skillful vs. unskillful qualities of mind. Helpful in the sense of helping us to distinguish what is to be put down vs. what is to be taken up (e.g. sammapadhana). If this is NOT the aim of studying citta & cetasika, then it would appear to me that the entire point of studinyg the Buddha's Dharma has been lost, and the study of the technical sysetm of Abhidhamma has degenerated into an entirely pointless and stagnant exercise, exactly as fruitful as the study of quantum mechanics--at least in terms of the SOLE aim of the Buddha's Dharma, which is to help suffering sentient beings terminate that suffering once and for all. > It seems an abstract notion, like all the other > categories described in the Abhidhamma. However, would the Buddha speak > about paramattha dhammas, not only described in the Abhidhamma, but also in > the Vinaya and Suttanta, if their characteristics could not be experienced, > even now while we are beginning to develop understanding? I am not speaking against the utility of terms like paramattha dhammas, only against reifying our ideas about these paramattha dhammas, which is an activity that DIRECTLY blocks the very wisdom that sees things as they truly are, the very wisdom that leads directly to release--which means the permanent termination of the mental afflictions through the arising of supramundane wisdom. > As Sarah wrote : > very paramattha dhammas, the 6 worlds appearing through eyes, ears, and the > rest. Then perhaps we have been reading a different recensions of the Pali Canon, because I have have rarely seen the words attributed to the Buddha mention these paramattha dhammas. The bulk of the Suttas I have read (and I confess I have not read anything close to the entire Pali Canon, so I could be all wet here) deal with far more pedestrian things, like suffering, for example. Specifically ever one of the Suttas I've read all partake of One Taste: the taste of freedom from suffering--by whatever means happen to be most expedient. > He talks about different mental states- ignorance, clinging , wisdom > and > all the other states which accompany the moments of experience. I agree the Buddha ofetn speaks on wisdom, ignorance, clinging, etc. But I have not yet come across a single sutta where he talks about these qualities in terms of infinitestimally tiny mind-moments and the various accompanying mental-factors of these infinitestimally tiny mind-moments. I have only ever heard the Buddha speak in terms of what his disciples could comprehend at their exact level of understanding. I have often, for example, heard the Buddha employ metaphors, similes, and parables. Many of his listeners seemed to easily relate to these kinds of stories, such as the parable of the raft, or the parable of the poison arrow. In most of the Sutta I have read, the Buddha used the simplest terms to illuminate even the deepest truths, often to the point that those listening with wise attention came to directly see what was being pointed at. > These are > not > abstract concepts but what make up our lives now. The reason he talked about > these dhammas is because it is possible right now to be aware of seeing ( a > citta) or visible object (a rupa). > This is the aim of the teachings. If this is the aim of your system of teaching, then I can only wish you godspeed in achieving it, because the sooner you do, the sooner you will see how this aim, like the aim of quantum physics, is an aim having nothing to do with permanently terminating the round of suffering we call samsara. THAT aim in specific is the SOLE aim of the Buddha's doctrine, which, when boiled down to its most essential message, is simply nothing other than suffering and the end of suffering. If one believes there is any other aim to the Buddha's teaching than just suffering and the end of suffering, then the entire point of the Buddha's teaching has been lost. It's really that cut-and-dried. 7412 From: Fenny Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 2:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana Dear Cy and Jon and everybody, This may shed some light on your discussion regarding right view. Enjoy. ==================================== Right View-The Place of Coolness By Ajahn Chah The practice of Dhamma goes against our habits; the truth goes against our desires, so there is difficulty in the practice. Some things that we understand as wrong may be right, while the things we take to be right might be wrong. Why is this? Because our minds are in darkness, we don 't clearly see the Truth. We don't really know anything and so are fooled by people's lies. They point out what is right as being wrong and we believe it; that which is wrong, they say is right, and we believe that. This is because we are not yet our own masters. Our moods lie to us constantly. We shouldn't take this mind and its opinions as our guide, because it doesn't know the Truth. Some people don't want to listen to others at all, but this is not the way of a man of wisdom. A wise man listens to everything. One who listens to Dhamma must listen just the same whether he likes it or not, and not blindly believe or disbelieve. He must stay at the halfway mark, the middle point, and not be heedless. He just listens and then contemplates, giving rise to the right results accordingly. A wise man should contemplate and see the cause and effect for himself before he believes what he hears. Even if the teacher speaks the truth, don't just believe it, because you don't yet know the truth of it for yourself. It's the same for all of us, including myself. I've practiced before you; I've seen many lies before. For instance, "This practice is really difficult, really hard." Why is the practice difficult? It's just because we think wrongly; we have wrong view. Previously I lived together with a lot of monks, but I didn't feel right. I ran away to the forests and mountains, fleeing the crowd, the monks and novices, I thought that they weren't like me, they didn't practice as hard as I did. They were sloppy. That person was like this, this person was like that. This was something that really put me in turmoil; it was the cause for my continually running away. But whether I lived alone or with others I still have no peace. On my own I wasn't content, in a large group I wasn't content. I thought this discontent was due to my companions, due to my moods, due to my living place, the food, the weather, due to this and that. I was constantly searching for something to suit my mind. I was a dhutanga monk, I went traveling, but things still weren' t right. So I contemplated, "What can I do to make things right? What can I do?" Living with a lot of people I was dissatisfied, with few people I was dissatisfied. For what reason? I just couldn't see it. Why was I dissatisfied? Because I had wrong view, just that; because I still clung to the wrong Dhamma. Wherever I went I was discontent thinking, "Here is no good, there is no good." On and on like that. I bled others. I blamed the weather, heart and cold, I blamed everything! Just like the mad dog. It bites whatever it meets, because it's mad. When the mind is like this our practice is never settled. Today we feel good, tomorrow no good. It's like that all the time. We don't attain contentment or peace. The Buddha once saw a jackal, a wild dog. Run out of the forest where he was staying. It stood still for a while, then it ran into the underbrush, and then out again. Then it ran into a tree hollow, then out again. Then it went into a cave, only to run out again. One minute it stood, the next it ran, then it lay down, then it jumped up;. That jackal had mange. When it stood the mange would eat into its skin, so it would run. Running it was still uncomfortable, so it would stop. Standing was still uncomfortable, so it would lie down. Then it would jump up again, running into the underbrush, the tree hollow, never staying still. The Buddha said," Monks, did you see that jackal this afternoon? Standing it suffered, lying down it suffered. While in the underbrush, a tree hollow or a cave, it suffered. It blamed standing for its discomfort, it blamed sitting, it blamed running and lying down; it blamed the tree, the underbrush and the cave. In fact the problem was with none of those things. That jackal had mange. The problem was with the mange." We monks are just the same as that jackal. Our discontent is due to wrong view. Because we don't exercise sense restraint we blame our suffering on externals. Whether we live at Wat Pah Pong, in America or in London we aren't satisfied. Going to live at Bung Wai or any of the other branch monasteries we're still not satisfied. Why not? Because we still have wrong view within us, just that! Wherever we go we aren't content. But just as that dog, if the mange is cured, is content wherever it goes, so it is for us. I reflect on this often, and I teach you this often, because it's very important. If we know the truth of our various moods we arrive at contentment. Whether it's hot or cold we are satisfied, with may people or with few people we are satisfied. Contentment doesn't depend on how many people w area with; it comes only from right view. If we have right view then wherever we stay we are content. Bit most of us have wrong view. It's just like a maggot! A maggot's living place is filthy, its food is filthy.but they suit the maggot. If you take a stick and brush it ways from its lump of dung, it'll struggle and crawl back into it. It's the same when the Ajahn teaches us to see rightly. We opposed it; it makes us feel uneasy. We run back to sour 'lump of dung' because that' where we feel at home. We're all like this If we don't see the harmful consequences of all our wrong views then we can' t leave them, the practice is difficult. So we should listen. There's nothing else to the practice. If we have right view then wherever we go we are content. I have practiced and seen this already. These days there are many monks, novices and laypeople coming to see me. If I still didn't know, if I still hade wrong view, I'd be dead by now! The right abiding place for monks, the place of coolness, is just right view itself. We shouldn't look for anything else. To be continue........................ =================================== Let's practice the Dhamma, Fen ----- Original Message ----- From: "cybele chiodi" Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana > > hi Jon > > > > Indeed Jon, one can study, meditate and investigate our mind >>carefully > >and therefore learn to discriminate and don't be TOO attached only to the > >ancient texts and commentaries but be openminded also to different > >approaches and interpretations. > > > > >I agree (I think). True dhamma of one level or another can come from any > >source, and we should not be closed to that possibility. > > > >But I'm not sure about the value of 'approaches and interpretations' that > >are not supported by the texts and commentaries. Can these be regarded as > >the teachings? > > Well Jon if you don't feel amenable to this possibility you are denying all > Mahayana Buddhism for example as is an elaboration and expansion from the > original teachings. > I think that whatever teachings we learn must be necessarily supported by > our capacity of assimilating them, the inner experience of understanding it > properly. > I don't rely on interpretations I can't relate inside me because I would be > faking a knowledge I haven't attained. > I maintain vivid and active my enquiring mind and I don't stick to anything > at all without investigating and feeling responsive to it. > > > > > > Sometimes our loyalty to the Tipitaka can lead to a kind of subtle > > > fundamentalism and narrowmindness. > > > >On the other hand, and particularly when it comes to any instruction on > >matters of actual 'practice', we need to be able to discriminate true > >dhamma from non-dhamma. It is hardly sufficient, I think, to take things > >on trust and rely on our own instincts, since these instincts are coloured > >by our own (ample) ignorance and wrong view. > > I agree with you but as I contemplate the delusional configuration of my > mind I also don't trust masters and schools for the sake of it. > Our mind could be misleading us as well because that view is palatable to > our conditionings. > That's why I firmly believe in the power of meditation to develop right > view. > Only study and reasoning cannot accomplish this mental purification. > The mind can figure out plenty of strategies very convincing to delude us. > How can you trust that your interpretation of the traditional teachings is > actually illuminating and trustworthy? > > > > >The best source of true dhamma is of course the tipitaka and its > >commentaries. We