7600 From: Erik Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 4:35pm Subject: The Myth of the Dhamma --- Erik wrote: > Dear Rikpa > > How are you this fine day? > > You know, I agree with you that speculating is not something Buddha encouraged, but what did you learn from those fairy tales if not that a) animals are always trying to get you, b) they are very, very clever, and c) they are not afraid to swim thousands of miles to get you? Great question, Joshua! :) The beauty of any well-spoken myth (like the Buddha's Dharma) is that it can be understood at many levels, and as such can enlighten certain principles--even subtle and profound ones--such that we are able to get the very most out of that myth, to whatever degree we're presently able to understand it and make use of it. Of course, as wisdom and insight grow, understanding of what may have at first appeared quite simple may reveal new dimensions and depths of profundity we could never have imagined upon our first hearing of a given myth--which is why I believe it is very beneficial to diligently seek out and try to understand the deeper meanings of any time-tested myth. Because any good myth, like the myth the Buddha spun, may be seen and understood at so many levels, and the level at which we first understand it may be a very suiperficial (yet nonetheless helpful) one indeed, with its true meaning yet hidden deeply away from us, dependent entirely upon our present degree of penetration of insight into its deeper meaning. And if we understand what the Buddha taught about emptiness and dependent origination, we must come to see that we are all living in a totally mythological world to begin with!--a world of constructs and labels and designations arising from other labels and designations that arise in dependence on other labels and designations, none of which have any substantial reality in and of themselves apart from the awareness conditioned by kamma creating these very distinctions in the first place! For example, there is no difference between the so-called material basis of a "pen" when viewed by a human or when viewed by a dog, to use a famous example employed by Geshe Michael Roach on the teachings on karma and emptiness, and how the two relate to one another. And yet, when we humans perceive "pen," there are an entirely different set of congnitive associations that tag along with that, such that we "see," in our minds, a "pen." And we see a "pen" SOLELY based on our ability to contextualize this cylindrical object via mental constructs overlaid onto a dark-liquid-filled cylindrical object, which is used conventionally to perform the function of writing; and also ercognize that this function of "writing" is in turn dependent on a fabrication we call language, which is in turn dependent on fabrications we call form, feeling, perception, mental impressions, and consciousness, which are in turn dependent on the notion of "self," the primary delusion the Buddha's myths were designed to lead us out of. To put it more simply, even though a dog and a human may see the very same cylindrical object we label "pen" (which is in turn composed of smaller cylindrical objects and pieces of metal, ink, and so on, which are in turn composed of molecules, that are in turn composed of atoms, which are composed of subatomic particles, which, as modern physics has demonstrated lack any subsatntial nature in & of themselves to begin with, being mere arisings and passings away that can even behave in seemingly contradictory ways dependent on how they're viewed--as possiblwe "waves," or as "particles," but I digress), a dog and a human see two very different things indeed! In the case of us fortunate enough to have the karma to see a "pen" (when the eye-sene makes conastct with these various shapes and colors the conditions the arising of long chain of mental fabrications and associations leading to the idea "pen" to arise) we see a writing implement. However, those beings with the unfortunate karma to have been born in the form of an animal, in this case a dog, will have the karma to see perhaps (speculating here, since it's impossible to know another's actual mind-state and that "dog" could very well be an enlightened emanation of a Buddha, after all) a "chewable object," or if it's a more playful dog, perhaps as a stick to be happily thrown in a agme of "fetch"! So Joshua, there is the exact physical basis present in this case, and yet there is a VERY different perception of that same collection of parts! And that difference between a "chewable object" and a "pen" is NONE OTHER THAN KAMMA-VIPAKA, or more precisely, the sum-total result of all our previously accumulated thoughts, words, actions! This is the immutable law (in the same way gravity is an immutable law of kamma and its results. That we are literally FORCED to see a pen, in dependence on the karma we have as humans, who have been raised in an environment where there is written language, where there is the technology to produce ink-filled writing implements, etc. This law of kamma is true for ALL sentient beings, from hell-beings all the way up to those on the brink of Buddhahood! In the case of hell-beings, their previously accumulated tendencies toward anger and hatred FORCE them to see terrifying visions, FORCE them to see themselves enchained, tortured mercilessly (and one need not even be a hell-being to experience such torments, as anyone who has ever visited Tuol Sleng "Genocide Prison" just outside Phon Phen, Cambodia, can see directly). Or through perhaps extreme stinginess one will come to see oneself in a state of constant want, grasping, neediness, always hungry, never enough material goods, desperately impoverished, etc. Or perhaps one has been extremely kind and generous and is thereby forced to see oneself living in splendorous gardens, hear celestial music, taste the most sensually delightful food, etc. etc. And yet--no matter whether we are being forced by our previous accumulations to see hellish, nightmarish agony-filled realms; or whether we are forced to see the most beautiful sights, hear the most beautiful sounds, smell the most delightful fragrances, taste the most delightful food, tough the most pleasant objects--within all these states there is still suffering: there is still birth; there is still old age; there is still sickness; there is still death. Because this is still SAMSARA. And again, all of these conitions are merely composed of all these mental constructs and labels that arise in SOLE DEPENDENCE on what we call kamma--out volitional choices, in other words. It is in dependence on these factors that the Buddha taught this very Truth of Suffering; its Origin; its Cessation; and the Path Leading to its Cessation. And it is to the degree we have penetrated the Noble Truth of Suffering, its Origin, its Cessation, and the Path leading to its cessation, that makes the diffefrence between whether we see this world of samsara as something defiled, or, of we possess the purified vision of a Buddha--to playfully see this world these non-truly- existent contructs we label "sentient beings" (for whom this non- truly-existent suffering nonetheless appears VERY real, even though as we have seen in truth even this suffering is a total fabrication arising from a set of accumulated tendencies stretching back to beginningless time) perceive as suffering of birth, old age, sickness, and death, as none other than a Buddha-paradise, Nirvana itself! May all beings see this world as a pure Buddha-field! :) :) :) 7601 From: Sarah Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 5:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Suan (& Erik), --- Suan Lu Zaw wrote: > > > Dear Sarah > > How have you been? How is your stay in Hong Kong? Pretty hot right now and lots of hustle bustle as Num described...but we like it! Must be pretty cool and breezy these days in Canberra! I'm waiting for you to bump into Michael Jackson and give him dsg best wishes! (not Michael Jackson, the pop star;-) > Back to our discussion: > You wrote: > > "Suan, it all sounds very easy as af anyone can just decide to go for > levels of jhana without any understanding of the development of > samatha and without clearly understand how a particular object calms > the mind or the difference between kusala and akusala cittas > (wholesome and unwholesome mental states) at this moment." > > I agree with you. It is a very difficult path for us just to reach > the stage of pre-jhanic concentration (upaca samadhi). > > That is why I wrote: > > "So if you ever get to the stage of pre-jhanic concentration (upaca > samadhi), you won't stop at there." > > Please notice the adverb "ever" in the above statement. > > I was merely following the flow of Sakula's questions, so I had to > start with the assumption that a hypothetical woman sush as Sakula > had already attained pre-jhanic concentration. Once you got there, > though, you would aim at higher levels. OK, maybe I misunderstood a little here....you're talking about higher levels of samatha and jhana practice, starting with this assumption, which may well be true. > > You also wrote: > > "I know that many teachers encourage these views, but I find them > quite disturbing." > > You must forgive me, Sarah, I do not understand the above statement. > What do "these views" refer to? Are there any views in my message > that you find disturbing? If so, please help me identify them so that > I could properly address them to your satisfaction. What I meant, but perhaps clumsily didn't express well, was what I wrote in the first paragraph which you've already agreed with. In other words, I was talking about the beginning of the development of samatha. I find it disturbing to read that anyone can attain jhana with no understanding of moments of samatha even. > > But, I do stand by my following statements: > > "The most important keyword to remember to make jhana within our > reach is the phrase ".. only by keeping away from sensuous > preoccupations (kamesu vivicceva)". Once you understand this > keyword and like the idea of it, you are on your way to jhana. > Nothing can stop you. Jhana is within reach of anyone who could turn > their back on sensuous preoccupations. As simple as that (in theory, > of course)!" > > Please kindly read (kamesu vivicceva, my spelling error) as vivicceva > kamehi. > > You also asked: > > "What about as soon as we open our eyes or hear a sound? Sensuous > preoccupations immediately! No self that can stop or control clinging > at these times." > > Not necessarily so, Sarah, I am afraid. You sounded somewhat Freudian > here. But, whatever we see or hear do not necessarily bring > about the mental events with clinging or greed (lobhamula cittani) > responsible for sensuous pre-occupations. I think that for most of us, there is so very little understanding in the day of moments of clinging (lobha). All we know is when there are obvious gross degrees of it appearing. Just as when we talk about mana (conceit), there may be some understanding of mana when we find ourselves superior to others, but we begin to see more subtle shades appearing when we consider its nature more. And what we consider to be subtle shades of mana now will be seen as very gross shades when more wisdom has been accumulated! What about the mana when we get dressed in the morning or touch the keyboard before we even write anything? It darts in so quickly. In the same way with lobha, there are more and more subtle shades to be known. What about when we just look at a glass of water or has Rob once said, when we just look at a neutral coloured wall....lobha as soon as we open our eyes. > > If they were true as you adviced, you would have contradicted > yourself because you wrote the following: > > " any understanding of the development of samatha and without clearly > understand how a particular object calms the mind or the difference > between kusala and akusala cittas (wholesome and unwholesome mental > states) at this moment." > > Your statement above clearly shows that there are certain other types > of people whose preoccupatins are other than sensuous ones. There are different moments, different cittas for us all. Even when there is lobha, its characteristic can be known (immediately following its arising to be technical) by sati (awareness) whether at the level of samatha or vipassana. At that moment of awareness, the citta is calm from lobha and akusala. It's a moment of samatha, different from the moment with lobha. Kom mentioned recently how difficult it is to be aware of dana (I think) and how seldom there is any understanding when we make an offering as to which moments are kusala and which are akusala (whether with mana or lobha or whatever). If there is no knowing what is skilful and what isn't skilful, samatha cannot begin to develop. This was my point. With understanding, it can begin (for anyone), but not at the moments of lobha. Just one moment of samatha, and then another later. That's the beginning, but it has to be with right understanding. Perhaps I'll just digress quickly to the yoga example which Erik wrote about. Like Erik, my friends who do yoga are sure they have many noble qualities which he mentioned while practising such as calmness, concentration, viriya (energy), mental pliancy. They even talk about generosity to themselves! For me, I practise daily because I enjoy it very much (lots of lobha), have a lot of attachment to the body, feel more energetic in my work afterwards (nothing kusala about this energy) and like the quiet, pleasant, calm feeling. Again, this is not calm as in samatha which must have one of the 40 objects. It is the pleasant feeling associated with lobha or unwholesome samadhi mostly. At this moment, if there isn't a citta of sila, dana or bhavana, it isn't wholesome. For example, when we read about kaya-lahuta (lightness of mental factors) and citta-lahuta (lightness of citta), people have an idea that these refer to feeling light and energetic in a conventional sense. In fact they have to refer to wholesome states of mind (even if one is on one's death-bed, they can arise). They're opposed to thina and middha (sloth and torpor) which we discussed sometime back as having nothing to do with conventional slugishness.Thina and middha refer to sluggishness with regard to skilful states of mind. Kaya-muduta (pliancy of cetasikas) and citta muduta (pliancy of citta) are also interesting. They are the opponents of wrong view and conceit. As the mana discussions have shown recently, when there is mana, there is mental rigidity or intolerance and comparing. So kaya muduta has nothing to do with the body or flexibility! Again Nina discusses all these mental factors in great detail in 'Cetasikas. None of this means there cannot be wholesome cittas whilst practising yoga or swimming (you didn't follow that suggestion, Erik!), or that it's wrong to follow these activities because we know there is bound to be a lot of lobha whatever we do. Just better, I'd say, to know 'oneself' better and better and begin to see a little more than before how often lobha arises even now while we're considering dhamma! Suan, please excuse me for rambling onto Erik's post....