are extremely fortunate that they are still around in > >relatively complete form. At some time in the future there will be only > >the words of self-proclaimed teachers to go on. I think we should make the > >most of the rare opportunity we have to familiarise ourselves with the > >actual teachings. > > Very curious that you blame self proclaimed teachers as it seems you follow > one of them. > Nobody is 'appointed' as dhamma teacher and we follow the ones who resounds > inside us. > Rigidity is not discernement and avoiding contact with different sources > doesn't imply in manipulating the original teachings. > Considering that all traditional buddhist schools agree on meditation being > the asset of the practice and in your approach is not considered fundamental > I would dare to say that also you don't embrace fully the traditional > teachings. > Sometimes our fervour for Dhamma creates personal cults Jon and it can > happens whether you use the 'true source' of Tipitaka or a Nichiren text. > 'The map is not the territory.' > > > Metta > > Cybele > 7413 From: Howard Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 1:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Abhidhamma and Cognitive Science Hi, Jon - In a message dated 8/13/01 5:34:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes with regard to my interest in possible confirmation (or the opposite) of such Abhidhamma positions as only one object of consciousness being possible at a time: > My point was simply this. Unless cognitive science can measure something > to a degree that is beyond the possibility of error, the result is of no > use, since it only *tends to* show one thing or the other. > > In any event, I think you'll find that what science investigates does not > coincide with the paramattha dhammas and other matters discussed by the > Buddha. > ============================== Perhaps so, Jon. I don't see this as a critical issue in any case, just an interesting one. 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) 7414 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 6:05am Subject: Satipatthana (was Testing - Erik MN 131, in > > the Middle Length Discourses (majjhima Nikaya): > > > > A Single Excellent Night > > > > Let not a person revive the past > > Or on the future build his hopes;.... > > > > ...Instead with insight let him see > > Each presently arisen state; > > Let him know that and be sure of it, > > .. > > ERIK:Excellent indeed, Robert! Now, HOW do we go about doing this, > precisely? ______________________ Dear Erik, Satipatthana is only taught by a surpreme Buddha. It can only be heard about during the rare times of a Buddha sasana. To understand its development we need to hear many details of the teachings. Now there is seeing, were the javana cittas after that moment of seeing kusala or akusala? There are so many different types of citta. Now I am typing, the cittas that condition the movement of the hand are not vipaka (result) they are different from the vipaka cittas that are seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling. These are all realities they are happening now again and again. How much do we know about them? They are anatta, uncontrollable, aniccum, gone already. The buddha said in the sutta above "with insight let him see Each presently arisen state; Let him know that and be sure of it," The development of satipatthana is about seeing these dhammas now,as they appear. Life is so short- namas and rupas are arising and passing away at this moment. There is nothing else. By hearing enough and considering conditions are built up to gradually let go of the clinging to wrong practice that we have accumulated, Then there can be the opportunity for sati and panna to understand dhammas, as they are now. Whether we are sitting crosslegged, or standing there can be awareness of dhammas – but not by clinging and trying and thinking that we need volition. NinaVG and Khun sujin often say "reduce yourself into one moment". That is it. There is no Robert; that is the illusion formed by the rapid change and the different elements doing their functions. It is like a movie - merely different frames joined together and giving the appearance of life. None of the elements, the different cetasikas and cittas and rupas have any idea of wanting to do this or that. They are merely carrying out there function - which is to know, or to hear, or to see, or to crave and so many other elements with different functions. The more I learn about these things the more I see that lobha(attachment) and moha(ignorance) are very common. I do not feel that they can be quickly erased - the path seems much longer and harder than when I began. Yet strangely I feel happier and more relaxed about it all. Understanding works its way once "we" get out of the way. No technique. No shortcuts. Paramattha dhammas are in us and around us. If there are sufficient conditions then panna will arise in conjunction with sati, samadhi, effort and the other kusala cetasikas and understand one moment as it is. That is satipatthana. If there are not the conditions then listen more, consider more- this is essential. Learn about seeing and color- do you think this computer is real, or is there a level of panna that knows only color and hardness? This is the time of a Buddhasasana - it is the only time that the the deep teachings on khandas, dhatus, ayatanas; on paticcasamupada and the 24 paccaya etc. can be heard. It would be regretable not to listen. robert 7417 From: Victor Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 8:17am Subject: Re: Satipatthana (was Testing - Erik [snip] There is no Robert; [snip] > > robert Hi Robert, You wrote "There is no Robert". Could you explain who you were referring to by the name "Robert"? Metta, Victor 7418 From: Erik Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 0:25pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana (was Testing - Erik --- Robert wrote: > MN 131, in > > > the Middle Length Discourses (majjhima Nikaya): > > > > > > A Single Excellent Night > > > > > > Let not a person revive the past > > > Or on the future build his hopes;.... > > > > > > ...Instead with insight let him see > > > Each presently arisen state; > > > Let him know that and be sure of it, > > > .. > > > > ERIK:Excellent indeed, Robert! Now, HOW do we go about doing this, > > precisely? > ______________________ > Dear Erik, > > Satipatthana is only taught by a surpreme Buddha. It > can only be heard about during the rare times of a > Buddha sasana. To understand its development we need > to hear many details of the teachings. Indeed, and taking a single passage like you quoted above, without considering the greater context of the corpus of teachings the Buddha explicitly taught on Satipatthana, would be a quite unwise, I think. So then, to place the above passage into the proper context, I think we should examine those Suttas where the Buddha spelled out the meaning of Right Mindfulness in the greatest and most explicit detail. Would you not agree, given the importance of Right Mindfulness as a definite factor of enlightenment, that this is a wise strategy? > Now there is seeing, were the javana cittas after that > moment of seeing kusala or akusala? There are so > many different types of citta. Now I am typing, the > cittas that condition the movement of the hand are not > vipaka (result) they are different from the vipaka > cittas that are seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and > smelling. These are all realities they are happening > now again and again. How much do we know about them? > They are anatta, uncontrollable, aniccum, gone > already. The buddha said in the sutta above "with insight let him see > Each presently arisen state; > Let him know that and be sure of it," And how does the Buddha enjoin his disciples to do just that? Here's what I've been able to dig up (from the Satipatthana Sutta): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html Beginning with, yet again, Mindfulness of the Breath: "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." This is further continued with the various aspects of anapanasati (mediation on the breath--which you can read in the original Sutta in more detail--so no need to elaborate further on this vital aspect of Mindfulness). Robert: > The development of satipatthana is about > seeing these dhammas now,as they appear. Life is so > short- > namas and rupas are arising and passing away at this > moment. The Buddha seems to say this, but not in the way you're putting it. More specifically, the Buddha instructs us in Mindfulness of the Breath: "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body [Erik: do you consider the "body" a "paramattha dhamma"? Enquiring minds want to know! :)]. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance [Erik: uh oh! "Remembrance"? What has this to do with "right now"? Please elaborate for us here, Robert! :)]. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself." > There is nothing else. By hearing enough and > considering conditions are built up to gradually let > go of the clinging to wrong practice that we have > accumulated, Then there can be the opportunity for > sati and panna to understand dhammas, as they are now. Agreed. That means coming to Right View through having wrong views pointed out as such, and by meditating carefully on such instructions, which thereby gradually loosens the fixations on wrong views, which in turn leads to Right View, which in turn leads to a correct understanding of right practice--the very practices that lead to total cessation of suffering. > Whether we are sitting crosslegged, or standing there can be > awareness of dhammas – Agreed completely, as the Buddha clearly notes in the Satipatthana Sutta. > but not by clinging and trying and thinking that we > need volition. Clinging is always a bad thing from the Buddha's perspective (especially clinging to ideas like getting "results" in meditation). But if you think we don't need to take volitional control of our actions to the degree possible RIGHT NOW, your contention is at serious variance with what the Buddha actually taught. The Buddha rejected the sort of determinism your statement imples in no uncertain terms, and in many, many places! > NinaVG and Khun sujin often say "reduce yourself > into one moment". That is it. Forget for a moment what anyone else you've heard has said on this point, Robert, and please consider listening carefully to what this collection of khandas is telling you for once. To quote Ajahn Chah on this point: "The practice of Dhamma goes against our habits; the truth goes against our desires, so there is difficulty in the practice. Some things that we understand as wrong may be right, while the things we take to be right might be wrong. Why is this? Because our minds are in darkness, we don't clearly see the Truth. We don't really know anything and so are fooled by people's lies. They point out what is right as being wrong and we believe it; that which is wrong, they say is right, and we believe that. This is because we are not yet our own masters. Our moods lie to us constantly. We shouldn't take this mind and its opinions as our guide, because it doesn't know the Truth. "Some people don't want to listen to others at all, but this is not the way of a man of wisdom. A wise man listens to everything. One who listens to Dhamma must listen just the same whether he likes it or not, and not blindly believe or disbelieve. He must stay at the halfway mark, the middle point, and not be heedless. He just listens and then contemplates, giving rise to the right results accordingly. "A wise man should contemplate and see the cause and effect for himself before he believes what he hears. Even if the teacher speaks the truth, don't just believe it, because you don't yet know the truth of it for yourself." Now, as to considering nama-rupa, what did Lord Buddha actually say on this point? Further examination of the Satipatthana Sutta may shed some more light on this point: "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)" Nowhere here does Lord Buddha speak about "realities in this moment" (though to a degree it's implied since we can't directly observe anything not arising here & now). What the Buddha EXPLICITLY enjoins us to reflect on (and REFLECTION involves notions of past, present AND future!) are the fetters! Not "realities arising right now," but the FETTERS, the very fetters (samyojanas) that keep us bound to the wheel of samsara! (I think I hear an echo here...) :) :) :) In fact, if you read every single one of the instructions the Buddha actually gave his disciples in the Suttas dealing with Right Mindfulness, in