(I'll just wait for the 'NO NO SARAH, you're quite WRONG;-)) Suan, please keep up your helpful contributions and let me know if we're still on different tracks! Sarah 7602 From: Erik Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 7:08pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Suan (& Erik), > Perhaps I'll just digress quickly to the yoga example which Erik wrote about. > Like Erik, my friends who do yoga are sure they have many noble qualities which > he mentioned while practising such as calmness, concentration, viriya (energy), > mental pliancy. They even talk about generosity to themselves! This is very good to hear! I am happy to hear that yoga also engenders in others calm, concentration, energy, mental pliancy, and even the talk about generosity toward themselves (as I have been taught is the right place to begin--at least by my lamas and at Wat Mahatat--beginning all lovingkindness meditations with generating lovingkindness toward ourselves, and then after this extending lovingkindness out to others). > For me, I practise daily because I enjoy it very much (lots of lobha), have a > lot of attachment to the body, feel more energetic in my work afterwards > (nothing kusala about this energy) and like the quiet, pleasant, calm feeling. > Again, this is not calm as in samatha which must have one of the 40 objects. It > is the pleasant feeling associated with lobha or unwholesome samadhi mostly. You sound like you're being way too hard hard on yourself here, Sarah! :) Perhaps a little gentleness and generiostity toward your own kusala efforts is in order here! :) :) :) In keeping with the teaching on first extending lovingkindness toward ourselves, might you not be able to rejoice and simlpy be happy with yourself in practicing a wholesome activity like yoga, even if this practice isn't technically of the insight variety, even if there are moments of lobha, even if there is mana? I mean, who's perfect (besides a Buddha)? As you said to me about my nasty smoking habit, there's no sense being too hard on ourselves over the fact we have afflictions, right? :) We need to be aware of them and work with this reality, but ther's no point getting overly worried about having mana, nor about lobha, as this worry (kukucca) is a hindrance in & of itself! (Jeez, all this Middle Way business again!) > At this moment, if there isn't a citta of sila, dana or bhavana, it isn't > wholesome. For example, when we read about kaya-lahuta (lightness of mental > factors) and citta-lahuta (lightness of citta), people have an idea that these > refer to feeling light and energetic in a conventional sense. In fact they > have to refer to wholesome states of mind (even if one is on one's death-bed, > they can arise). They're opposed to thina and middha (sloth and torpor) which > we discussed sometime back as having nothing to do with conventional > slugishness.Thina and middha refer to sluggishness with regard to skilful > states of mind. > Kaya-muduta (pliancy of cetasikas) and citta muduta (pliancy of citta) are also > interesting. They are the opponents of wrong view and conceit. As the mana > discussions have shown recently, when there is mana, there is mental rigidity > or intolerance and comparing. So kaya muduta has nothing to do with the body or > flexibility! I would question this interpretation using only "cetasikas" (how do mental factorsrelate to the body, other than the mind & body being they are mutuality conditions for one another?), given it is specifically called as KAYA muduta. I am not suggesting this in the sense we can stretch into various contortions performing yoga asanas, but am referring to a sort of pliancy and suppleness to the body that can be experienced, for example, in seated meditation, when there is the development of samatha & absorption. There is a special "lightness & pliancy" which is one of the characteristics of effective samatha and jhana meditation, that carries out throughout the day even outsidfe of formal meditation practice one can experience. These factors are experienced directly by meditators once one's meditation begins to get traction. > None of this means there cannot be wholesome cittas whilst practising yoga or > swimming (you didn't follow that suggestion, Erik!), or that it's wrong to > follow these activities because we know there is bound to be a lot of lobha > whatever we do. Just better, I'd say, to know 'oneself' better and better and > begin to see a little more than before how often lobha arises even now while > we're considering dhamma! Great advice, Sarah! And appreciate your filling in some more details on these six yugalas! :) 7603 From: Herman Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 7:12pm Subject: Re: The limits of awareness: Awareness Of Anger As Kusala Dear Suan, I read from your post that any mindfulness is kusala. Would it be true to say that any state where mindfulness was absent eg sleep, was therefore akusala? Thank you herman --- Suan Lu Zaw wrote: > > > > Dear Herman > > How are you? > > You asked: > > "Would that mean that if I was aware of anger, that this would be a > kusala moment?" > > Yes, if you are aware of anger in the sense of sati (recollection, > mindfulness), that would be a kusala moment. > > The supporting Pali in the words of the Buddha is as follows. > > "sadosam va cittam `sadosam cittan'ti pajanati" > > "Monks, how does the monk live as an observer of the mind in the > mind? .....Monks, here, the monk knows comprehensively the mind with > anger as the mind with anger..." > > The above quotation comes from Section 114, Cittanupassana, > Mahasatipatthana Suttam, Mulapannasa, Majjimanikaya. > > You also asked: > > "Is kusala/akusla considered absolute eg is all anger akusala, is all > dana kusala?" > > Yes,each of them should be considered as such because kusala and > akusala gives different results. But, awareness of akusala can bring > about kusala as a result. Even if one's anger has transformed one > into a kind individual later for various reasons such as regret, (even > if anger served as the cause of kindness) anger at the moment of > arising is akusala. Dana at the moment of arising is kusala even if > motivation for it was based on calculated selfishness. > > > With regards, > > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org/ 7604 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 9:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Mana dear erik, this is what u said: > I have given this isseue much careful consideration, but still, this > mana business is TOUGH! It appears in so many guises. It's a real > shape-shifter, appearing at one moment as the conceited "king" > issuing his edicts; the next as the "humble" beggar playing oh-so > lowly, the next as comparing my progess with others; the next as the > conceit of appearing so open and honest about my mana! Ack! it is Tough and it is True, I think you are approaching the area of 'Cheating' nature of the mind. (May be a year or year and a half ago )we discussed it in the group. I did a search and found the posts. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3543 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3544 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3545 Basically, the akusala dhammas cheat disguising as kusalas.Exactly as the word you used ,'shape-shifter's. The path is tough, but 'knocking-out'ly interesting. regards gayan 7605 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 9:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Herman --- Herman wrote: > Jon, > > To be totally honest, I wouldn't know kusala or akusala if I fell > over them. Especially since joining this forum. This is not a > criticism of the forum, by the way. How on earth do I know the > difference between wrong view and kusala? Where is the yardstick that > tells me that? Could there not be a deception lurking near every > citta that suggests wholesomeness? These are all very valid and useful questions. It is easy I think to fall into the trap of thinking one knows by direct experience when actually one only knows by deduction from the surrounding circumstances eg. 'I am discussing dhamma it must be kusala', or 'I am helping someone it must be dana', or 'I am studying the moment it must be awareness' etc. This is in truth just a form of thinking. Knowing by direct experience refers to panna that knows the characteristic of the reality. Each reality has its own unique characteristic (seeing, visible object, feeling, aversion etc). In addition, the realities that are kusala share the characteristic of being kusala. There is no yardstick by which we can measure these characteristics, but there is abundant description of them in the teachings. That is why I think it is important to have an understanding of things at that level. As we have seen with the recent discussion on mana, there are many aspects to it that we probably have not been aware of, even if e have heard it before, and some of we may well have been taking for kusala. So knowing more about this can help us to begin to understand directly the different realities. The good thing is, we needn't feel we have to know one kind of reality sooner than or better than another. If the characteristic that is kusala does not appear directly, that is not a problem. The more we know about akusala and recognise it when it arises, the less likely we are to take it for kusala, which is what may be happening otherwise. So keep up the healthy scepticism! > What is the basis for a monks confidence that there was a wholesome > citta? I think knowing akusala well can be a good basis, because the difference when kusala arises and appears should then be more apparent. Jon 7606 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:07am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief! op 19-08-2001 20:04 schreef Kom Tukovinit op Kom Tukovinit: Nina: as I explained in "Conditions", Ch 14, jhana-factors > can be taken in >> a wide sense and then, according to the Patthana, akusala jhana- > factors are >> related to the associated aggregates by jhana-condition. See also >> Dhammasangani, in the Summary, where jhana-factors are mentioned > arising >> with kusala citta which is unaccompanied by panna and also with > akusala >> citta (§147, and § 397 a) Without the jhana-factors good or evil > deeds >> cannot be performed. > Kom: . Do you by > any chance have further explanation about why Domanassa would assist > the citta to be fixed on the object (but not anger, for example)? I > think I can understand about how the rest of the factors assist the > citta in being fixed on the object, but I still don't see how > domanasa does this. Nina: In the Guide to Conditional Relations, by U Narada, Ch II, 17 Jhana Condition) it is explained that the jhanafactors make the associated states fix themselves formly to pleasant and unpleasant objects. We should see domanassa not in isolation, but associated with the other jhanafactors. He gives examples taking his material from the commentaries, but does not mention from which texts. It is stated that someone could not shoot birds and animals without the jhanafactors. He has to aim and concentrate on the animal he will shoot. Examples and analogies he gives are interesting. He says, "For even in the case of hate which offends, it is one-pointedness of mind that firmly fixes the mind on the unpleasant object although painful feeling is experienced with that object. We need the jhanafactors to pronounce one word correctly, he says. Also when there is lobha, desire for extraordinary experiences, jhanafactors can make the associated dhammas fix firmly on a pleasant object. Someone may take for real jhana what is not, he can be misled. You dealt again with another aspect, domanassa that can be pursued, as explained in the Co. This is actually similar to desire that should not be pursued and that could be pursued, in the 'Guide", the Netti, that Robert K. brought up some time ago. A delicate question, we studied the Pali commentary but are not finished with it. . I must run along now, preparing for a week of vacation next week. Nina. > > 7607 From: Joshua Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 4:36am Subject: Book recomendatons 1. We're All Doing Time, by Bo Lozoff 2. Wisdom of the Desert, by Thomas Merton These books are especially good for dogmatists & sectarians. I know they help me out with this every time I read them. Especially 'We're all doing time'. I cry (in my silent, tough-guy way) nearly every time I read the letters section. Recently, my mother got tested for breast cancer. We won't know if she has it or not for while, I think. It hasn't bothered me much, but I plan to ordain as a monk someday, and if she does have it and there's no one to take care of her, it wouldn't be very Buddhist to ordain, would it? She's been fretting a little over the idea of me becoming a monk. There's a local Wat here, but I don't think they have any monks who speak English, and in 1991 all the monks, a nun, a novice & attendent were all shot dead by (supposedly) 2 teenagers. Anyway, it will be 2 years before I can do it, and this gives me ample time to think it over (if my mother doesn't have cancer). Personally, Abhayagiri seems like a good place. Ajahn Chah goes in my Holy Trinity (along with Anders & Schopenhauer) of folks who clarified Buddhism for me, and this is in his "lineage", I suppose. 7608 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 6:15am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Ripka and Sarah, I was very happy to read this exchange. It seems in such a helpful and non-dogmatic spirit. Isn't it great if we can be compassionate and find ways to help ourselves as well as others? The path, not to complain, is so hard...... If there are wholesome ways of making it work for each of us, isn't that great? One of the things the Buddha was explicit about was that hardship and asceticism in and of themselves brought us no closer to realization. Wouldn't it be a form of 'fasting' to refrain from yoga, or to be unduly unhappy about it, if it supports your ability to progress, rather than distracting from it? That would be my main criterion. I was a yoga teacher for almost 15 years. I guess I still am, but have no one to teach at the moment, and not much time to do it as it is not my main line of work at the moment. One of my teachers became deeply involved with the long meditation retreats at the Insight center at Barre, Mass., in the U.S., and sat almost constantly there for three years, doing three month retreats. He apparently reached a deep level of insight during this time. One of the questions was whether or not it was okay for him to do yoga sessions inbetween sitting. The outcome was that he explained that for him to be able to not be distracted by physical symptoms that beset him when he didn't do yoga, it was necessary, and that was ultimately accepted. He could have just 'noted' the physical problems and not done anything to 'clear out' his body, but at his advanced stage of practice it was considered counter-productive to create unnecessary problems. And he did not over-'indulge' in the yoga, just did it the way he took his noon day meal or his walking meditations. Anyway, I thought your response to Sarah, Ripka, was very open and helpful. I hope we can all be compassionate to ourselves and find skillful means to make the path *work*, not make it harder than it already is. Another note: Can you imagine the Buddha being too stiff in the hips to assume the full lotus posture? Not really, but what about the rest of us? It is not unhelpful to work towards having a body that can cooperate with the best possible physical forms for our work. Robert ================================== --- Erik wrote: > --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear Suan (& Erik), > > > Perhaps I'll just digress quickly to the yoga example which Erik > wrote about. > > Like Erik, my friends who do yoga are sure they have many noble > qualities which > > he mentioned while practising such as calmness, concentration, > viriya (energy), > > mental pliancy. They even talk about generosity to themselves! > > This is very good to hear! I am happy to hear that yoga also > engenders in others calm, concentration, energy, mental pliancy, and > even the talk about generosity toward themselves (as I have been > taught is the right place to begin--at least by my lamas and at Wat > Mahatat--beginning all lovingkindness meditations with generating > lovingkindness toward ourselves, and then after this extending > lovingkindness out to others). > > > For me, I practise daily because I enjoy it very much (lots of > lobha), have a > > lot of attachment to the body, feel more energetic in my work > afterwards > > (nothing kusala about this energy) and like the quiet, pleasant, > calm feeling. > > Again, this is not calm as in samatha which must have one of the 40 > objects. It > > is the pleasant feeling associated with lobha or unwholesome > samadhi mostly. > > You sound like you're being way too hard hard on yourself here, > Sarah! :) Perhaps a little gentleness and generiostity toward your > own kusala efforts is in order here! :) :) :) > > In keeping with the teaching on first extending lovingkindness toward > ourselves, might you not be able to rejoice and simlpy be happy with > yourself in practicing a wholesome activity like yoga, even if this > practice isn't technically of the insight variety, even if there are > moments of lobha, even if there is mana? > > I mean, who's perfect (besides a Buddha)? As you said to me about my > nasty smoking habit, there's no sense being too hard on ourselves > over the fact we have afflictions, right? :) We need to be aware of > them and work with this reality, but ther's no point getting overly > worried about having mana, nor about lobha, as this worry (kukucca) > is a hindrance in & of itself! (Jeez, all this Middle Way business > again!) > > > At this moment, if there isn't a citta of sila, dana or bhavana, it > isn't > > wholesome. For example, when we read about kaya-lahuta (lightness > of mental > > factors) and citta-lahuta (lightness of citta), people have an idea > that these > > refer to feeling light and energetic in a conventional sense. In > fact they > > have to refer to wholesome states of mind (even if one is on one's > death-bed, > > they can arise). They're opposed to thina and middha (sloth and > torpor) which > > we discussed sometime back as having nothing to do with conventional > > slugishness.Thina and middha refer to sluggishness with regard to > skilful > > states of mind. > > > Kaya-muduta (pliancy of cetasikas) and citta muduta (pliancy of > citta) are also > > interesting. They are the opponents of wrong view and conceit. As > the mana > > discussions have shown recently, when there is mana, there is > mental rigidity > > or intolerance and comparing. So kaya muduta has nothing to do with > the body or > > flexibility! > > I would question this interpretation using only "cetasikas" (how do > mental factorsrelate to the body, other than the mind & body being > they are mutuality conditions for one another?), given it is > specifically called as KAYA muduta. > > I am not suggesting this in the sense we can stretch into various > contortions performing yoga asanas, but am referring to a sort of > pliancy and suppleness to the body that can be experienced, for > example, in seated meditation, when there is the development of > samatha & absorption. There is a special "lightness & pliancy" which > is one of the characteristics of effective samatha and jhana > meditation, that carries out throughout the day even outsidfe of > formal meditation practice one can experience. These factors are > experienced directly by meditators once one's meditation begins to > get traction. > > > None of this means there cannot be wholesome cittas whilst > practising yoga or > > swimming (you didn't follow that suggestion, Erik!), or that it's > wrong to > > follow these activities because we know there is bound to be a lot > of lobha > > whatever we do. Just better, I'd say, to know 'oneself' better and > better and > > begin to see a little more than before how often lobha arises even > now while > > we're considering dhamma! > > Great advice, Sarah! And appreciate your filling in some more details > on these six yugalas! :) > > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 7609 From: Erik Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 11:20am Subject: Re: Book recomendatons --- Erik wrote: Hi Joshua, > Recently, my mother got tested for breast cancer. We won't know if she has it or not for while, I think. It hasn't bothered me much, but I plan to ordain as a monk someday, and if she does have it and there's no one to take care of her, it wouldn't be very Buddhist to ordain, would it? The Buddha taught that it very important to honor take care of our parents. My dear Dhamma-friend Amara asked me to find for her yesterday a wonderful Sutta with a passage addressing taking care of our parents (for a householder, not a monk): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn31.html#to-parents I don't know if this is any help to you with your present dillemma or not. To add a bit to this, I do recall being taught by my (Tibetan) teachers that even more precious than our lamas are our parents. That's almost shocking to hear if you understand how much one is enjoined to revere one's lamas in the Tibetan tradition. > She's been fretting a little over the idea of me becoming a monk. There's a local Wat here, but I don't think they have any monks who speak English, and in 1991 all the monks, a nun, a novice & attendent were all shot dead by (supposedly) 2 teenagers. Was this the Wat in Arizona where several Thai monks were killed a few years ago? > Anyway, it will be 2 years before I can do it, and this gives me ample time to think it over (if my mother doesn't have cancer). Personally, Abhayagiri seems like a good place. Ajahn Chah goes in my Holy Trinity (along with Anders & Schopenhauer) of folks who clarified Buddhism for me, and this is in his "lineage", I suppose. I just have HUGE happiness as regards Anders' amazing contributions here in DSG! And that has nothing to do with the fact he's a fellow Dane, either. He speaks simply some of the best Dhamma I've ever had the pleasure of hearing. Speaking of Schopenhauer, I too found him very helpful at one point in my development--in fact I recall reading him around the same time as I began my Zen practice, in The Will. While Schopenhauer may not have been a Buddhist, I nevertheless found his book "The Will" very helpful--and my favorite paraphrase of his to this day remains: "we're all on this same boat of suffering together, so why be mean to each another; why don't we all love each other instead?". In my case I found Neitzsche helpful as well ("Beyond Good and Evil"), while again, not Buddhist, served to help get me past the notions of absolute good vs. absolute evil and helped me see in a far less dogmatic fashion that I had been accustomed to seeing before, so I consider him one of my great teachers as well. And I think I mentioned Hans Christian Andersen yesterday, so no need to elaborate further on that. Om Shanti, Erik 7610 From: Joshua Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 11:55am Subject: Re: Book recomendatons > The Buddha taught that it very important to honor take care of our > parents. My dear Dhamma-friend Amara asked me to find for her > yesterday a wonderful Sutta with a passage addressing taking care of > our parents (for a householder, not a monk): > Oh, it wasn't really a big dilemma. I wouldn't go off and be a monk if she had cancer in any case. > > I don't know if this is any help to you with your present dillemma or > not. To add a bit to this, I do recall being taught by my (Tibetan) > teachers that even more precious than our lamas are our parents. > That's almost shocking to hear if you understand how much one is > enjoined to revere one's lamas in the Tibetan tradition. > Yep. Like I said, I wouldn't do it unless she was OK. > Was this the Wat in Arizona where several Thai monks were killed a > few years ago? > Same Wat. I can't imagine anything more horrifying than harming monks & nuns. Some of the corpses were supposedly seen with their hands still clasped in prayer. It's hard to feel metta towards such killers, but Lord knows I try. > I just have HUGE happiness as regards Anders' amazing contributions > here in DSG! And that has nothing to do with the fact he's a fellow > Dane, either. He speaks simply some of the best Dhamma I've ever had > the pleasure of hearing. > Words can't express how grateful I am to him. > While Schopenhauer may not have been a Buddhist, I nevertheless found > his book "The Will" very helpful--and my favorite paraphrase of his > to this day remains: "we're all on this same boat of suffering > together, so why be mean to each another; why don't we all love each > other instead?". Amen. In Dhamma Joshua 7611 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 0:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Robert E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > It would be Annihilationist to think that the Tathagata existed and > ceases to be > > with the onset of Parinibbana. But is it Nihilistic to say that the > Tathagata > > never existed as an entity in the first place, and that when the kandhas > dissolve > > having no more tendency to rebirth in his case, they merely do not arise > again? > > I am just re-reading this post again. I am pretty thrilled (I think beyond > the point of being appreciative---must be attachment in this case!) that > you understood both opposing arguments. Now, understanding both > arguments and the rationals for the arguments, you will have a chance for > yourself to find out (perhaps through reading the tipitakas and > commentaries?) what Buddha's explanation was. > > kom ah, I didn't think there was an easy way out...... Robert E. ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 7612 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 0:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message Re: Nibbana Annihilation? ! --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Robert E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > The idea that the consciousness and mental factors can cognize the true > > characteristics of the object, yet *not necessarily penetrate deeply* as > you put > > it, is particularly interesting. > > Yes, only when the wisdom (panna) arises at the moment of cognition (of > realities) that the consciousness and its mental factors can begin to > cognize, remember, penetrate, concentrate on, know thoroughly the true > characteristics of the dhamma. Without panna, there is no way that the > characteristics of impermanence (anicca), dukkha, and non-self (anatta) > can be truly known (beyond the concept). I can understand a cognition that is 'pannic' or a cognition that is 'apannic', but I have trouble understanding 'panna' as something that arises separately from cognition and is added onto it. Perhaps this is just semantics? ...conditioned > consciousness, with panna co-arising, can thoroughly penetrate the > characteristics of other realities, including the unconditioned one. how does panna co-arise with conditioned consciousness? this doesn't make sense to me, probably because i don't understand the mechanics. I can again understand a pannic consciousness arising in a moment, rather than a conditioned one, but the co-arising I don't quite get. > > I think you would agree that there must be some measure of > > understanding that is reserved for the experience of Nibbana itself, and > that > > cannot be accessible to any prior state, however highly developed. > > Yes, only one who have attained successive degrees of vipassana wisdom > can eventually truly know nibbana. > > > So the question is in what way and to what extent Nibbana is > apprehended prior to > > being realized. > > As *concept* only, as far as I know. .......... > Thank you for all the reminders. Thank you for your helpful answers. Robert E. 7613 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 0:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation - Robert E --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Robert E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > I would say that what we think of as Kom or Robert E. does not exist as > an actual > > 'thing'. Instead it is an accumulated impression of various > characteristics, > > actions, etc. You exist for me as certain impressions that I have of > you. Put > > together, they form a mind-image which I call "Kom". The fact that I > experience > > you through the internet or by having coffee with you every day for 20 > years is > > probably inconsequential to the result. Except in the case of knowing > you for a > > long time, I would have an even stronger presumption that I knew who > and what > > *you* were. > > Thank you for putting a close on this thread. Your explanation is clear > and helpful, and I am appreciative of your explanation that regardless of > how we meet, our impressions of each other are just concepts which are > only possible because of sense impressions. thanks, kom. It's a pleasure communicating with you. Maybe in a moment of meeting of minds conceptualization is transcended for a moment. Just a possibility. Best, Robert ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 7614 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:08pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The limits of awareness --- Herman wrote: > Dear Robert, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Cognitive science teaches that awareness is just a bubble of > froth on > > > the ocean of reality. It is a Johny-come-lately in the evolution > of > > > matter. Awareness is a by-product of matter coalesced in a > particular > > > sequence. > > > > I disagree, but have no scientific basis for doing so. Perhaps > this is because I > > believe that science can never prove anything other than what it > already > > establishes as a given. And thus sheds no light on the truth of > human