every one he mentions "remembrance" as a vital component of the practice of Right Mindfulness. Where does remembrance fit into "recognizing realities in the present moment"? (Other than noting the obvious fact that thre is nothing we can experience NOT happening in the present moment.) The fact is the Buddha NEVER teachers "just this moment," but SPECIFICALLY teaches REMEMBRANCE (which, to my understanding also happens to be the very definition of sati, or Mindfulness!) So then, I must inquire, what about sati has anything to do with "realities this moment"? Right Mindfulness litrally translated means RIGHT REMEMBRANCE of qualities that have ALREADY PASSED AWAY! But your definition of Satipatthana implies that sati is "remembrance of the present moment"! That would entail, in no uncertain terms, a total logical absurdity, my dear friend in the Dhamma. How can one possibly remember that which has not yet passed, been marked by sanna, for example? > There is no Robert; that is the > illusion formed by the rapid > change and the different elements doing their > functions. It is like a movie - merely different > frames joined together and giving the appearance of > life. None of the elements, the different cetasikas > and cittas and rupas have any idea of wanting to do > this or that. They are merely carrying out there > function - which is to know, or to hear, or to see, or > to crave and so many other elements with different > functions. Ultimately nothing arises apart from conditions, but again, we nontheless are not deterministically bound without any shred of free will. We DO have volition and CAN choose out actions--in however limited a way--and act, RIGHT HERE AND NOW, for example to DECIDE to either listen to and put into practice the Holy Dharma. Or to refuse to listen to the Holy Dharma and continue to suffer further runds of misery. We can choose to kill, steal, lie, committ sexual miscondut, take intoxicants to the point of heedlessness. We can also choose not to. It may be difficult to make chioces because we are so heavily conditioned by past thoughts and deeds. But it is decidedly NOT impossible. If it were, why would the Buddha have said: "Abandon what is unwholesome, oh monks! One can abandon the unwholesome, oh monks! If it were not possible, I would not ask you to do so. If this abandoning of the unwholesome would bring harm and suffering, I would not ask you to abandon it. But as the abandoning of the unwholesome brings benefit and happiness, Therefore, I say, 'Abandon what is unwholesome!' Cultivate what is wholesome, oh monks. One can cultivate the wholesome. If it were not feasible, I would not ask you to do it. If this cultivation of the wholesome would bring harm and suffering, I would not ask you to cultivate it. But as the cultivation of the wholesome brings benefit and happiness, Therefore, I say, 'Cultivate what is wholesome!'" (AN) > The more I learn about these things the more I > see that lobha(attachment) and moha(ignorance) are very common. Indeed they are at root (at least moha) of all suffering. Which of course conditions grasping--particular one of the nastiest forms of grasping, the grasping at views. > I do > not feel that they can be quickly erased - the path seems much > longer and harder than when I began. And yet it is much, much simpler that you can imagine. > Understanding works its way once "we" get out of the > way. No technique. I could not disagree more vehemently with this very wrong form of understanding. There is VERY MUCH technique, Robert! If there were no technique, the Buddha would have never taught technique in so many places! > No shortcuts. No disagreement there. There are truly no shortcuts, particularly when it comes to things like cultivating wholseome karma and directing one's best efforts at serious meditation practice. > Paramattha dhammas are in us and around us. If there > are sufficient conditions then panna will arise in > conjunction with sati, samadhi, effort and the other > kusala cetasikas and understand one moment as it is. Just as it is also possible that buying a lottery ticket will make one a millionare! :) > That is satipatthana. That is not, I am afraid, Satipatthana. Satipatthana is what the Buddha specifically taught in both the Satipatthana Sutta as well as the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta, which are avaialbe for all and sundery here to read firsthand. No sense my interjecting any moer commentary onto this very important parctice when the Buddhas direct and simple words are availbe for all to see so plainly. > This is the time of a Buddhasasana - it is the only > time that the the deep teachings on khandas, dhatus, > ayatanas; on paticcasamupada and the 24 paccaya etc. > can be heard. It would be regretable not to listen. And just as fortunate that during this Buddha-sasana there are those who have terminated all wrong views as well as all misunderstanding about intent and meaning of the Buddha's Dhamma. It would be even more regrettable if one chooses to ignore their direct instruction on the most essential points of the Dhamma! :) 7419 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 2:33pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana (was Testing - Erik --- Erik wrote: > > > Robert: > > The development of satipatthana is about > > seeing these dhammas now,as they appear. Life is so > > short- > > namas and rupas are arising and passing away at this > > moment. _________________ > > ERIKThe Buddha seems to say this, but not in the way you're putting it. > More specifically, the Buddha instructs us in Mindfulness of the > Breath: > [Erik: do you > consider the "body" a "paramattha dhamma"? Enquiring minds want to > know! :)]. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to > the extent of knowledge & remembrance [Erik: uh oh! "Remembrance"? > What has this to do with "right now"? Please elaborate for us here, > Robert! If you think we don't need to take volitional control of our > actions to the degree possible RIGHT NOW, your contention is at > serious variance with what the Buddha actually taught. The Buddha > rejected the sort of determinism your statement imples in no > uncertain terms, and in many, many places! > >> Forget for a moment what anyone else you've heard has said on this > point, Robert, and please consider listening carefully to what this > collection of khandas is telling you for once. > > > Nowhere here does Lord Buddha speak about "realities in this moment" > (though to a degree it's implied since we can't directly observe > anything not arising here & now). > > > In fact, if you read every single one of the instructions the Buddha > actually gave his disciples in the Suttas dealing with Right > Mindfulness, in every one he mentions "remembrance" as a vital > component of the practice of Right Mindfulness. Where does > remembrance fit into "recognizing realities in the present moment"? > (Other than noting the obvious fact that thre is nothing we can > experience NOT happening in the present moment.) > > The fact is the Buddha NEVER teachers "just this moment," but > SPECIFICALLY teaches REMEMBRANCE (which, to my understanding also > happens to be the very definition of sati, or Mindfulness!) > > So then, I must inquire, what about sati has anything to do > with "realities this moment"? Right Mindfulness litrally translated > means RIGHT REMEMBRANCE of qualities that have ALREADY PASSED AWAY! > > But your definition of Satipatthana implies that sati is "remembrance > of the present moment"! That would entail, in no uncertain terms, a > total logical absurdity, my dear friend in the Dhamma. How can one > possibly remember that which has not yet passed, been marked by > sanna, for example? > > > We DO have volition and CAN choose out actions--in however > limited a way--and act, RIGHT HERE AND NOW, for example to DECIDE to > either listen to and put into practice the Holy Dharma. Or to refuse > to listen to the Holy Dharma and continue to suffer further runds of > misery. We can choose to kill, steal, lie, committ sexual miscondut, > take intoxicants to the point of heedlessness. We can also choose not -------------------------- RObERT;> > I do > > not feel that they can be quickly erased - the path seems much > > longer and harder than when I began. ________________ > > ERIK:And yet it is much, much simpler that you can imagine. _________________ > > > Robert:Paramattha dhammas are in us and around us. If there > > are sufficient conditions then panna will arise in > > conjunction with sati, samadhi, effort and the other > > kusala cetasikas and understand one moment as it is. > That is satipatthana. ____________________ > > That is not, I am afraid, Satipatthana. Satipatthana is what the > Buddha specifically taught in both the Satipatthana Sutta as well as > the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta, which are avaialbe for all and sundery > here to read firsthand. No sense my interjecting any moer commentary > onto this very important parctice when the Buddhas direct and simple > words are availbe for all to see so plainly. there are those > who have terminated all wrong views as well as all misunderstanding > about intent and meaning of the Buddha's Dhamma. It would be even > more regrettable if one chooses to ignore their direct instruction on > the most essential points of the Dhamma! :) _____________________ Dear Erik, I have ideas about what Dhamma is and you have different ideas. I think it would be unproductive to bother you with further explanations. best wishes robert 7420 From: Erik Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 4:13pm Subject: The Dhamma (was Satipatthana)-Robert --- Robert wrote: > I have ideas about what Dhamma is and you have different ideas. I > think it would be unproductive to bother you with further > explanations. Robert, there's no need to beat a full retreat on a debate like this! If I may be blunt, you seem to have become all of a sudden afraid to engage this mere student and beginner on the essential teachings of Right Mindfulness! What gives? This begs a question, I think. If my hunch is correct, what is the REAL fear, the REAL concern here? Is it the Suttas reputed to be the words of Lord Buddha I have been directly quoting regarding Satipatthana? The very Suttas, I should add, which do not appear to provide any substantial support for your presentation of the meaning and intent of the Buddha's Dhamma as I understand it, and as my teachers (who I should add are considered the "first among the first" in Tibet's Geluk-pa lineage--the lineage all the Dalai Lamas belong to) have taught it--i.e. your argument that the point of the Dhamma is to recognize "realities this moment" vs. my contention and that of my teachers that the Buddha taught only "suffering and its cessation"? Again, I am using ONLY the ACTUAL erputed words of the Buddha from the Suttanta Pitaka here, without the slightest need to resort to general Mahayana or even Tibetan texts. This is all from the from the very Pali Canon we BOTH agree on, in other words--with practically NO gloss added. That's largely because I feel there's little need for gloss, since the Buddha detailed the practices of Right Mindfulness in such simple, direct terms, that I feel addding much more would be akin to gilding the lotus. I really belieev that these Suttas are so simple that even one with relatively little accumulated wisdom could take and begin applying almost immediately, with only the barest training in Buddhist theory--such as what is skillful vs. what is unskillful, and how all things lack "core," and how by implication all composed things are impermanent and therefore by nature also a considered painful. And Robert, my dear friend, you have many more years of experience studying the Dhamma than I do, have read far more of the texts than I have. Certainly a mere beginner like me shouldn't be able to engender what appears to be this degree of consternation in one so well- studied. Unless, perhaps, there are a few things being said that are hitting a little too close to some very deeply-held and cherished views. Recall the Buddha enjoined us to give up ALL our clinging to views. And that will, inevitably, create very extreme discomfort when those views, beliefs, and suppositions are directly challenged. Even more so when we have invested serious time in building up an edifice of fabrications in support of maintaining those cherished views. As I quoted from Ajahn Chah (gleaned from another poster's kind effort earlier), the most important thing is to consider the Dhamma carefully and DISPASSIONATELY (actually one of the requisite qualities of a TRUE student of the Dharma as elaborated in the Tibetan Lam Rim instructions)--no matter the source. Even if it's from sources we may personally agree with. And even from those sources we DISAGREE with! ESPECIALLY those sources we disagree with! And then, most importantly, we should take and TEST THOSE TEACHINGS OUT DIRECTLY, IN OUR OWN EXPERIENCE, such that we come to see, through wise consideration and reflection based on our own direct experience, that THESE activities lead to the increase of unskillful qualities to be put aside and abandoned--to the increase of greed, to the increase of aversion, to the increase of ignorance; and that THESE activities lead to the increase of skillful qualities to be taken up and developed--to the increase of non-grasping, to the increase of non-aversion, to the increase of knowledge. It is ONLY by this totally ruthless and dispassionate process of burning, cutting, grinding--just as one does to test what one suspects to be gold but is not yet certain--and putting into DIRECT PRACTICE the Dhamma we come across, that we can ever come to confirm or refute its correctness based on the above criteria. Furthermore, this is the only way that we will EVER have the hope of creating appropriate conditions for the very special type of wisdom to arise that permanently terminates ignorance at its very root, and the entire mass of suffering that follows on from that, thus fulfilling the entire aim of the Holy Life as taught by Lord Buddha and as taught to me directly by my teachers. It should again be stated that this process, performed properly, will undoubtedly cause some very serious discomfort--even severe shock and pain--all due to to the ego's cherished views and opinions. Because the authentic Dhamma, as Ajahn Chah succinctly observed, is NOT easy. As my incredibly dear & sweet friend Amara mentioned in one post to me when I first joined DSG, there were some monks who, on hearing the correct Dhamma explained by Lord Buddha, actually became so physically discomfited by the powerful truth of the Holy Dhamma they vomited blood! In fact, the authentic Dhamma is the ego's very worst enemy. And the mental afflictions we sometimes label the "ego" will throw up ALL the defense mechanisms it can muster to avoid its being ruthlessly dismantled by totally compassionate wisdom that realizes the emptiness and impermanence and inherent suffering of all conditioned phenomena--the direct knowledge of which the wisdom of the authentic Buddha's Dhamma is certain to reveal at some point--which is the ENTIRE POINT of the Buddhist Dhamma (to see through the fiction of an independent "self" with the faculty of supramundane wisdom--which is the ONLY way to permanently terminate the round of samsara)! If the authentic Dhamma doesn't cause discomfort or challenge our most deeply-held views and prejudices at some point, then it isn't the real thing. It's like fool's gold. It may glitter; but all that glitters, as the saying goes, is not gold. All I can say is I am supremely grateful for the "bad cops" (vs. the "good cops" like my holy lamas and my wonderful Ajahn of Satipatthana meditation at Wat Mahatat, Section 5) of the Dhamma, who I consider among my greatest teachers of all--those who directly challenged and undermined my most cherished beliefs, suppositions, and views I was clinging to about what is and is not the authentic Dhamma. I consider myself extremely fortunate in that I came to see directly that in truth, in spite of the temporary pain they caused my ego, they were all along my very greatest allies, the most compassionate among the compassionate. I hope for your sake that someday you come to see this as well. 7421 From: Sarah Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:06pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Fwd: [d-l] Scholars and Meditators Dear Cybele & Friends, --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > >From the book "Numerical Discourses of the Buddha – An Anthology of > >Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya" > >translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi: > > > >125. Scholars and Meditators > > > >. . . "friends, you should train yourselves thus: `Though we > >ourselves are Dhamma-experts, we will praise also those monks who are > >meditators.' And why? Such outstanding men are rare in the world who have > >personal experience of the deathless element (Nibbana). > > And the other monks, too, should train themselves thus: `Though we > >ourselves are meditators, we will praise also those monks who are > >Dhamma-experts.' And why? Such outstanding persons are rare in the > >world who can by their wisdom clearly understand a difficult subject." > > (VI, 46) Thank you for posting this sutta. I like this anthology trans. by B.Bodhi and hope we see a complete Ang.Nik. by him in due course. I think this is a good example of a sutta that can be read and understood at many levels and so, even though (as I've been reminded by Jon & Rob) it's been posted and discusssed on dsg before, I'd like to make a few comments for those of us (read me) who had forgotten and for those who are relatively new to the list. When we first read it, we may appreciate the reminders for tolerance and respect and wise speech in regard to those who appear to follow different paths. We also note how useless bickering and disparaging others are. How easily these can lead to pride and 'puffing-up'. These are useful reminders at any level, for sure! When we just read a translation like this, it is easy to take 'scholars' for being those who are experts in book-learning without any 'inner' developed wisdom and it is easy to take 'meditators' for being those who do not study and who merely follow a 'practice'. If we really wish to know more about these two groups (of monks) who should be highly respected, we need to look at the Pali and commentary notes, I think. The Pali term for the first group is 'dhammayoga' . B.Bodhi adds 'AA says the term refers to preachers (dhamma-kathika). The second group of 'meditators' refers those who have attained jhanas. As Rob (or Nina) pointed out, obviously neither group are arahants, otherwise there would not have been any dispute! From the commentary notes, it seems that the second group, the 'meditators' have already realized the jhanas and they 'touch the deathless (amata) element by nama-kaya, (The mental body i.e.cetasikas)' The Dhammayoga bhikkus (the ones dedicated to Dhamma or the Scholars) "penetrate the deep meaning of the khandas (aggregates), the dhatus (elements) the ayatanas (sense fields). They clearly see it by magga-citta (i.e the citta that experiences nibbana)together with vipassana panna. But here it should be panna which penetrates by considering, and also panna on the level of asking questions and learning" Commentary ends. The last part of the sutta about the Dhammayoga Bhikkhus says 'Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who can by their wisdom (panna) clearly understand a difficult subject' (i.e realize nibbana). Obviously there is no suggestion that this is merely an intellectual approach. How could Nibbana be realized if it were? Likewise, Those who have jhana experience and have attained at least the first stage of enlightenment should be highly respected. Cybele, I should add that even now when I read a sutta like this, with extra notes, I still have many more questions than answers, but I just wished to give an indication about how these suttas can be read at different levels and with different interpretations and why I understand there should be high respect for these Bhikkhus. Best wishes as always and I hope you're enjoying some Italian sunshine! Sarah 7422 From: Sarah Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The Dhamma (was Satipatthana)-Robert Dear Erik, --- Erik wrote: > --- Robert wrote: > > > I have ideas about what Dhamma is and you have different ideas. I > > think it would be unproductive to bother you with further > > explanations. > > Robert, there's no need to beat a full retreat on a debate like this! > If I may be blunt, you seem to have become all of a sudden afraid to > engage this mere student and beginner on the essential teachings of > Right Mindfulness! What gives? > > This begs a question, I think. If my hunch is correct, what is the > REAL fear, the REAL concern here? Is it the Suttas reputed to be the > words of Lord Buddha I have been directly quoting regarding > Satipatthana? Let me make one or two other wild guesses:-)) 1. Rob has repeated many times what he understands satipatthana to be, how the texts should be considered, but doesn't think you're really listening to what he's saying (or what K.Sujin, Nina and others are saying). 2. He's busy and tired and so it's difficult to go on repeating the same debates. 3. He may be considering writing to others who have other questions and appear to be more receptive to what he says. 4. He's run out of patience, and feels like a break;-)) 5. His kids want to go for a swim! 6. He knows you have the real expert (in his opinion) 'on your doorstep' so to speak. 7. He knows that many of his most helpful writings can be found under topics such as 'Satipatthana' in 'Useful Posts': http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts 8. He'd like to encourage other members to 'have a say'! Don't worry, Erik, you're doing fine...we all have our limits and sometimes need some 'refuelling'.....! there are just very few of us who have your stamina! 'Hang in' and someone will get back to you (although I note you don't respond to EVERY post to Erik and EVERY point yourself!). One hint: you might consider a question and answer approach, just for a change, but no rule at all! Thanks for keeping us all 'challenged' and for your relatively recent sincere interest in the Tipitaka. Looking f/w to seeing you soon in Bkk (around 8th Sept). Sarah p.s Rob - excuse the presumptions and wild guesses!!;-)) 7423 From: Erik Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:47pm Subject: Re: Fwd: [d-l] Scholars and Meditators --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Cybele & Friends, > > --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > > >From the book "Numerical Discourses of the Buddha – An Anthology of > > >Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya" > > >translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi: > > > > > >125. Scholars and Meditators > > > > > >. . . "friends, you should train yourselves thus: `Though we > > >ourselves are Dhamma-experts, we will praise also those monks who are > > >meditators.' And why? Such outstanding men are rare in the world who have > > >personal experience of the deathless element (Nibbana). > > > And the other monks, too, should train themselves thus: `Though we > > >ourselves are meditators, we will praise also those monks who are > > >Dhamma-experts.' And why? Such outstanding persons are rare in the > > >world who can by their wisdom clearly understand a difficult subject." > > > (VI, 46) > > Thank you for posting this sutta. I second your thanks, Sarah. > When we first read it, we may appreciate the reminders for tolerance and > respect and wise speech in regard to those who appear to follow different > paths. Indeed, there are many, many ways to rightly understanding the Dhamma. The Buddha listed several different avenues for this in the Sammaditthi Sutta, for example. This is one reason I always find that sutta among the most inspiring of them all. > We also note how useless bickering and disparaging others are. How > easily these can lead to pride and 'puffing-up'. These are useful reminders at > any level, for sure! Indeed, the affliction of mana is a nasty one! Though, let's be honest, for us beings who yet lack the enlightenment of arahants, it is an affliction we all remain subject to. :( > When we just read a translation like this, it is easy to take 'scholars' for > being those who are experts in book-learning without any 'inner' developed > wisdom and it is easy to take 'meditators' for being those who do not study and > who merely follow a 'practice'. I agree completely with this very wise observation. There is no disjunction at all, in my eyes, between scholarship and authentic wisdom, nor meditation as a practice combined with scholarship. Nor does scholarship in any way preclude meditative realization, and in no way does meditative realization preclude scholarship. For many (particularly in my own lineage), the two are teated as inseparable aspects of the path. For example, Tibetan Geluk-pa monks undergo a rigiorous twenty-five-year course of scholarship into the deepest aspects of the textual Dharma, including several years devoted specifically to the study of Abhidhamma--simultaneously, of course, with a clear and