experience, > > which is beyond presuppositions. > > > > Robert > > > > Did you read about the woman who recently gave birth naturally to a > baby after having been in a vegetative state since the first week of > pregnancy? > > I do not propose to project some truth of human experience onto this > woman, because I know nothing about her experience. But to have human > experience as the starting point for any truth statement sounds to > me like an invitation for a self to arise. Awareness identified with > is self. Solipsism if you will. > > The laws of physics and kamma would still be working if there were no > bodies to experience their effects. The laws of physics and kamma have no meaning without a body in action because of its given tendencies. Action is furthermore relative to the actions surrounding it, and thus has no quantifiable properties without a perceiver taking it in from a specific standpoint. The acknowledgment of subjectivity is the acknowledgment of sentience, a precondition for both ignorance and enlightenment. Buddhism, in my opinion, does not operate in a 'cold' environment but in the 'warm' atmosphere of subjectivity. Without a sentient being Buddhism is meaningless. Science can predict the movement of objects and bodies, but it knows precious little about the 'sentient' aspect of sentient beings. Studies of the brain have yielded only a beginner's knowledge of how experience takes place. An emphasis on experience does not invite solipsism. The self that may think is being invited to arise has already arisen, otherwise we would not be having this conversation. The question is not whether or not to invite it, but what to do with it. Buddha did emphasize that each person has to clear up his own doubts by direct understanding. This is because relization is indeed a subjective project, although the end result may be 'objective', in a sense that is beyond science. Science does not work this way -- the average person can learn it from a book. I would not want to confuse the path of realization with the intellectual truths of science. Science has transformed the world, but it cannot transform the individual. Robert ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 7615 From: Erik Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:05pm Subject: Re: The limits of awareness --- Robert Epstein wrote: > The laws of physics and kamma have no meaning without a body in action because of > its given tendencies. Action is furthermore relative to the actions surrounding > it, and thus has no quantifiable properties without a perceiver taking it in from > a specific standpoint. Excellent observations, Robert. In fact, even in physics this has been demonstrated to be the case! There no actual separation of "observer" from "observed" ultimately (which sounds suspiciously like the Buddha's teaching on Dependent Origination when understood from the ultimate perspective!). The way the combination of these things arises has been described in a number of ways, but in terms of what the Buddha taught, kamma is always a co-factor present in ALL experience (there may be other factors as well, such as consciousness, nutriment, and "heat" in some way of describing this, for example Vis XI.111). However, the most helpful presentation I've found so far is to understand that our experience of the world and its material objects arises in dependence on three primary factors: 1) In dependence on their parts (i.e. a car is a collection of wheels, axles, panels, windows, and engine) 2) In dependence on their conditions (i.e. the same car will have had many conditions for its arising, such as miners who mine iron ore, smelters, designers, assembly-line workers, and this includes the TIME dimension as well, since these process are not concurrent but unfold over time). 3) In dependence on the mind labeling this collection of parts arisen from all aforementioned causes and conditions as "car." If any of these three factors is absent there is no "car" to talk about. Absent any of these factors "car" is totally meaningless; undefined, therefore of no use whatsoever in terms of getting out of suffering. So in essence abesent these factors a "car" can't even be said to exist at all! How COULD it exist without all of these factors being present? Where would "it" be? > Without a sentient being Buddhism is meaningless. Science can predict the > movement of objects and bodies, but it knows precious little about the 'sentient' > aspect of sentient beings. Studies of the brain have yielded only a beginner's > knowledge of how experience takes place. Yet more excellent observations, Robert. > An emphasis on experience does not invite solipsism. Indeed, it does not. There's no reason why the necessity of the aforementioned three co-factors implies in any way there aren't also other subjective-experiencers out there at the same time. While in the ultimate analysis even these are non-truly-existent, conventionally we can use labels to denote that other sentient beings do exist--in dependence on the aforementioned parts (head, torso, arms, legs) and their conditions (mom & dad, food, time, etc.). But if we take three-part analysis on dependent origination above to its logical conclusion, it will serve to deconstruct all notions that there is any fixed, singular "entity" anywhere to be found in the triple-realm, apart from these three factors: parts, conditions, and cognizer applying labels to these parts. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that there is a fixed, eternal, truly-existent entity--for example a "self." This self-view, when taken to its logical conclusion, entails the absurd consequence that there is an entity that has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be UNCHANGING, in other words PERMANENTLY EXISTENT EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW. To suggest such a thing exists would be to suggest that a lotus might magically appear in midair in front of us, for no reason at all! Could you imagine living in a world where things like this just "happened" without any preceding cause at all? The Buddha challanged this "eternalistic" view in so many ways. Often by asking a few simple questions as he did in the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > Buddha did emphasize that each person has to clear up his own doubts by > direct understanding. Indeed, vicikicca (doubt) is a fatal hindrance. Thankfully, Gayan has both translated and pointed out to us here the list of "near enemies" which can manifest in so many sutble ways. Vicikicca (doubt) is among the very worst of these enemies: "ubhayapakkha santhiranamukhena vicikicchang vangchethi--This dhamma is profound, and expands into large areas ie, merits/demerits, kamma, rebirth, world systems, beings, jhanas etc... This is initially 'too much' for an untrained mind, limited mind. (to see the micro- organisms use of a microscope is needed, can't do it with the naked eye). So there are more things to develop mentally and physically. One feels that 'I have to know all the reasons, all the scenarios, all the logic,...then I'll start going along the noble path' ... he mistakes this for the kusala dhamma ubhayapakkha santhirana, but its none other than the vicikiccha. His development stops, he starts to worry about things that will not lead to progress. Vicikiccha (in true appearence or in disguise) is unavoidable and a great obstacle. Beings have to develop more and more saddha to fight with and find out vicikiccha. (saddha indriya)" And one antidote to this vicikicca, for example: "attadhipateyyata patirupataya garunam anusasaniya appadakkhinaggahita vangceti--attadhipateyyata - Giving the due careful consideration for the facts spoken and taught by others., thereby taking the takable and leaving out the non-takable." The enemy, "garunam anusasaniya appadakkhinaggahita is not taking the advice of teachers. The 'know all' type. Associated with atimaana and thambha (non-flexibility). In refined form this may cheat as attadhipateyya." > I would not want to confuse the path of realization with the intellectual truths > of science. Science has transformed the world, but it cannot transform the > individual. I could not agree more wholeheartedly with you on this point, Robert! Thank you for pointing this out! :) 7616 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:07pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation - Robert E --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E. > > Thanks for your many skilful and interesting posts to Kom and others. In one > you mentioned that you 'sometimes step off a limb on this list', using your > 'own logic and my knowledge of Buddhism...'. I'd just like to encourage you to > 'step off a limb' as much as you'd like and I hope you're finding the > discussions rewarding. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > Do I really exist? When I've tried to look into the 'non-existence of self' > > personally, in the past I was just confused. But lately when I've tried to > > investigate this, there has been more of a conviction that there is no "I" as > > a > > kind of internal entity, but that "Robert E." is a habitual convention of > > thought, > > feeling and belief. If I accept the fact that Robert E. does not really > > exist as > > such, there is a feeling of loneliness that arises. It is as if this system, > > this > > bodymind, is very sad without the thought of an ego inhabiting it. When it > > cognizes its own existence as nothing but a series of arisings with no > > inhabitant > > to experience them, there is a feeling of sadness, almost of despair. > > > > There are many wise words here and you seem to be appreciating the core of the > Buddha's Teachings. it seems for many people that when understanding begins to > develop there are these times of despair, sadness or loneliness arising at > times. I think it's thinking with aversion (dosa) and of course it doesn't > last. Of course as we know, clinging (whether to a self or anything else) > brings aversion and sadness in its wake. > > Of course loneliness and living alone are very different. The first is a kind > of aversion but living alone at a moment of seeing or hearing without the > bondage of craving , whether we are in the city or forest is what the Buddha > encouraged us to do: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-063.html > > I've always found this particular sutta to be really inspiring. Instead of > being depressing or lonely, being aware of these realities as not self is > liberating and uplifting I think. > > Rob E, ....let me just encourage you to keep posting and sharing your > experiences. > > Sarah Thank you, Sarah, for both your acknowledgment and encouragement. I will read the Sutta you recommend as well. I think your comment about 'sadness' and 'loneliness' being in the mode of aversion to actually be very helpful. It means that while the realization of the non-existence of self may initially be stunning to the conditioned mind, it is a transitional response, and of course, ultimately, this realization is liberating and a cause for joy. There are many snares along the way. On the other hand, there may also be a 'legitimate' grieving for the loss of that which was a familiar sense of self or way of life, and perhaps in completing the grieving process, as one might do for someone else who had died, one may be able to go to the next phase with a clear path. Not to say that I'm ready to do that, but it's something to look forward to. Robert E. ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 7617 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drugs and the Dharma Dear Gayan, you wrote a few interesting comments below;-) --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > > >Personally, I eat very > > little meat, > > Well, I a lot. We all have different preferences (and even physiological requirements) - no rule as lay people at all... > > Yeah, I know what you mean. People sometimes(but more often than we think) > get offended by these kind of stuff. > I am thankful for that experience. > I noted some people have hidden aversion towards other people's sila. > That's true...but I don't see how abstaining from meat eating (except Christine's examples given) has anything to do with sila? (BTW, Christine, great links. In parts of Korea and China dog meat is eaten and in Hong Kong snake soup is eaten...I wonder if this is just cultural in the exclusion area b/c of offence that might be caused to others? BTW, Num, K.Sujin has also written abook 'Did the Buddha Eat meat' in Thai...) > > > > With regard to the precepts and vows, we can see how these can be followed > for > > a very long time, but sooner or later when there are the right conditions > they > > will be broken if enough wisdom has not been accumulated. I've known monks > > who've kept excellent vinaya for long periods, but when they disrobe, the > same > > accumulations and tendencies are there. Even if one remains a monk for the > rest > > of this life, what about next life? > > yeah, but my study of texts suggests that those periods of excellent vinaya > are not useless at all. > They are great foundation stones. And these sila will provide one with > better surroundings and conditions to follow the path in future times. We had some discussion on this theme with Mike ages ago..I think you were around then. I certainly agree that if one becomes a monk, one should follow vinaya strictly to the best of one's ability, otherwise one just contributes to the downfall of the Buddha's Teachings. I also (from my little study of the vinaya) have a lot of confidence that there were very good reasons for each rule laid down by the Buddha with his far-sightedness and compassion. For this reason, If I am present with monks, I will do my best to observe these rules (e.g. not being alone as a woman with a monk, not offering money or similar etc etc.) I don't consider the rules to be old-fashioned or sexist at all...I would not like to aid the downfall of the Sangha or the Teachings in anyway. I realise some of my views expressed are controversial and am not intending to criticize others who have different attitudes in these areas! Having digressed (getting into Erik's habits;-)), I don't think the right reason to become a monk is in order to follow better sila than one is able to do as a lay-person. Unless the monk's life and lifestyle really comes naturally and it really is easy to sever links with family, friends and other attachments, I see no reason for it. One can follow just as many rules as one likes as a householder, develop satipatthana without any obstacles if one has the chance to listen and consider dhamma. Possibly, these days, the latter is even easier as a householder. > Without the right understanding the sila is less-powerful. Most of my sila > is based on Saddha which I have for what Buddha says, for the moment what I > can do is achieve what I can even though it is less-powerful rather than > waiting for a 'better' time. Gayan, i think this is the right attitude. We can make all kinds of resolutions, but like you say, it will depend on understanding