directed meditative practice emphasizing the jhanas and the union of samatha and vipassana. Many of Tibet's most revered sages have in fact also been scholars of great renown. For example, the Sakya Pandita, Je Tsongkhapa, Rinchen Zangpo, Lama Atisha, Marpa the Translator, not to mention the Dalai Lamas, etc. In addition, some of Tibet's most revered sages have been instead the unscholarly "meditator" types as well, for example Tibet's most famous yogi-meditator, the illustrious Jetsun Milarepa (disciple of Marpa the translator). There is truly no reason scholarship and realization are in any way inimical to one another. In fact, for those of my lineage, again, the two are treated as inseparable aids to the path. For others of other schools, meditation may be primarily emphasized (I think of Zen, for example). That said, in no school that I am aware of is scholarship alone--entirely devoid of a firm basis in the practice of meditation-- taught as a valid path. Thanks for the great and very dead-on comments, Sarah! May our collective studies and practices all bring about the direct awakening to the Deathless! :) 7424 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:58pm Subject: Re: Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana & welcome Dear Fenny, --- "Fenny" wrote: > Dear Cy and Jon and everybody, > This may shed some light on your discussion regarding right view. Enjoy. Thanks for adding this article. We certainly all need lots of light.Of course there can be discontent with and without wrong view, but I like the examples of blaming the companions, moods, place, food, weather and this or that for our problems and also the story about the Jackal. Can someone give me a sutta reference for this story? I think this was your first post on dsg. I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if you'd fill us in a little with regard to your interest in dhamma, where you live and anything else you care to share. Hope you find dsg useful and we hear more of your own comments! Best wishes, Sarah p.s We try to encourage everyone to use hyperlinks for long articles which are on the net. Thanks. 7425 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 6:11pm Subject: Re: pls advice Dear Kelvin, --- "kelvin liew peng chuan" wrote: > > May u all b well & happy! long time since i've written to this group. > > i'm currently conducting a Dhamma get together for the Buddhist students in > my university, learning Dhamma weekly yes, it does seem like a long time..we've missed you! You've already received a couple of suggestions and i think both the books mentioned would be useful for studying and discussing Dhamma. Good for you for organising these activities! you could also invite any of the students who really show some interest in dhamma to join us here and ask any questions, the more basic the better! You could even use some of the questions and answers for your dhamma group. Please let us know how it goes and hope to hear more from you, Kelvin. Perhaps you can even arrange a field trip to Hong Kong! Best of luck, Sarah 7426 From: Erik Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 6:15pm Subject: Re: The Dhamma (was Satipatthana)-Robert --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Erik, > > This begs a question, I think. If my hunch is correct, what is the > > REAL fear, the REAL concern here? Is it the Suttas reputed to be the > > words of Lord Buddha I have been directly quoting regarding > > Satipatthana? > > Let me make one or two other wild guesses:-)) > > 1. Rob has repeated many times what he understands satipatthana to be, how the > texts should be considered, but doesn't think you're really listening to what > he's saying (or what K.Sujin, Nina and others are saying). That may well be. But for the record, I have listened VERY carefully to what all my aforementioned friends in the Dhamma have said. VERY carefully. :) > 4. He's run out of patience, and feels like a break;-)) Well then, he's found a true friend in Erik! :) :) :) As Master Shantideva said, "there is no evil equal to anger; and no virtuwe equal to patience." (sorry to quote outside the Tipitaka, but I don't know any other similar quote off the top of my head here :) :) :) > 5. His kids want to go for a swim! Now there's an idea! (not kids--not just yet anyway--I mean, we haven't even tied the knot yet! :) :) :) I have yet to take a dip in my apartment building's swimming pool, and I've been here a month already! > 6. He knows you have the real expert (in his opinion) 'on your doorstep' so to > speak. Perhaps I was being a tad impatient in getting back there to continue this specific debate in greater detail and dragged Robert in by proxy. :) > Don't worry, Erik, you're doing fine...we all have our limits and sometimes > need some 'refuelling'.....! there are just very few of us who have your > stamina! I can only hope my bride-to-be will be as kind with her comments! :) 'Hang in' and someone will get back to you (although I note you don't > respond to EVERY post to Erik and EVERY point yourself!). I know, I know. But pleaase be patient and give me a little time already! I'm still working on the abhinnas thingy of "from one form he becomes many, and from many he becomes one again," so I can do justice to all the points I'm now forced to skip due to lack of sufficient digits (I wonder if this iddhi also allows for the creation of emanations of computers and keyboards--this is not explicitly mentioned in the texts, though)! And I really do hope the wish I made at Phnom Kulen immediately after descending from seeing the 2,000-year-old reclining Buddha entering Parinibbana my fiancee had insisted on taking me to see (it is her favorita place in the world, according to her--talk about auspicious, and that ain't the HALF of it! :)--the wish to reach Buddhahood in this lifetime for the sake of all sentient beings--comes to pass just as the fortune-teller woman indicated on her reading immediately thereafter (that whatever you wish for will be fulfilled!)! :) > One hint: you might consider a question and answer approach, just for a change, > but no rule at all! I'll take this under consideration. I think a change of style may be helpful. Do you mean the sort of style the Buddha used, for example, with Yamaka? Also, as I recall, the Yamaka is one of the books of the Abhidhamma dealing with "paired logic." Is there anyone here who can explain a bit more about this volume to me? What about the provenance of "Yamaka" as a term--from the Sutta and the eponymous monk? Or does "Yamaka" actually mean "paired logic"? > Thanks for keeping us all 'challenged' and for your relatively recent sincere > interest in the Tipitaka. Recent interest? Why, I've been sincerely interested in the Tipitaka ever since I got my second book on the Buddhist Dhamma by Ven. Walpola Rahula, "What the Buddha Taught." I have made it a point to always read the Zen and Tibetan along with the Pali Suttas. My general interst is in, and has only been in, the actual Dhamma. The "schools" or "canon" to me matters not a whit, so long as I am convinced it is indeed a teaching that leads to the permanent cessation of suffering. It is only the Abhidhamma that is a recent development in my studies. > Looking f/w to seeing you soon in Bkk (around 8th Sept). Indeed, and I have MANY, MANY photos fropm my trip to Angkor to share with you! :) 7427 From: Herman Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 7:35pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana (was Testing - Erik Robert, I acknowledge up front that I am completely out of my depth here, and that what appears on your screen is what welled up out of , well, nowhere really. But it just seems to me that if you didn't pay your ISP account regularly , you wouldn't be able to share with the rest of us re Parramattha Dhammas. And why would you fly all the way to Bangkok just to experience a storm that isn't a storm, and meet a whole bunch of friends that aren't friends, just Parramattha Dhammas. Aren't there enough Parramattha Dhammas wherever we all are? No need to travel, I would think. Robert, I am not expecting a reply, the above is probably fairly trivial, but I do think that the distinction between absolute and convential reality is a very meaningless one. I think there are many, many different levels at which matter organises itself in a very coherent fashion. Surely you don't explain society in terms of protons, or the vascular system in terms of colour? Even though I know there is no absolute Robert, I know there is a tendency , a probability known as Robert, and that's what this tendency/probability known as Herman relates to. And I tend to want to keep it up, while conditions permit. Again, no answer required. BECAUSE SWIMMING WITH YOUR KIDS IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT !!!!! (sorry for shouting :-) With Kind Regards Herman > _____________________ > Dear Erik, > I have ideas about what Dhamma is and you have different ideas. I > think it would be unproductive to bother you with further > explanations. > best wishes > robert 7428 From: m nease Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 8:42pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana (was Testing - Erik Good to hear from you again, Victor. I hope you don't mind if I put in my two cents' worth. > There is no Robert; > [snip] > > > > robert > > Hi Robert, > > You wrote "There is no Robert". Could you explain who you were > referring to by the name "Robert"? > > Metta, > Victor As I understand it it isn't 'who', but 'what'--that is, a confluence of continuous conditions resulting from a very great number of conditions with nearly identical 'histories', I guess. The 'who' is a kind of dancing image resulting from the present manifestations of these conditions. Not real at all, but much more convincingly so than the momentary constituents which seem to give it life. The problem the Buddha defined, in a sense, is 'taking it personally'- -whether form, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousnesses. For sure there is no Robert, no Victor and no Mike, except on a very superficial level. At least that's the way I see it. What do you think? 7429 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 10:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Satipatthana Sutta and its commentaries Joshua --- Joshua wrote: > > > In the case of the article below, there are several passages which > contain > > statements, inferences or assumptions that are not supported by the > > ancient commentators, > > Could you give some examples? I will give one or two examples of what I had in mind. With this reservation, however: I do not mean to be questioning the personal views of the author. I am simply commenting on the article taken at its face value, as any reader might see it. With that caveat, I will give one example of a difference of detail and one of 'doctrine', both of which can be discussed from a reading of the Satipatthana Sutta itself or its commentary, as translated by Soma Thera in 'The Way of Mindfulness' (page numbers below are to this book). Here is the matter of detail. The description of the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness The article describes the four Foundations/Focuses of Mindfulness as "your own body, the pleasure and pain associated with each sense, the mind consciousness and the objects of the mind". In the Satipatthana Sutta, the first Foundation of Mindfulness, usually referred to as 'Contemplation of the Body', is not limited to one's own body, but include another's body as well. Each of the several aspects of contemplation of the body (breathing, the modes of deportment, the 4 kinds of clear comprehension, repulsiveness of the body, the modes of materiality, and the 9 cemetery contemplations) concludes with the passage -- "Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally, or he lives contemplating the body in the body externally, or he lives contemplating the body in the body internally and externally." The commentary to the section on breathing explains (p.51) that this refers to contemplation of the body in one's own 'respiration-body', in another's 'respiration-body' or at one time in one's own and at another in another's 'respiration-body'. A similar comment is made after each of the other sections. There is quite a difference between one's own body as object of contemplation and one's own or another's body as object of contemplation (especially when it comes to breath!). The wrong understanding could, for example, lead one to the idea that this contemplation is best 'practised' in solitude, an idea that is not supported by a reading of the sutta as a whole. In fact, although the section on contemplation on the body in the sutta talks in term of different bodily postures, activities, cemetery contemplations etc (ie. in terms of conventional situations), the underlying meaning according to the commentary is all rupa-dhammas, the dhammas that comprise the first khandha. Indeed, the 4 Foundations between them refer to all the 5 khandhas (ie all paramattha dhammas that are subject to clinging). The commentary says on this (p. 119) -- "In the contemplation on the body, the laying hold of the aggregate of corporeality or materiality was spoken of by the Master; in the contemplation on feeling, the laying hold of the aggregate of feeling; in the contemplation on mind, the laying hold of the aggregate of consciousness; and now [ie. in the contemplation on mental objects] … the laying hold of the aggregates of perception and formations, …". The rupa-kkhandha includes of course not only the rupas that we take for our own body, but all rupas that are experienced through the various doorways. Most importantly, it refers to realities that are arising at the present moment, not at any other time. It is not necessary to 'choose' one or other of the 4 Foundations as the focus for contemplation. If there is awareness of any reality appearing at the present moment, that awareness is a moment of the development of (one or other of) the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness as taught in the Satipatthana Sutta. I hope this has given some idea of how careful we should be in taking parts of suttas at their face value, without reference to the whole sutta and its commentaries. Jon PS This post turned out longer than expected! I will mention the 'doctrinal' issue in a separate post. 7430 From: Binh A Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 11:12pm Subject: The Jackal suffering from mange... --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > Thanks for adding this article. We certainly all need lots of > light.Of course there can be discontent with and without wrong > view, but I like the examples of blaming the companions, moods, > place, food, weather and this or that for our problems and also > the story about the Jackal. > > Can someone give me a sutta reference for this story? ================================================================= BA: Perhaps it was taken from this story in Samyutta Nikaya: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn17-8.html Metta, Binh 7431 From: Howard Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 7:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Satipatthana (was Testing - Erik Hi, Erik (and Robert) - In a message dated 8/14/01 12:26:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Erik writes a lengthy post which I am about to lengthen even further! ;-)) > > --- Robert wrote: > > MN 131, in > > > > the Middle Length Discourses (majjhima Nikaya): > > > > > > > > A Single Excellent Night > > > > > > > > Let not a person revive the past > > > > Or on the future build his hopes;.... > > > > > > > > ...Instead with insight let him see > > > > Each presently arisen state; > > > > Let him know that and be sure of it, > > > > .. > > > > > > ERIK:Excellent indeed, Robert! Now, HOW do we go about doing this, > > > precisely? > > ______________________ > > Dear Erik, > > > > Satipatthana is only taught by a surpreme Buddha. It > > can only be heard about during the rare times of a > > Buddha sasana. To understand its development we need > > to hear many details of the teachings. > > Indeed, and taking a single passage like you quoted above, without > considering the greater context of the corpus of teachings the Buddha > explicitly taught on Satipatthana, would be a quite unwise, I think. > > So then, to place the above passage into the proper context, I think > we should examine those Suttas where the Buddha spelled out the > meaning of Right Mindfulness in the greatest and most explicit > detail. Would you not agree, given the importance of Right > Mindfulness as a definite factor of enlightenment, that this is a > wise strategy? > > > Now there is seeing, were the javana cittas after that > > moment of seeing kusala or akusala? There are so > > many different types of citta. Now I am typing, the > > cittas that condition the movement of the hand are not > > vipaka (result) they are different from the vipaka > > cittas that are seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and > > smelling. These are all realities they are happening > > now again and again. How much do we know about them? > > They are anatta, uncontrollable, aniccum, gone > > already. The buddha said in the sutta above "with insight let him > see > > Each presently arisen state; > > Let him know that and be sure of it," > > And how does the Buddha enjoin his disciples to do just that? Here's > what I've been able to dig up (from the Satipatthana Sutta): > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html > > Beginning with, yet again, Mindfulness of the Breath: "There is the > case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a > tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs > crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore > [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; > mindful he breathes out." > > This is further continued with the various aspects of anapanasati > (mediation on the breath--which you can read in the original Sutta in > more detail--so no need to elaborate further on this vital aspect of > Mindfulness). > > Robert: > > The development of satipatthana is about > > seeing these dhammas now,as they appear. Life is so > > short- > > namas and rupas are arising and passing away at this > > moment. > > The Buddha seems to say this, but not in the way you're putting it. > More specifically, the Buddha instructs us in Mindfulness of the > Breath: > > "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of > itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally > & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the > phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon > of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of > origination & passing away with regard to the body [Erik: do you > consider the "body" a "paramattha dhamma"? Enquiring minds want to > know! :)]. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. The mind is used here, and a conventional object is being observed. This is all that one *can* do at less than the most advanced stages of insight meditation. ------------------------------------------------------- Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to > the extent of knowledge & remembrance [Erik: uh oh! "Remembrance"? > What has this to do with "right now"? Please elaborate for us here, > Robert! :)]. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. This, I think, is an aspect of "clear comprehension". ------------------------------------------------------- And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging > to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the > body in & of itself." > > > There is nothing else. By hearing enough and > > considering conditions are built up to gradually let > > go of the clinging to wrong practice that we have > > accumulated, Then there can be the opportunity for > > sati and panna to understand dhammas, as they are now. > > Agreed. That means coming to Right View through having wrong views > pointed out as such, and by meditating carefully on such > instructions, which thereby gradually loosens the fixations on wrong > views, which in turn leads to Right View, which in turn leads to a > correct understanding of right practice--the very practices that lead > to total cessation of suffering. > > > Whether we are sitting crosslegged, or standing there can be > > awareness of dhammas – > > Agreed completely, as the Buddha clearly notes in the Satipatthana > Sutta. > > > but not by clinging and trying and thinking that we > > need volition. > > Clinging is always a bad thing from the Buddha's perspective > (especially clinging to ideas like getting "results" in meditation). > > But if you think we don't need to take volitional control of our > actions to the degree possible RIGHT NOW, your contention is at > serious variance with what the Buddha actually taught. The Buddha > rejected the sort of determinism your statement imples in no > uncertain terms, and in many, many places! ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think your statement is put a tad strongly, Erik. However, I agree that there is a suggestion of determinism in what you write here, Robert, and more strongly so in the writings of some others on the DSG. Volition, in the form of conventional right effort is, as I understand it, an *essential* part of the Buddha's path. Either cultivation occurs because we have made the effort to cultivate, or, if it occurs at all, it will be a random event *in the sense* that it occurs independent of our efforts. But if that latter circumstance were the case, why would the Buddha have enjoined us to exert right effort, and,in fact, why would he have presented the 8-fold path at all? ----------------------------------------------------- > > > NinaVG and Khun sujin often say "reduce yourself > > into one moment". That is it. > > Forget for a moment what anyone else you've heard has said on this > point, Robert, and please consider listening carefully to what this > collection of khandas is telling you for once. To quote Ajahn Chah on > this point: ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Heh, heh, heh! ;-)) Sorry, Erik, I couldn't resist. Forget about what others say .. uh, except for perhaps Ajahn Chah!! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------ > > "The practice of Dhamma goes against our habits; the truth goes > against our desires, so there is difficulty in the practice. Some > things that we understand as wrong may be right, while the things we > take to be right might be wrong. Why is this? Because our minds are > in darkness, we don't clearly see the Truth. We don't really know > anything and so are fooled by people's lies. They point out what is > right as being wrong and we believe it; that which is wrong, they say > is right, and we believe that. This is because we are not yet our own > masters. Our moods lie to us constantly. We shouldn't take this mind > and its opinions as our guide, because it doesn't know the Truth. > > "Some people don't want to listen to others at all, but this is not > the way of a man of wisdom. A wise man listens to everything. One who > listens to Dhamma must listen just the same whether he likes it or > not, and not blindly believe or disbelieve. He must stay at the > halfway mark, the middle point, and not be heedless. He just listens > and then contemplates, giving rise to the right results accordingly. > > "A wise man should contemplate and see the cause and effect for > himself before he believes what he hears. Even if the teacher speaks > the truth, don't just believe it, because you don't yet know the > truth of it for yourself." > > Now, as to considering nama-rupa, what did Lord Buddha actually say > on this point? Further examination of the Satipatthana Sutta may shed > some more light on this point: > > "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of > themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense > media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of > themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense > media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns > forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He > discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he > discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. > And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of a > fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the > remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)" > > Nowhere here does Lord Buddha speak about "realities in this moment" > (though to a degree it's implied since we can't directly observe > anything not arising here & now). > > What the Buddha EXPLICITLY enjoins us to reflect on (and REFLECTION > involves notions of past, present AND future!) are the fetters! > Not "realities arising right now," but the FETTERS, the very fetters > (samyojanas) that keep us bound to the wheel of samsara! (I think I > hear an echo here...) :) :) :) > > In fact, if you read every single one of the instructions the Buddha > actually gave his disciples in the Suttas dealing with Right > Mindfulness, in every one he mentions "remembrance" as a vital > component of the practice of Right Mindfulness. Where does > remembrance fit into "recognizing realities in the present moment"? > (Other than noting the obvious fact that thre is nothing we can > experience NOT happening in the present moment.) > > The fact is the Buddha NEVER teachers "just this moment," but > SPECIFICALLY teaches REMEMBRANCE (which, to my understanding also > happens to be the very definition of sati, or Mindfulness!) ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do agree that sa~n~na is essential for the process. The path to insight lies, in part, in the cultivation of the faculty of recognition, by means of joining clear comprehension to the bare attention of mindfulness. It has seemed to me for a long time that pa~n~na (wisdom) must, in fact, be a transformation of sa~n~na. ------------------------------------------------------------ > > So then, I must inquire, what about sati has anything to do with "realities > this moment"? Right Mindfulness litrally translated > means RIGHT REMEMBRANCE of qualities that have ALREADY PASSED AWAY! ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, there is another way of thinking about sati (mindfulness) as remembrance/recollection, and that is that it consists of remembering to stay present, to not get lost in thought, to not lose track of exactly what is happening to and in oneself right now. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > But your definition of Satipatthana implies that sati is "remembrance > of the present moment"! That would entail, in no uncertain terms, a > total logical absurdity, my dear friend in the Dhamma. How can one > possibly remember that which has not yet passed, been marked by > sanna, for example? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, as I put it above, it isn't a matter of "remembrance of the present moment", but rather "remembering to stay present". ----------------------------------------------------- > > > There is no Robert; that is the > > illusion formed by the rapid > > change and the different elements doing their > > functions. It is like a movie - merely different > > frames joined together and giving the appearance of > > life. None of the elements, the different cetasikas > > and cittas and rupas have any idea of wanting to do > > this or that. They are merely carrying out there > > function - which is to know, or to hear, or to see, or > > to crave and so many other elements with different > > functions. > > Ultimately nothing arises apart from conditions, but again, we > nontheless are not deterministically bound without any shred of free > will. We DO have volition and CAN choose out actions--in however > limited a way--and act, RIGHT HERE AND NOW, for example to DECIDE to > either listen to and put into practice the Holy Dharma. Or to refuse > to listen to the Holy Dharma and continue to suffer further runds of > misery. We can choose to kill, steal, lie, committ sexual miscondut, > take intoxicants to the point of heedlessness. We can also choose not > to. It may be difficult to make chioces because we are so heavily > conditioned by past thoughts and deeds. But it is decidedly NOT > impossible. If it were, why would the Buddha have said: > > "Abandon what is unwholesome, oh monks! > One can abandon the unwholesome, oh monks! > If it were not possible, I would not ask you to do so. > If this abandoning of the unwholesome would bring harm and suffering, > I would not ask you to abandon it. > But as the abandoning of the unwholesome brings benefit and > happiness, > Therefore, I say, 'Abandon what is unwholesome!' > Cultivate what is wholesome, oh monks. > One can cultivate the wholesome. > If it were not feasible, I would not ask you to do it. > If this cultivation of the wholesome would bring harm and suffering, > I would not ask you to cultivate it. > But as the cultivation of the wholesome brings benefit and happiness, > Therefore, I say, 'Cultivate what is wholesome!'" (AN) > > > > The more I learn about these things the more I > > see that lobha(attachment) and moha(ignorance) are very common. > > Indeed they are at root (at least moha) of all suffering. Which of > course conditions grasping--particular one of the nastiest forms of > grasping, the grasping at views. > > > I do > > not feel that they can be quickly erased - the path seems much > > longer and harder than when I began. > > And yet it is much, much simpler that you can imagine. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: If I may add something here: It is easy to despair of real progress being made. But each act of cultivation leaves a trace, and awakening can occur at any time. As the Buddha said: "Practice diligently". And I think we need to include "Do it without hope or expectation.", because, as Dhammapiyo Bhikkhu wrote on another list, "Get rid of the hope. It has a partner - despair.", and as I replied there, the hoping, itself, is suffering. ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Understanding works its way once "we" get out of the > > way. No technique. > > I could not disagree more vehemently with this very wrong form of > understanding. There is VERY MUCH technique, Robert! If there were no > technique, the Buddha would have never taught technique in so many > places! > > > No shortcuts. > > No disagreement there. There are truly no shortcuts, particularly > when it comes to things like cultivating wholseome karma and > directing one's best efforts at serious meditation practice. > > > Paramattha dhammas are in us and around us. If there > > are sufficient conditions then panna will arise in > > conjunction with sati, samadhi, effort and the other > > kusala cetasikas and understand one moment as it is. > > Just as it is also possible that buying a lottery ticket will make > one a millionare! :) ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. And just as pa~n~na requires certain conditions for it to arise, these conditions, in turn, have certain conditions for *their* arising, among which is that we exert the volition and right effort of practice. The conditions for the arising of pa~n~na do not themselves arise randomly. It is, indeed, not a lottery-type situation. The limited-control aspect of anatta does not imply either a deterministic fatalism or a powerlessness due to randomness. There is a path we can *choose* to follow , else the Buddha was a fool or worse. ------------------------------------------------------ > > > That is satipatthana. > > That is not, I am afraid, Satipatthana. Satipatthana is what the > Buddha specifically taught in both the Satipatthana Sutta as well as > the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta, which are avaialbe for all and sundery > here to read firsthand. No sense my interjecting any moer commentary > onto this very important parctice when the Buddhas direct and simple > words are availbe for all to see so plainly. > > > This is the time of a Buddhasasana - it is the only > > time that the the deep teachings on khandas, dhatus, > > ayatanas; on paticcasamupada and the 24 paccaya etc. > > can be heard. It would be regretable not to listen. > > And just as fortunate that during this Buddha-sasana there are those > who have terminated all wrong views as well as all misunderstanding > about intent and meaning of the Buddha's Dhamma. It would be even > more regrettable if one chooses to ignore their direct instruction on > the most essential points of the Dhamma! :) > > ============================= My response here was rather strong, because this is a matter of great concern to me. Please be assured, Robert, that I mean no disrespect at all - just the opposite, in fact. If, at any point in this post I may have said anything to offend, let me assure that that was not my intent, and I apologize in advance for possibly coming on "too strongly". 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) 7432 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 15, 2001 1:09am Subject: concepts and realities Dear Hermann, Eric, Howard and all, Hermann wrote: Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but to my limited understanding a person who dwelt in a realm of colours, hardnesses and softnesses, sounds, smells, tastes, coldness and warmness etc only, and makes no further associations and connections between these separate events, would be a completely dysfunctional person. The diagnosis would be along the lines of disassociative state. Is it incorrect to say that the process of combining information from separate events and so forming concepts, is the actual basis for insight and wisdom, and that the reverse process of deconstructing concepts into separate and non-related events would remove all foundations for wisdom and insight? --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: Khun Sujin > explained that when we are reading, we translate colours into letters, > sentences, meaning. It goes on by conditions. > Sati has to study with awareness the characteristic of visible object whioch > appears, until one knows clearly that what appears through eyes is only > colour. Khun Sujin said that if it is not in this way one cannot detach from > the inclination to take realities for self, being, person. > Knowing that what was seen is this or that thing, this or that person, it is > a type of nama... There must be a reality that knows the meaning of sound > which appeared through the ears, there are different namas experiencing > objects through different doorways... When we know it is nama it means it is > not self. When we know it is rupa, it means it is not self. > Nina: Eric is perfectly right when he says that if you would only live in the world of colours, sounds, etc. there would be a cognitive dysfunction. How unnatural and forced it would be. The Buddha, as Howard says, used concepts, he knew who was Sariputta , who were his other disciples. But he had no wrong view, he did not take concepts for ultimate realities, paramattha dhammas. We read in the "Kindred Sayings"(I, The Devas, Ch II, § 5) that the Buddha said: He of the monks who is arahat, Who has accomplished all there was to do, Who drug-immune does live the final life: He might say thus: ' "I" say '; 'they say it is "mine." ' So saying he, expert in usages Of men, aware of the worth of common names, Would speak merely conforming to such use. As Howard explained, concepts are helpful to understand the world, and we also need them to understand paramattha dhammas. They can also be a trap, as he said. That is, if we do not know the difference between concepts and paramattha dhammas. Thus, wrong view and ignorance make them into a trap. Long ago I heard of someone who was in a meditation center and thought that she should not look at her watch, and that she should not recognize her parents. But insight should be developed very naturally, otherwise it is attachment, not paññå. Some people believe that they have to lead two kinds of lives: their meditation life and their daily life. But whatever one does is conditioned, and gradually we can learn that there are in the ultimate sense nama and rupa arising because of conditions. Usually we only pay attention to concepts, we have done this our whole life and during many former lives, we do not have to be reminded of concepts. Through the Buddha's teachings we learn that in the ultimate sense there are only nama and rupa and that in developing vipassanå we can come to realize the truth directly. Sati can be aware of what appears through the six doors, but there are very few moments of sati in a day. We cannot force sati by special practices, then attachment to a result is in the way again. What we need, as Khun Sujin often said, is listening to the Dhamma and considering it. We need reminders of the fact that paramattha dhammas appear in daily life, no need to go apart. We can pursue all our hobbies, do our work. We will not fall in a hole in the street, we will not drive carelessly, because we know what different things and situations are. But in between, if there is a short moment of sati, understanding can develop. It is so short anyway, and then there is thinking again of concepts for a long time, that is natural. How could awareness of realities interfere with daily life? On the contrary, when there is sati accompanying the kusala citta, arising sometimes in between, we shall do our chores with more efficiency. Thinking of concepts is natural, and we can learn that also thinking is a conditioned nama. Awareness of nama and rupa is not a matter of deconstructing concepts into entities, I would not put it this way. We don't do anything with concepts, we think of a person, that is one moment of thinking. At another moment there can be awareness of what is seen or of the thinking itself, it depends on conditions what the object of citta is. Summarizing, no