and our accumulations and other conditions as to whether we follow them! > > Well the tendencies are still very much there. > Lot of booze and smoke and partying...full abuse of body and mind > Sometimes the thoughtlines go as 'wow..this is life..blah,blah' but I > internally laugh at such thoughts, I am aware of the internal mind cheating, > (vancaka etc), but for the moment I will keep on investigating for me. Gayan, at least you recognize the tendencies and the vancaka (cheating mind) and see that these are the problems rather than any external causes! (Btw, next time you have trouble trakking down your vancaka, they're saved under 'Cheating dhammas' under 'useful Posts';-)) > > I try to be careful and not to fall in to the pit where one brags about > things , take delight in telling others what one has done, promoting it , > marketing it, hiddenly boasting 'wow , what a Life I am having, hey...see my > life, dont you think that what I have done is better than what you are > doing., see how cool and advanced I am ...etc etc' We all slip up so many times a day..As Erik would say, no need to be too hard on yourself! Sometimes even when telling others these things, there can be awareness even in mid-sentence...anytime, any object, remember! Look forward to more. We'd all like to be the person with no bad habits, but doesn't this just show the clinging to self again? Have fun with sati!! Sarah 7618 From: Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya) Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Jon, Herman & Sarah (o/a the little abhidhamma) Knowing akusala (or even kusala) will as I understand, not contribute to any kusala chetana or kamma. It may help you assess & count one's merits or update kusala a/c. Chetana will perfect with consciousness, the presence of mind thereon; its objective, intention/s etc. At the required instance the mindframe has to be constructed and executed (without any delay). If one is to be conscious about the merit or the level of merit, a chitta, chetana and/or deed would convey, then the 'quality' of kusala will deteriorate. Of conscious understanding, Sumane ---Original Message----- From: Jonothan Abbott Date: 21 August 2001 19:42 Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... >Herman > >--- Herman wrote: > Jon, >> >> To be totally honest, I wouldn't know kusala or akusala if I fell >> over them. Especially since joining this forum. This is not a >> criticism of the forum, by the way. How on earth do I know the >> difference between wrong view and kusala? Where is the yardstick that >> tells me that? Could there not be a deception lurking near every >> citta that suggests wholesomeness? > >These are all very valid and useful questions. It is easy I think to fall >into the trap of thinking one knows by direct experience when actually one >only knows by deduction from the surrounding circumstances eg. 'I am >discussing dhamma it must be kusala', or 'I am helping someone it must be >dana', or 'I am studying the moment it must be awareness' etc. This is in >truth just a form of thinking. > >Knowing by direct experience refers to panna that knows the characteristic >of the reality. Each reality has its own unique characteristic (seeing, >visible object, feeling, aversion etc). In addition, the realities that >are kusala share the characteristic of being kusala. There is no >yardstick by which we can measure these characteristics, but there is >abundant description of them in the teachings. That is why I think it is >important to have an understanding of things at that level. As we have >seen with the recent discussion on mana, there are many aspects to it that >we probably have not been aware of, even if e have heard it before, and >some of we may well have been taking for kusala. So knowing more about >this can help us to begin to understand directly the different realities. > >The good thing is, we needn't feel we have to know one kind of reality >sooner than or better than another. If the characteristic that is kusala >does not appear directly, that is not a problem. The more we know about >akusala and recognise it when it arises, the less likely we are to take it >for kusala, which is what may be happening otherwise. > >So keep up the healthy scepticism! > >> What is the basis for a monks confidence that there was a wholesome >> citta? > >I think knowing akusala well can be a good basis, because the difference >when kusala arises and appears should then be more apparent. > >Jon > > 7619 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message Re: Nibbana Annihilation? ! --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob. E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Jon, > > When you say that the citta that experiences nibbana is 'supramundane', > > this means > > to me that it is a consciousness transcendent to worldy conditions. In > > other > > words, would supernatural be an equivalent term? > > Well I'm not aware of the term 'supernatural' being used to describe the > citta that experiences nibbana. And it is nibbana, not the citta that > experiences it, that is said to be the transcendent reality. > > The best I can do is give you following from the summarised commentary of > the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha (from the Bhikkhu Bodhi/Narada translation). > > It describes at p. 66 supramundane consciousness (lokuttaracitta) as the > consciousness that "pertains to the process of transcending (uttara) the > world (loka)". (This doesn't seem to me to be quite the same as saying > that the consciousness itself transcends the world.) > > It also explains (p. 31) that "world" in this context means not the world > of beings or the physical universe but rather "the world of formations > (sankharaloka), that is, all mundane phenomena included within the five > aggregates of clinging". It is because the consciousness directly > accomplishes the realisation of nibbana, which itself "transcends the > world of conditioned things" that it is called lokkutaracitta, > supramundane consciousness. > > > If the consciousness is beyond earthly conditions, it would certainly > > get me > > closer to understanding how it could apprehend Nibbana. > > Well it depends what you mean here by "earthly conditions". It really has > nothing to do with this world, except of course to the extent that it > arises in a being who inhabits this world. To borrow from another > context, in this world but not of it! > > Jon Thanks, Jon, for your helpful explanations. I appreciate it. Best, Robert E. ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 7620 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Abhidhamma and Cognitive Science --- Suan Lu Zaw wrote: > > > > Dear Howard And Robert > > How are you? > > At first, I thought I would just follow your discussion. But, now, > I decided to enter the fray. > > Howard wrote: > > "But what seems most important here is the question of whether the > wisdom of a current citta is able to *directly* know what goes beyond > that citta." > > > " Okay, thanks. This strikes me as implying that wisdom can > *directly* observe a past event. Surprising, but, hey - maybe!;-)" > > Howard also wrote: > > " This is all fine. My only hesitance here is with regard to wisdom > *directly* knowing what no longer exists, as opposed to a memory of > it." > > > Here is my bit of discussion. > > When wisdom reaches the stage of awakening (bodhi, magga nyana, phala > nyana), it directly knows, penetrates, realizes and sees nibbana. > > If you can accept this capability of wisdom, you are ready to drop > yor resistance to accepting wisdom's direct knowledge of a past event. > > As you might know very well, nibbana is timeless, and outside the > three timeframes of past, present and future. > > Well, as wisdom directly knows nibbana, it directly knows > timelessness. In other words, wisdom can directly knows any > timeframe. Wisdom isn't bound by the time constraints. Hi. With respect, your point above assumes that time is real, and that past events still exist somewhere to be directly perceived. It is my understanding that there is no such thing as a past or future event, and that time itself is nothing but a concept, insofar as we speak of human events. For physics, time may be a dimension of objects, but I'm not sure how that pertains to human events. My understanding is that holding onto past events as if they were real is one of the impediments to understanding, and that bringing past assumptions and associations to present perception is one of the factors that 'clouds' present awareness and prevents Vipassana. If my assumptions above are wrong, I would be happy to be corrected as to what is the proper Theravadan viewpoint in the Suttas. But if I am correct, Wisdom, although timeless, would not perceive past events directly, because there is no such thing as past events to perceive, just as there is no 'self' to perceive. Robert E. 7621 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation Dear Mike, I'm late getting back to some of these posts, since this group is so prolific! , but I really appreciate your remarks below. As someone who has his personality criticized quite regularly for its flaws by those around me, I am also happy to note that one can make forward progress without attempting to clean up the myriad influences and tendencies carried by the cumulative self. Thanks again for your comments. Best, Robert E. ============================== --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > I feel like I sometimes step off a limb on this > > list, because I am admittedly > > using my own logic and my knowledge of Buddhism, > > which has been consistent, but > > not thorough in the Pali Canon. I am a little more > > familiar with works and > > concepts of Ch'an Buddhism, but my interest in > > Theravada is sincere. > > Your posts continue to impress me (for what that's > worth) by their sincerity and insightfulness. I was a > Zen student myself for ten years or so and had lost > interest in it altogether until reading Tadao's > remarkable post at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6125 > > I also admire your logic. I think students of > Dhammavinaya are meant to use logic in combination, of > course, with investigation of dhammas and study of the > teachings. > > > I know that at times people will have to tell me > > that at least as far as the Pali > > Canon and the Tripitaka are concerned, that I am way > > off, or not understanding the > > Buddha's intent. And I am prepared for that. It's > > part of my learning process. > > Same here. > > > At the same time, I can sometimes have a valid view > > and contribute something. > > Certainly. > > > I have been reading Thich Nath Hanh's translation of > > the SUTRA ON COMPLETE > > AWARENESS OF THE BREATH, and I am amazed at its > > simplicity and completeness. It > > spells out the Buddha's path in a way that anyone > > with an open mind can > > understand. The Theravadan Canon has this kind of > > clarity and structure to offer, > > and someone like myself, who has struggled with > > Ch'an and Zen methodology for a > > long time, can really appreciate the kind of > > grounding and surety of path that > > this can give me. > > I haven't read this translation but have been > impressed by his writing in the past. The clarity and > structure you mention in the Pali canon was a great > relief to me, too, after years of Ch'an/Zen practice. > > > We are all working with our tendencies and > > accumulations, in whatever form, and > > the fact that you accidentally sent your note to > > this group instead of as a > > private message should not be a cause for alarm or > > embarrassment. It was > > obviously meant to be here, and it opened up issues > > and topics that might not have > > been looked at otherwise. I consider every event in > > a group like this to be a > > good one, and I'm happy to rise to the occasion, and > > chew on what you have > > contributed. > > Tendencies and accumulations (what I think of as > sankharakhanda) are fertile ground for mindfulness > (dhammanusati(sp?)). Unfortunately they are the > continuous results of incomprehensibly vast numbers of > unimaginably complex condtions from the past--since we > can't change the past, we also can't change the > present manifestations of its conditions. > > Fortunately, on the other hand, tendencies and > accumulations CAN be understood as not-self--at that > moment, 'personality' can be seen for the > insignificant thing that it is. Having a rather > rotten personality myself, I find this reflection > quite liberating. (This isn't to say that kusala can't > or shouldn't be cultivated despite personality--it can > and should). > > In other words, I don't think personality-change is > the object of Dhammavinaya patipatti--just a > beneficial (and VERY gradual, usually) side-effect. > > I'm rambling--thanks again for the good words. > > mike > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 7622 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:50pm Subject: Metta in Yoga Hi Erik, --- Erik wrote:> > This is very good to hear! I am happy to hear that yoga also > engenders in others calm, concentration, energy, mental pliancy, and > even the talk about generosity toward themselves (as I have been > taught is the right place to begin--at least by my lamas and at Wat > Mahatat--beginning all lovingkindness meditations with generating > lovingkindness toward ourselves, and then after this extending > lovingkindness out to others) Hmm....With regard to generosity and metta, my understanding is a little different (no surprise here;-)). I understand there can only be metta and generosity to others. When we think it's metta to oneself, it's lobha again! I know when we read in the Vism about starting with oneself, it seems like you understand it and this is a recurrent theme. What I understand (and makes sense from experience too) is that this passage is suggesting that we treat others like we, ourselves, would like to be treated. In other words, the concern in metta and dana has to be for the welfare of another being. > You sound like you're being way too hard hard on yourself here, > Sarah! :) Perhaps a little gentleness and generiostity toward your > own kusala efforts is in order here! :) :) :) Not hard at all.....just realistic! With more wisdom, it'll sound harder still, perhaps. Much better to recognize the kilesa than kid oneself that they don't exist at these times. Like Rob E. suggested for his friend, for me the yoga practice is rather like eating regular meals and getting enough sleep. It would be wrong view to think one shouldn't do these things because one knows there is a lot of lobha. Remember too, some of us don't have any idea of separate times for practice and wisdom (or even better times) so I don't expect to have more or less sati when doing yoga, swimming or teaching or any other activity, so they're not a condition for a guilt or worry. I have confidence that conditions are so complex that sati can arise at any time without wishing for it. Again, right understanding rather than the activity is the key here. > > In keeping with the teaching on first extending lovingkindness toward > ourselves, might you not be able to rejoice and simlpy be happy with > yourself in practicing a wholesome activity like yoga, even if this > practice isn't technically of the insight variety, even if there are > moments of lobha, even if there is mana? Just like when one services a car to keep it on the road, we need to service this body to keep it functioning for this life, so that we can hear dhamma and help others better in whatever ways we're able. I'm happy in particular to have the chance to keep fairly fit (without being at all obsessed as you or Rob E said) and in particular not to have any delusion that ultimately this fitness matters at all. Living in a high-rise apartment, having lots of office work to do, sitting (teaching) for a lot of time and of course all this computer sitting too means the stretching is pretty essential. I'm glad I encouraged you, Erik. > > I mean, who's perfect (besides a Buddha)? As you said to me about my > nasty smoking habit, there's no sense being too hard on ourselves > over the fact we have afflictions, right? :) We need to be aware of > them and work with this reality, but ther's no point getting overly > worried about having mana, nor about lobha, as this worry (kukucca) > is a hindrance in & of itself! (Jeez, all this Middle Way business > again!) Agreed! ...and understanding one of these realities (yes, NOW!!) is how I understand the Middle Way business! Ooops! out of time again....part 2 (on kaya lahuta and the rest) will have to be tomorrow or the next day. In the meantime, you could play the other side and read the relevant chapters on these cetasikas in Nina's book and look up the definitions in Nyantiloka's dictionary (on Binh's website I think) and report back;-))) Thanks Erik, for your kind (and moderate!!) comments...and well-wishing! Rob E, thanks also for your wise comments about your friend. I've also been appreciating your other recent posts. Hope you get back to your asanas too! Sarah 7623 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > Dear Robert E. > > No my my sadhu x 3 goes to you. > Great!!! > Much appreciation. > > mudita > > Cybele > > > > >Thanks. I knew I was avoiding something: more practice. > > > >Robert E. Thank you, Cybele! Regards, Robert E. 7624 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > Hi Robert E. > > As I am the one the one who posted Ajahn Bramavamso, I would suggest you to > read more of his texts as well. > > Love > Cybele Thanks, Cybele. I appreciate your advice! And the little I have seen of A. Bramavamso, I love. Regards, Robert 7625 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana --- Joshua wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Forgive my ignorance, but what sutras would one specifically read to get the > > instructions outlined in this talk. > > > > What is the basic collection necessary for this. > > > > Or is it the whole Canon.................... > > > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > > > Ok, aside from the suttas dealing only with Satipatthana, I would say (roughly) > > Anguttara II.29 > Anguttara IX.63-64 (he mentions) > Majjhima 68 (he mentions) > Majjhima 107 > > The last one outlines step by step exactly how a monk should train himself in a > sequential manner. > > Hope that helps. Sorry I'm late getting to this post. I'm working slowly, and backwards at the moment. And, oh yes, that helps. Despite being overwhelmed, I will make a serious effort to read the above, particularly Majjhima 107. It will take me awhile, but I'll get back to you eventually. I assume I can find them all online? With gratitude, Robert E. 7626 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 3:06pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Metta in Yoga --- Sarah wrote: > Thanks Erik, for your kind (and moderate!!) comments...and well-wishing! > Rob E, thanks also for your wise comments about your friend. I've also been > appreciating your other recent posts. Hope you get back to your asanas too! > > Sarah Thanks, Sarah. I have started to do some stretches again, and realize how my thighs and hips have tightened up and become aggravated. Without being unduly obsessed, I think it is helpful to help this body out from time to time! Regards, Robert 7627 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 3:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The limits of awareness Thank you for this message, Rikpa. I especially appreciate your three-point deconstruction of existent objects. Very clear. Best, Robert E. ======================= --- Erik wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > The laws of physics and kamma have no meaning without a body in > action because of > > its given tendencies. Action is furthermore relative to the > actions surrounding > > it, and thus has no quantifiable properties without a perceiver > taking it in from > > a specific standpoint. > > Excellent observations, Robert. In fact, even in physics this has > been demonstrated to be the case! There no actual separation > of "observer" from "observed" ultimately (which sounds suspiciously > like the Buddha's teaching on Dependent Origination when understood > from the ultimate perspective!). > > The way the combination of these things arises has been described in > a number of ways, but in terms of what the Buddha taught, kamma is > always a co-factor present in ALL experience (there may be other > factors as well, such as consciousness, nutriment, and "heat" in some > way of describing this, for example Vis XI.111). > > However, the most helpful presentation I've found so far is to > understand that our experience of the world and its material objects > arises in dependence on three primary factors: > > 1) In dependence on their parts (i.e. a car is a collection of > wheels, axles, panels, windows, and engine) > > 2) In dependence on their conditions (i.e. the same car will have had > many conditions for its arising, such as miners who mine iron ore, > smelters, designers, assembly-line workers, and this includes the > TIME dimension as well, since these process are not concurrent but > unfold over time). > > 3) In dependence on the mind labeling this collection of parts arisen > from all aforementioned causes and conditions as "car." > > If any of these three factors is absent there is no "car" to talk > about. Absent any of these factors "car" is totally meaningless; > undefined, therefore of no use whatsoever in terms of getting out of > suffering. So in essence abesent these factors a "car" can't even be > said to exist at all! How COULD it exist without all of these factors > being present? Where would "it" be? > > > Without a sentient being Buddhism is meaningless. Science can > predict the > > movement of objects and bodies, but it knows precious little about > the 'sentient' > > aspect of sentient beings. Studies of the brain have yielded only > a beginner's > > knowledge of how experience takes place. > > Yet more excellent observations, Robert. > > > An emphasis on experience does not invite solipsism. > > Indeed, it does not. There's no reason why the necessity of > the aforementioned three co-factors implies in any way there aren't > also other subjective-experiencers out there at the same time. While > in the ultimate analysis even these are non-truly-existent, > conventionally we can use labels to denote that other sentient beings > do exist--in dependence on the aforementioned parts (head, torso, > arms, legs) and their conditions (mom & dad, food, time, etc.). > > But if we take three-part analysis on dependent origination above to > its logical conclusion, it will serve to deconstruct all notions that > there is any fixed, singular "entity" anywhere to be found in the > triple-realm, apart from these three factors: parts, conditions, and > cognizer applying labels to these parts. > > To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that there is a fixed, > eternal, truly-existent entity--for example a "self." This self-view, > when taken to its logical conclusion, entails the absurd consequence > that there is an entity that has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be > UNCHANGING, in other words PERMANENTLY EXISTENT EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW. > To suggest such a thing exists would be to suggest that a lotus might > magically appear in midair in front of us, for no reason at all! > Could you imagine living in a world where things like this > just "happened" without any preceding cause at all? > > The Buddha challanged this "eternalistic" view in so many ways. Often > by asking a few simple questions as he did in the Anatta Lakkhana > Sutta: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > > > Buddha did emphasize that each person has to clear up his own > doubts by > > direct understanding. > > Indeed, vicikicca (doubt) is a fatal hindrance. Thankfully, Gayan has > both translated and pointed out to us here the list of "near enemies" > which can manifest in so many sutble ways. Vicikicca (doubt) is among > the very worst of these enemies: > > "ubhayapakkha santhiranamukhena vicikicchang vangchethi--This dhamma > is profound, and expands into large areas ie, merits/demerits, kamma, > rebirth, world systems, beings, jhanas etc... This is initially 'too > much' for an untrained mind, limited mind. (to see the micro- > organisms use of a microscope is needed, can't do it with the naked > eye). So there are more things to develop mentally and physically. > One feels that 'I have to know all the reasons, all the scenarios, > all the logic,...then I'll start going along the noble path' ... he > mistakes this for the kusala dhamma ubhayapakkha santhirana, but its > none other than the vicikiccha. His development stops, he starts to > worry about things that will not lead to progress. Vicikiccha (in > true appearence or in disguise) is unavoidable and a great obstacle. > Beings have to develop more and more saddha to fight with and find > out vicikiccha. (saddha indriya)" > > And one antidote to this vicikicca, for example: > > "attadhipateyyata patirupataya garunam anusasaniya appadakkhinaggahita > vangceti--attadhipateyyata - Giving the due careful consideration for > the facts spoken and taught by others., thereby taking the takable > and leaving out the non-takable." The enemy, "garunam anusasaniya > appadakkhinaggahita is not taking the advice of teachers. The 'know > all' type. Associated with atimaana and thambha (non-flexibility). In > refined form this may cheat as attadhipateyya." > > > I would not want to confuse the path of realization with the > intellectual truths > > of science. Science has transformed the world, but it cannot > transform the > > individual. > > I could not agree more wholeheartedly with you on this point, Robert! > Thank you for pointing this out! :) > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 7628 From: Erik Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 5:26pm Subject: Lovingkindness --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah! > Hmm....With regard to generosity and metta, my understanding is a little > different (no surprise here;-)). I understand there can only be metta and > generosity to others. When we think it's metta to oneself, it's lobha again! I > know when we read in the Vism about starting with oneself, it seems like you > understand it and this is a recurrent theme. If it's a recurring theme, perhaps there's something to it then! :) To use these five khandas as an example. There used to be A LOT of self-hatred among them. That projection I can now see arose in dependence on a strong sense of "self" and the sense of "autonomy" and "will" that sense of "self" conditions. When this sense of "identity" (the "I"-entity ignorance sinks its teeth into :) came into contact with the conditions of a rigid and dogmatic and what some might call "abusive" upbringing, it served as a root condition for a whole lot of anger, sometimes even rage. For example, anger at feeling arbitrarily "controlled" by others' whims and unreasonable expectations and agendas and restraints and beatings. These experiences were of course all being forced on my by my past thoughs, words, and actions, and there's no one but me responsible for these experiences, and no one else responsible but me for how I responded to the feeling of being "beaten, humliated, and abused." So I accept this responsibility fully, nevertheless, I think this serves to illustrate a few points. This accumulated conditioning of self-hatred forced me to see enmity in nearly every face I saw, in addition to conditioning the nasty habit of seeing others as "inferior" and myself as "superior" (not to say that's fully eradicated because, of course, I'm neither an arahant or a Buddha, so there is still at minimum the conceit "I am" present in everything I see), this self-hatred (uh oh, there's that "self" again!) manifested itself in many extremely harmful ways. I would typically direct this self-hatred at myself, through activities like mentally beating myself ("self" again!) up over pointless concerns, such as not being handsome enough, not a good enough student, not from a wealthy-enough family, not good in this way, not good in that way, a miserable failure, an outcaste, lonely, afraid, abandoned, and so on. Since I felt it inconceivable to act in a physically harmful way toward other sentient beings (for some reason a deeply-ingrained tendency for as long as I can remember), that self-hatred found other forms of expression--for example, in the form of drinking alcohol to the point of heedlessness, primarily as a means to "shut off" this self-hatred for a brief while (which led to more addictive cycles of misery and even more self-hatred), and also as generally pervasive ill-will toward others; because I could see little, if anything positive in the world. I saw others sentient beings not as a friends, but as a potential enemies in some way--to be feared if they were stronger than I, or to be overpowered and defeated if they appeared in some way weaker. This tendency most typically manifested itself outwardly (apart action from the drinking alcohol to the point of heedlessness) through the speech-door as verbal harshness, which combind with a strong the tendency toward disputation ("self and other" and opinions and views generated thereby), led to me being forced to experience a constant succession of painful results, primarily in the form of painful encounters with other sentient beings, etc. In other words, suffering. And not only did I experience suffering, but I know that beacuse of my unskillful words I also served as a cause for others to experience suffering as well. Hopefully from this you are getting the general impression that this self-hatred didn't simply end with the collection of khandas labelled "Erik", but rather, that this tendency manifested itself in every thought I had, in every word I spoke, and in every deed I did. In other words, if one takes the teachings of dependent origination to the correct conclusion, there can be no true