need to lead an unnatural life and only pay attention to paramattha dhammas, but, it is beneficial if we remind one another of paramattha dhammas in daily life. Paññå is so weak, we need reminders. That is why I appreciate so much the reminders of Sarah and Robert K. Looking forward to these. Nina. 7433 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 15, 2001 1:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] three rounds op 12-08-2001 18:09 schreef m. nease op m nease: > --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Sati has to study with awareness the characteristic of >> visible object which > appears, until one knows clearly that what appears > through eyes is only > colour. > Where you write, 'until one knows clearly' what is the > nature of this knowledge (since there's obviously no > one knowing)? Is it conceptual understanding > 'assembling' itself out of the memories of many recent > instants of sati, or is it yet another instantaneous > and conventionally unknowable moment? > > In other words, when 'sati studies with awareness the > characteristic of visible object which appears', what > accumulates as a result? Conceptual understanding > (vitakka, I guess), or pa??aa which can only be > 'known' by other incomprehensively brief dhammas--or > both, or neither? >Dear Mike, When sati studies visible object, there is a beginning of right understanding, paññå, but it is very weak. There have to be countless moments of awareness again, so that right understanding of paramattha dhammas can be accumulated. When sati is aware, and studies, this is different from studying a Dhamma book, which is understanding of the level of pariyatti, theoretical understanding, which is however a firm foundation of the practice, pa.tipatti, eventually leading to the realization of the truth, pa.tivedha. Pariyatti is not just vitakka, or as you say, conceptual thinking; it is paññå, right understanding accompanying kusala citta. Vitakka accompanies many cittas, also akusala cittas which think with attachment of concepts. I would not use the term conceptual thinking for pariyatti. When you study a Dhamma book, you read about realities and there are concepts that are used for denoting realities. Even while reading or listening there can be moments of awareness of nama and rupa in between. Another way of explaning different levels of understanding: there are three rounds of understanding the four noble truths: knowledge of what should be realized (sacca ~naa.na), the practice, developing direct understanding of realities (kicca ~naa.na) and the direct realization of the truth (kata ~naa.na). (Commentary to the Kindred Sayongs V, Book XII, Ch 2,§1, The Foundation of the Kingdom of the Norm). Khun Sujin often stresses these three rounds to indicate that paññå develops gradually, going through different stages. Best wishes, Nina. 7434 From: Howard Date: Tue Aug 14, 2001 10:39pm Subject: The Paradox of Volition Hi, all - All dhammas other than nibbana arise according to causes and conditions. This includes acts of volition. Volition never arises without cause, randomly, but only when the conditions necessary for its arising have come together. Are we unhappy with this? I think so. But if volition were to arise randomly, without cause, there where would lie any source of pleasure in that? What would be "free will" if volition arose in such a manner? We would be at least as unhappy if choosing were to be choosing for no reason whatsoever! The fact is that given that volition, as all other worldly dhammas, only arises when the necessary conditions are in place, there is no *uncaused* choosing to act volitionally; it just happens when it is appropriate for it to happen. After all, any choosing to act volitionally is, itself, an act of volition, which is not random, but caused. So we seem caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of strict determinism and strict randomness, between a rock and a hard place. The middle way out of this dilemma seems to elude us. But why does this upset us so much? Why is this an obsessive philosophical problem for us? I suspect that we are consumed by this because we are distraught over the idea that WE might not be able to exercise free will. But there IS no "we". There is no self to be exercising anything!! I suspect that the paradox/problem of volition is a pseudo-problem which will be solved by its disappearance. When? With the advent of full liberation, if not sooner. And meanwhile, we can be happy that conditions have brought "us" to the current happy circumstances in which we can study and practice the Dhamma. 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) 7435 From: Victor Date: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:20am Subject: Re: Satipatthana (was Testing - Erik --- <> wrote: > Good to hear from you again, Victor. I hope you don't mind if I put > in my two cents' worth. > > --- <> wrote: > > [snip] > > There is no Robert; > > [snip] > > > > > > robert > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > You wrote "There is no Robert". Could you explain who you were > > referring to by the name "Robert"? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > As I understand it it isn't 'who', but 'what'--that is, a confluence > of continuous conditions resulting from a very great number of > conditions with nearly identical 'histories', I guess. The 'who' is > a kind of dancing image resulting from the present manifestations of > these conditions. Not real at all, but much more convincingly so > than the momentary constituents which seem to give it life. > > The problem the Buddha defined, in a sense, is 'taking it personally'- > -whether form, feeling, perception, mental formations or > consciousnesses. > > For sure there is no Robert, no Victor and no Mike, except on a very > superficial level. At least that's the way I see it. What do you > think? Hi Mike, Good to hear from you again too. Are you a confluence of continuous conditions resulting from a very great number of conditions with nearly identical 'histories'? Are you a kind of dancing image resulting from the present manifestations of these conditions? The names "Robert", "Victor", "Mike" are used for designation. I use the name "Mike" to refer to you, and you use it to refer to yourself. Similary, you use the name "Victor" to refer to me, and I use it to refer to myself. What do you think? Does the view "there is no Mike, no Victor, no Robert" convey any of the three characteristics of the conditioned phenomenon; namely, form(or feeling, or perception, or formations, or consciousness) is impermanent, dukkha, to be regarded as it actually is thus: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self"? If so, how? Metta, Victor 7436 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:36am Subject: Re: Satipatthana , Dear Howard, I'm at an internet cafe so can only give a quickly thought out reply to your post. > > >Robert: Now there is seeing, were the javana cittas after that > > moment of seeing kusala or akusala? There are so > > many different types of citta. Now I am typing, the > > cittas that condition the movement of the hand are not > > vipaka (result) they are different from the vipaka > > cittas that are seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and > > smelling. These are all realities they are happening > > now again and again. How much do we know about them? > > They are anatta, uncontrollable, aniccum, gone > > already. The buddha said in the sutta above "with insight let him > see > > Each presently arisen state; > > Let him know that and be sure of it,"" > > The development of satipatthana is about > > seeing these dhammas now,as they appear. Life is so > > short- > > namas and rupas are arising and passing away at this > > moment. > > ERIK: The Buddha seems to say this, but not in the way you're putting it. > More specifically, the Buddha instructs us in Mindfulness of the > Breath: > > "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of > itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally > & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the > phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon > of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of > origination & passing away with regard to the body [Erik: do you > consider the "body" a "paramattha dhamma"? Enquiring minds want to > know! :)]. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. The mind is used here, and a conventional object is being observed. This is all that one *can* do at less than the most advanced stages of insight meditation. ------------------------------------------------------- Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to > the extent of knowledge & remembrance [Erik: uh oh! "Remembrance"? > What has this to do with "right now"? Please elaborate for us here, > Robert! :)]. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. This, I think, is an aspect of "clear comprehension". ------------------------------------------------------- Dear Howard I think that when we read the suttas we should not forget what we know from the Abhidhamma. It is sometimes thought that the Dhamma is easy to understand, but I think this is not so. The Buddha knew how difficult it was for people to understand the deep aspects of Dhamma. After his enlightenment he was at first inclined not to teach the Dhamma when he reflected on the tendencies of people and the Dhammas extreme profundity (all Buddha's have this initial hestitation the commentaries say). Many people do not like the idea that there is no self and that all dhammas are uncontrollable. In the 'Discourse to Vacchagotta on Fire' (Aggi- Vacchagotta-sutta, Majjhima Nikaya II, Paribbajaka-vagga)the Buddha said to Vacchagotta: "".. this dhamma is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful, excellent, beyond dialectic, subtle, intelligible to the wise;.."" The Atthasalini refers to (translated as the expositor p31)those monks who know sutta but don't know Abhidhamma "the bhikkhu who is ill-trained in the Suttas gets a wrong idea, ..consequently he arrives at wrong view" It notes that this is because the suttas use conventional language. If one doesn't have clear understanding of the difference between conventional truth and paramattha dhammas this is bound to happen. (I picked up more copies of Realities and Concepts while in bangkok and would be happy to send you a copy Howard? And anyone else on the list -please write) Now about the meaning of 'Body' in the satipatthana sutta quoted above and what awareness of the 'body' means. Here is a section from the attahakatha to the satipatthana sutta . """"The Buddha, after dealing in the aforesaid manner with body- contemplation in the form of respiration-meditation, in detail, said: "And further," in order to deal exhaustively with body- contemplation, here, according to the meditation on the modes of deportment [iriyapatha]. Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going (a bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness. Going. The term is applicable both to the awareness of the fact of moving on and to the knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities of moving on. The terms sitting, standing and lying down, too, are applicable in the general sense of awareness and in the particular sense of knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities. Here (in this discourse) the particular and not the general sense of awareness is to be taken. "" ENDQUOTE Howard, please note "knowledge of the (true) characteristic quality" (which refers exclusively to paramattha dhamma)and that "the particular and NOT the general sense of awareness is to be taken." It carries on: "From the sort of mere awareness denoted by reference to canines and the like, proceeds the idea of a soul, the perverted perception, with the belief that there is a doer and an experiencer. One who does not uproot or remove that wrong perception owing to non- opposition to that perception and to absence of contemplative practice cannot be called one who develops anything like a subject of meditation."" Endquote. Hope this helps. On your questions about determinism I will try to answer later. best wishes robert 7437 From: m. nease Date: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:49am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Satipatthana (was Testing - Erik Hello Again, Victor, --- Victor wrote: > Are you a confluence of continuous conditions > resulting from a very > great number of conditions with nearly identical > 'histories'? Are > you a kind of dancing image resulting from the > present manifestations > of these conditions? Yes--as I see it, that's what