separation of self- and-other, therefore, any thought, word, or deed we committ will be an expression of our accumulated tendencies, and if those accumulated tendencies partake of things like ill-will, even towards ourselves, there is no other possibility than this MUST express itself in every thought, in every word, and in every deed we do, and by extension it will cause the khandas we conventionally designate ourselves to suffer, but will directly and immediately express itself in ways that serve as a condition for other sets of khandas to suffer as well! Now to pose a couple of quick intermediary questions (at your suggestion of taking up such a style): Which is more destructive of the two posions: intense grasping or intense aversion? In terms of words and deeds motivated by either of these two poisons, which endagers ourselves and others most? Which of these two poisons motivates the severest types of misdeeds, those misdeeds which lead not only to states of woe, but to the very most painful states of woe? To cite what I have heard well-spoken by the wise, Master Shantideva says in the "Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life" (Bodhicharyavatara): "There is no evil equal to hatred; and no virtue equal to forberance." This echoes the lines from the Visuddhimagga IX.2: "No higher rule, the Buddhas say, than patience, and no nibbana higher than forbearance". And since you and I are in comlpete agreemnet there is no other moment than now to work with our afflictions, and also that there is no other reality to work with than our present accumulated tendencies, it brings us directly to the point of "beginning where we are." Which is right here, right now, with exactly what we have; no more, no less. Which is why when the instructions in the Visuddhimagga (IX.8) say that "first of all, [lovingkindness] should be developed toward oneself, doing it repeatedly thus: 'May I be happy and free from suffering', or 'may I keep myself free from enmity, affliction, and anxiety and live happily'", this is not a random instruction. It firmly addresses the fact that we must begin exactly where we are. Love, as the saying goes, begins at home. It begins with the collection of khandas comprising what we mistakenly conceive of as ourselves. Because realistically, unless we're arahants or Buddhas, that's EXACTLY what we're seeing, and to try to pretend things are other than they are is to be unrealistic, and the Buddha's instructions were, if anything, the most utilitarian and realistic set of myths I've ever come across in this lifetime. They were designed to engage us at the most realistic level possible: where we are RIGHT NOW. Because as you say, and as I agree, there is no other moment than now; and there are no other accumulations than these, and consequently we must begin where we are, which is when we're working to eradicate the most dangerous poison of all, anger, we are enjoined to begin by applying lovingkindness to ourselves, FIRST. > What I understand (and makes sense > from experience too) is that this passage is suggesting that we treat others > like we, ourselves, would like to be treated. In other words, the concern in > metta and dana has to be for the welfare of another being. To put it question form: can the designation "other" arise without the implicit designation "self"? In other words, is there really any fundamental separation between the khandas we designate "me" and the khandas we designate "other"? Does this "me" exist in total separation from all other things, in a causal vacuum, as it were? > Like Rob E. suggested for his friend, for me the yoga practice is rather like > eating regular meals and getting enough sleep. It would be wrong view to think > one shouldn't do these things because one knows there is a lot of lobha. Agreed. Lobha is a condition we are all unfortunately subject to until at least the point of non-return, so, realistically, it is important to be aware of it, and the various guises it takes. > Remember too, some of us don't have any idea of separate times for practice and > wisdom (or even better times) so I don't expect to have more or less sati when > doing yoga, swimming or teaching or any other activity, so they're not a > condition for a guilt or worry. I have confidence that conditions are so > complex that sati can arise at any time without wishing for it. Again, right > understanding rather than the activity is the key here. Again, not to get back to the nutriment conditions the Buddha clearly enumerated in the passage a quoted before, but for sati to arise we need the appropriate conditions. Without the appropriate conditions there is no chance at all sati can arise! > Agreed! ...and understanding one of these realities (yes, NOW!!) is how I > understand the Middle Way business! There is quite a bit less to it than this, Sarah :) Simply focusing on the "now" withouth realistically recognizing that we are all enmeshed in thoughts and fabrications would be a form of leaning too far to the "wisdom" extreme and not thinking eralixstically about the present condition of accumulated tendenciwes, whjich is still, like it or not, engaged in the process of fabrications about past, persent, future, self, and other. We can't ignore this fact either, in addition to recognizing that true insight can only arise in the present moment. > Thanks Erik, for your kind (and moderate!!) comments...and well- wishing! Well, pretending to play "fierce debater" doesn't seem to fit all that well when the topic is cultivating lovingkindness toward ourselves and extending that lovingkindness toward all other beings (a reminder I always need and benefit from immensely, and believe me when I say I'm getting more from this than I suspect anyone reading ever could), so I figured it was the appropriate time to put the "wrathful" mask aside for a bit and pretend to put on the "gentle voiced" mask instead, for awhile--which will probably switch yet many times until our "exeunt" at final Act of the final Scene of this Midsummer Night's Dream: "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd here While these visions did appear. And this weak and idle theme, No more yielding but a dream" 7629 From: Herman Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 7:41pm Subject: Re: The limits of awareness Dear Robert, Some cutting and clipping and additions follow down below: --- Robert Epstein wrote:> bodies to experience their effects. > > The laws of physics and kamma have no meaning without a body in action because of > its given tendencies. Action is furthermore relative to the actions surrounding > it, and thus has no quantifiable properties without a perceiver taking it in from > a specific standpoint. Bodies, in quantum mechanics, have an unspecified existence, they may be there, but they are feasibly also not there. The thing worth noting is that even while they are not there, they are still predictable, therefore still subject to the laws of physics and kamma. A body is simply a snapshot at a given time unit of resolution. Look at this body in 500 year time slots, and it is not there at all, or only fractionally, depending on where in the cycle of this body the observation started. Look at this body in 1 second time frames, and it is there. Look at this body in 1 trillionth of a second time slices, and it may be there, or it may not be there. The arising and falling of rupa is not haphazard, it is knowable and predictable. There is no knower, but there is knowing. And this knowing is dependant on rupa. > > The acknowledgment of subjectivity is the acknowledgment of sentience, a > precondition for both ignorance and enlightenment. Buddhism, in my opinion, does > not operate in a 'cold' environment but in the 'warm' atmosphere of subjectivity. And what do you think this sentience is? What is the difference between a corpse and a ballerina in mid flight? Surely we can discriminate further than just saying, life element. > Without a sentient being Buddhism is meaningless. The ultimate message of Buddhism (and other methods of knowing) is that there are no sentient beings. There is sentience, there is knowing, there is form, there is colour, that's about it. Science can predict the > movement of objects and bodies, but it knows precious little about the 'sentient' > aspect of sentient beings. Studies of the brain have yielded only a beginner's > knowledge of how experience takes place. The studies I have read suggest that awareness is a post-hoc and selective snapshot of underlying processes that have already finished initiating other processes by the time the initial javana becomes known. > > An emphasis on experience does not invite solipsism. The self that may think is > being invited to arise has already arisen, otherwise we would not be having this > conversation. The question is not whether or not to invite it, but what to do > with it. Buddha did emphasize that each person has to clear up his own doubts by > direct understanding. This is because relization is indeed a subjective project, > although the end result may be 'objective', in a sense that is beyond science. > Science does not work this way -- the average person can learn it from a book. The average person "believes" they learn science from a book, as they do with with Buddhism. Relativity is as abstruse as the Dhamma. The interesting thing about "knowing" is that it is true at any level, no matter how false it is. That is because "knowing" is a state of mind, that does not necessarily have to correlate to any rupa formation, hence wrong view. Moments of insight and direct knowing are moments of insight and direct knowing. If you cannot repeat it at will than it was "knowing", not knowing. > > I would not want to confuse the path of realization with the intellectual truths > of science. Science has transformed the world, but it cannot transform the > individual. Very soon science will be creating individuals, some of whom no doubt will believe that they require transformation. Yet they will be an aggregation of 30 odd body parts, composed of cells, composed of molecules, composed of atoms, composed of particles that are there and yet not there, neither coming, nor going, not new nor a continuation of the old. Regards Herman 7630 From: Herman Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 7:52pm Subject: Erik's typing speed Hi all, This is a frivolous but well-intentioned post :-). By my calculations, Erik, who I respect greatly (that bit is not frivolous), must type at about 210 words per minute (which includes on-the-fly spell checking and thesaurising) This feat, combined with his insights into more subjects than you can poke a stick at, makes him the Michael Schumacher of egroups. And no mana will arise because of this post! :-) Regards to all and cheers to erik (and his child bride :-)) Herman 7631 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 8:21pm Subject: A brief appearance Walking to work this morning, I saw a bumper sticker that read: "The truly educated never graduate." True enough. But which dropout wouldn't be tempted to think the converse is also true: "Those who never graduate are truly educated"? Bhikkhu Bodhi has a short, poignant article on this idea in a contemporary Buddhist context at AccessToInsight: http://cambodianbuddhist.org/english/website/lib/bps/news/essay5.html Dan 7632 From: m. nease Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 9:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation Hi Robert, I do think that paññaa (like all the other cittas and cetasikas) can and must arise regardless of personality when conditions allow it. The indispensible precursors for those are, as I understand it, hearing and recollection of the Dhamma (including silaa, by the way), and satipatthaana. Each of these occurs in the present moment which, as you recently pointed out, is the only moment. Thanks for the thoughtful posts. mike --- Robert Epstein wrote: > As someone who has his personality criticized quite > regularly for its flaws by > those around me, I am also happy to note that one > can make forward progress > without attempting to clean up the myriad influences > and tendencies carried by the > cumulative self. > > Thanks again for your comments. > > Best, > Robert E. 7633 From: Anders Honore Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 9:51pm Subject: Re: An Invitation to All Here --- Erik wrote: > --- "Anders Honore" > wrote: > I dunno, would it? Just yesterday I recall the Theravadin professor > (another teacher I was brought to by one of my Theravadin teachers > there) said the most curious thing to us--including the several > Theravadin monks in attendance: that we were all Buddhas! :) :) :) It's not really the knowledge itself that's particualrly harmful. I know a great deal about the various Zen schools, and I am also quite well-versed in the sudden/gradual debate, but the danger lies in the fact that most people, often in very subtle ways to themselves, use this knowledge to affirm or deny a particular view, and hence they are still stuck with a conceptual understanding. I remember an old Zen story (I think it was yang-shan), who was asked by his master if he had found the Tao, to which he answered "no, but at least I don't steal the words of others," To which the master replied "then you understand." > And my lamas have trained me to endeavor to see all sentient beings > as Buddhas as well. And that has really, truly helped my practice in > so many ways, to the point there have been times I have seen things > that might have otherwise appeared to be quite ordinary appear in the > most miraculous ways to these eyes. Yeah. It's funny you should mention that, because the exact same thing happened to me the other day, while I was watching a spider. That's also a Buddha-to-be. A great incentive for compassion! > Yes, and that was yet ANOTHER point emphasized by my teacher > yesterday in our little classroom at Wat Mahatat. One, I should add, > I could not agree more heartily about with both you and he. Which is > why my teacher was emphatic that we must "taste the fruit" by our > practice of the Dhamma, rather than merely intellectualize it away > with more layers of abstractions; that we must directly come to know > it in our own lives through the mindful application of Right Effort. > He particularly emphasized the uselessness of mere study for its own > sake, and that such an endeavour leads not to the fruits of the Noble > Path, but to further entanglement in views, and directly blocks the > very wisdom we are seeking, the very wisdom that arises to terminate > once and for all the sufferings of cyclic existence. Yeah. It's not that there's much wrong with concepts, as long as they are understood for what they are. Whenever you have concepts, you have concepts *about* something, you are not dealing with the real thing. You are still dependent on the formation of concepts in order to form a simple conversation though. > By "much support," where do you mean? Here in DSG? Or in the words of > the Buddha? Just here. > If it's support in terms of what the Buddha actually > taught, if you read the Pali Suttas, you will find support for this > everywhere! I have! But as with all else, the Pali Canon is subject to different interpretations, and if I don't agree, I have to respect them. > That view you will find no support for in the Buddha's > teachings: the idea that because all phenomena are empty and > ultimately beyond control, that there is no conventional possibility > of choices, such as choosing to train in sila, or "generating desire, > arousing persistence, endeavouring, upholding and exerting our > intent" for the abandoning of unskillful/unwholesome qualities and > the taking up of skillful/wholesome qualities. Yes, that's true. I would add that I don't think that the fact that all dhammas are empty and causal reactions neccesarily exclude the arousing of persistence and effort. > Not that we technically need any special places for meditation, as my > teacher there emphasized: we can be aware of all of these realities > RIGHT NOW in the midst of our daily activities--indeed we MUST! And > yet, practically speaking, for myself, I have found it of immense > benefit to follow the Buddha's advice in the Satipatthana Sutta in > terms of seeking out solitude and favorable conditions for > cultivating this all the same. Yes, that's the Samadhi aspect I also need to develop. Greater mindfulness in daily activities. It's funny how I've ntoiced that my practise has influenced my life immensely on a subconscious level though. > For a more average practitioner like me, I have found it to be an > enormous help to be freed from the distractions of daily life for a > little while, because I have found that this really, REALLY helps get > my mind unscattered and focused in just the right place, such that > when I return to daily life my mindfulness and concentration are that > much more developed and stable. But that's just this beginner on the > path. I am sure there are some great beings whose mindfulness and > concentration are so well-developed that this sort of effort and > practice in things like solitude and retreat is merely gilding on the > lotus. Yeah, I know a few people who are like that. I wonder how they manage... > Like you, I still hold Zen in great esteem, but, like you, have found > myself drawn to the Tibetan Dharma for the very reasons you mentioned > you find the Theravada appealing to you: that it emphasizes the more > mundane, foundational aspects, such as sila, which I found in my own > life were lacking to where I was unable to take any real slightest > advantage of the deep and sublime wisdom-aspect teachings I had > learned about therein (which as I noted, resulted in VERY LITTLE > progress for me on the path). Hmm, I would say that it was definitely beneficial to me. But I've reached a point where I need to develop other aspects of practise more. My own teacher, who lives in Singapore, is actually also a Dzogchen teacher (that's how I even learned of its existence) besides Zen. > To add to that, in the Tibetan teachings there are "Four Faults" to > recognizing our Buddha-nature, when we fail to recognize that the > nature of mind is: > > 1) too near > 2) too easy > 3) too subtle > 4) too excellent Kinda reminds me of the Buddhas simile of the musical instrument which must be stringed neither too tight nor too loose. > I look forward to much, much more reading of this excellent Sutra! > Many deep bows of thanks pointing this out to me, Anders! The Platform Sutra has certainly been my greatest influence in my daily practise. at one point, I read about once a week, and just reading it, while implementing its teachings in my daily life, served to deepen my understanding a great deal. I will always hold Huineng in the greatest steem. > > Haha, jeg vil hellere være ikke-positionalist! > > You appear to be in perfect agreement here with both > Nagarjuna: "emptiness is beyond taking any position," and Master > Chandrakirti: "any position breeds a counter-position, and neither is > valid in itself," both of whom are considered the key proponents of > the true Middle Way as expounded in my own Geluk school's "Madhyamika- > Prasangika" system of tenets. This has been wonderfully articulated > by the true Master Acharya Professor Richard Hayes (the "baddest of > the bad cops" for me and a true master of the Buddha's Dharma who > there mere though of causes tears of gratitude to well up in me): Yes, the Buddha mentioned it too many places. This particular sutta is my favourite on the subject (Paramatthaka Sutta): When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he sees all else as inferior. That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't think himself inferior or superlative. Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging, he doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. One who isn't inclined toward either side -- becoming or not-, here or beyond -- who has no entrenchment when considering what's grasped among doctrines, hasn't the least preconceived perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world? -- this brahmin who hasn't adopted views. They don't conjure, don't yearn, don't adhere even to doctrines. A brahmin not led by precepts or practices, gone to the beyond -- Such -- doesn't fall back. Again, I must say that I find this conversation deeply beneficial. Thank you! Anders 7634 From: Anders Honore Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 9:58pm Subject: Re: Drugs and the Dharma --- Erik wrote: > > Really, just how helpful are these total speculations regarding > > hypothetical situations that have absolutely no bearing to what's > > going on right here and now, in terms of overcoming our own suffering? > > Anders lives in Denmark. It's not so "hypothetical" to him. Hey hey, now. It's not like we have ice bears roaming the streets here. That's Finland :-) 7635 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 10:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] A brief appearance Hi Dan, Nice surprise;-)) --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > Walking to work this morning, I saw a bumper sticker that read: "The > truly educated never graduate." True enough. But which dropout > wouldn't be tempted to think the converse is also true: "Those who > never graduate are truly educated"? ;-)) > Bhikkhu Bodhi has a short, poignant article on this idea in a > contemporary Buddhist context at AccessToInsight: > http://cambodianbuddhist.org/english/website/lib/bps/news/essay5.html A very well-written and useful article which I think most on dsg would agree with.... I've just skimmed through, but look forward to reading more carefully tomorrow. Many thanks. Hope your trip, move and new job have all gone well and that your wife and kids have been enjoying your company which we've missed;-) Good to know you're around from time to time at least. Speak soon, Sarah 7636 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 10:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Lovingkindness Dear Erik, Just a line to say I understand how you feel, the views you have and the pretty tough life you've had to date. I sincerely hope that with more and more understanding of dhamma it becomes easier and easier. Many of the points will be addressed in due course I'm sure. --- Erik wrote: > --- <> > Well, pretending to play "fierce debater" doesn't seem to fit all > that well when the topic is cultivating lovingkindness toward > ourselves and extending that lovingkindness toward all other beings > (a reminder I always need and benefit from immensely, and believe me > when I say I'm getting more from this than I suspect anyone reading > ever could), so I figured it was the appropriate time to put > the "wrathful" mask aside for a bit and pretend to put on the "gentle > voiced" mask instead, for awhile--which will probably switch yet many > times until our "exeunt" at final Act of the final Scene of this > Midsummer Night's Dream: Yes, let me encourage the "gentle voiced" mask.....and hopefully it will be less and less of a mask! > > "If we shadows have offended, > Think but this, and all is mended, > That you have but slumber'd here > While these visions did appear. > And this weak and idle theme, > No more yielding but a dream" > yes it's a little like a Midsummer's dream, not knowing what visions will appear here.... You've found many good friends here Erik, so just relax and know we understand your views and feelings and hurts and angers from the past. metta, Sarah 7637 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 11:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drugs and the Dharma dear sarah, > > That's true...but I don't see how abstaining from meat eating (except > Christine's examples given) has anything to do with sila? > well I wrote in the context of any sila. When one observes sila, he/she may be subjected to some other's aversion. > > We had some discussion on this theme with Mike ages ago..I think you were > around then. I certainly agree that if one becomes a monk, one should follow > vinaya strictly to the best of one's ability, otherwise one just contributes to > the downfall of the Buddha's Teachings. I also (from my little study of the > vinaya) have a lot of confidence that there were very good reasons for each > rule laid down by the Buddha with his far-sightedness and compassion. > > For this reason, If I am present with monks, I will do my best to observe these > rules (e.g. not being alone as a woman with a monk, not offering money or > similar etc etc.) I don't consider the rules to be old-fashioned or sexist at > all... not at all, buddha is never old fashioned. > I would not like to aid the downfall of the Sangha or the Teachings in > anyway. > > I realise some of my views expressed are controversial and am not intending to > criticize others who have different attitudes in these areas! > > Having digressed (getting into Erik's habits;-)), I don't think the right > reason to become a monk is in order to follow better sila than one is able to > do as a lay-person. Unless the monk's life and lifestyle really comes naturally > and it really is easy to sever links with family, friends and other > attachments, I see no reason for it. yes when things come naturally, one will have the opportunity to observe better and tough sila. > One can follow just as many rules as one > likes as a householder, develop satipatthana without any obstacles if one has > the chance to listen and consider dhamma. Possibly, these days, the latter is > even easier as a householder. yes , but householder life can be an obstacle when one has to earn the living...etc. For example, if one is in Marketing business, or Human Resources it is so hard to even observe the 4th precept. > > Gayan, i think this is the right attitude. We can make all kinds of > resolutions, but like you say, it will depend on understanding and our > accumulations and other conditions as to whether we follow them! > > > > Well the tendencies are still very much there. > > Lot of booze and smoke and partying...full abuse of body and mind > > Sometimes the thoughtlines go as 'wow..this is life..blah,blah' but I > > internally laugh at such thoughts, I am aware of the internal mind cheating, > > (vancaka etc), but for the moment I will keep on investigating for me. > > Gayan, at least you recognize the tendencies and the vancaka (cheating mind) > and see that these are the problems rather than any external causes! > > (Btw, next time you have trouble trakking down your vancaka, they're saved > under 'Cheating dhammas' under 'useful Posts';-)) > > > > I try to be careful and not to fall in to the pit where one brags about > > things , take delight in telling others what one has done, promoting it , > > marketing it, hiddenly boasting 'wow , what a Life I am having, hey...see my > > life, dont you think that what I have done is better than what you are > > doing., see how cool and advanced I am ...etc etc' > > We all slip up so many times a day..As Erik would say, no need to be too hard > on yourself! haha, yes, but I remember when buddha says that 'assault akusalas' like a strong man wrestles and pins a weak one. :o) >Sometimes even when telling others these things, there can be > awareness even in mid-sentence...anytime, any object, remember! > > Look forward to more. We'd all like to be the person with no bad habits, but > doesn't this just show the clinging to self again? > > Have fun with sati!! > yep, if I tell you a secret , I personally think that Buddha is a very Fun man. To me , he is like saying, " hey fools, thats not fun, what you pursue they are not fun at all, you'll be dissappointed again and again.., the real fun is This..etc " :o) rgds gayan 7638 From: Erik Date: Thu Aug 23, 2001 5:11am Subject: Re: Drugs and the Dharma --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: Ho ho ho, Gayan! > When one observes sila, he/she may be subjected to some other's aversion. And one test of true sila is if one still continues to perform it even if subjected to another's aversion. > haha, yes, but I remember when buddha says that 'assault akusalas' like a > strong man wrestles and pins a weak one. Which is why I so love the wrathful dieties of the Tibetan pantheon (who are merely aspects of the benign deities, such as the Manjushri/Yamantaka dyad), whose function is to terminate these very akusala tendencies with extreme prejudice--in exactly the way a truly compassionate surgeon wields a scalpel. > yep, if I tell you a secret , I personally think that Buddha is a very Fun > man. > To me , he is like saying, " hey fools, thats not fun, what you pursue they > are not fun at all, you'll be dissappointed again and again.., > the real fun is This..etc " Perhaps this is why I so love seeing little images of Ho-tai wherever I go these days! :) Also, I came across a wonderful little essay on humor and the Dharma you may get a chuckle or two out of: http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/hyers1.htm (And for the hard-core Abhidhammists, it even discusses the distinctions between sita, hasita, vihasita, upahasita, apahasita-- which is nearly the point I'm at right now just thinking of all of this! :) :) :) 7639 From: Joshua Date: Thu Aug 23, 2001 7:21am Subject: Re: Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana > Sorry I'm late getting to this post. I'm working slowly, and backwards at the > moment. > > And, oh yes, that helps. > > Despite being overwhelmed, I will make a serious effort to read the above, > particularly Majjhima 107. It will take me awhile, but I'll get back to you > eventually. I assume I can find them all online? > > With gratitude, > Robert E. Hallo Rob't, Majjhima Nikaya 107 is the most important one, I think (as it pertains to what Abrahm was saying). Anguttara II.29, like the Majjhima 107, can be found at www.accesstoinsight.org The rest, I believe, cannot be found on accesstoinsight, but maybe on www.metta.lk in a few months. I also suggest you take a look at Thanissaro's essays, if you so wish. I believe he writes about just this topic (with suttic support). His books are good too, but more in line with the Thai Forest Tradition than traditional s