7800 From: m. nease Date: Sun Sep 2, 2001 1:24am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Sarah, This is a great example of the value of commentaries (I think) as well as an apt and needed exposure of yet another apparent (but mistaken) support for the 'primal mind' notion. Also a helpful sidelight on bhavangacitta, by the way. However, is Ven. Nyanaponika's footnote to be considered a part of the commentaries approved by one of the councils of arahatas? Thank you, Ma'am, mike --- Sarah wrote: > When I was trying to answer Erik’s question about > the 6 Pairs in Nyanaponika’s > book, I saw N. also quoted from AN1, 10: > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it > is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi0 defilements. This mind is luminous, > and it is freed from > intrusive defilements’ (his transl.) > > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The > commentary to this text explains > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life > continuum (bhavanga), which is > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by > defilements. The > defilements arise only in the active thought > process, not in the subliminal > flow of consciousness’. > > Now in this example, which we’ve discussed at > length, I’m sure that without the > commentary notes, I might not have understood it > correctly even thought the > nibbana interpretation wouldn’t have made sense to > me. Reading the bhavanga > interpretation, it seems logical and furthermore, I > admit I have confidence in > these ancient commentaries that had to be approved > by several councils of > arahats so soon after the Buddha’s parinibbana. Who > are we to question the > wisdom of these arahats? 7801 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 2, 2001 2:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Whenever you are attached to either good 'feel' or bad 'feel' about the > wholesome things you do or unwholesome things you do, they are still > attachement. Attachments = dukka > Kind regards > Kenneth Thanks, Kenneth. This makes sense. I would just say that I think it is possible to enjoy something without being attached to it. What do you think? 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" 7802 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 2, 2001 2:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic [Howard] --- Erik wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > This is really great stuff, Erik, a very clear meditation manual in > brief. I > > think you could take this to a desert island and do pretty well > with no other > > material. > > I'll be sure to let Ajahn Chah know you appreciated his simple > instructions as much as I did, if you don't beat me to the Far Shore, > that is! :) Well, if you get there first, please save me a space! : ) Robert E. 7803 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Sep 2, 2001 2:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... In my humble opinion as long as there is an an ego, whenever/whatever we enjoy, there will be an attachment. Sometimes it is very subtle that we could not observe it. Technically speaking when we enjoy something, there is an attachment because there arise a feeling of pleasure, be it observable or subtle. Hence in my personal perspective, I do not think we could at present enjoy something without being not attached to it. If we are detach from what we are doing, then the feeling of pleasure will not arise because we are not attached. And again techniccally speaking this means there will not be any enjoyment as there is no arise a feeling of pleasure. Kind regards Kenneth Robert Epstein wrote: --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Whenever you are attached to either good 'feel' or bad 'feel' about the > wholesome things you do or unwholesome things you do, they are still > attachement. Attachments = dukka > Kind regards > Kenneth Thanks, Kenneth. This makes sense. I would just say that I think it is possible to enjoy something without being attached to it. What do you think? Robert E. 7804 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 2, 2001 2:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > In my humble opinion as long as there is an an ego, whenever/whatever we enjoy, > there will be an attachment. Sometimes it is very subtle that we could not > observe it. Technically speaking when we enjoy something, there is an attachment > because there arise a feeling of pleasure, be it observable or subtle. Hence in > my personal perspective, I do not think we could at present enjoy something > without being not attached to it. If we are detach from what we are doing, then > the feeling of pleasure will not arise because we are not attached. And again > techniccally speaking this means there will not be any enjoyment as there is no > arise a feeling of pleasure. > Kind regards > Kenneth I am no expert, but it seems to me, Kenneth, that you are equating pleasureable feelings or sensations with attachment itself. It seems to me for the path to function through mindfulness, there must be a possibility of any experience being able to be non-attached to through looking at it with awareness and becoming aware of its characteristics of not-self, emptiness and impermanence. Does seeing the insubstantial nature of an object or experience remove the sensation or feeling of pleasure, and does pleasure or enjoyment only arise as an outgrowth of attachment? These are interesting questions. I think that it is possible to enjoy something but not cling to it and to let it go when it is over. I think this is more possible when encountering it with mindfulness and not getting absorbed by the experience. I recognize that this would be hard, however, and if you are saying mainly that in our current state this would be extremely unlikely, then I can understand your point of view. But if one is free of attachment, I do not imagine that this person would necessarily be like a robot, seeing what is there but with absolutely no experience of a response to it. Can one have a response and be non-attached at the same time? That is again an interesting question which I am not in a position to answer. I have met a few people in my life whom I believe by reputation and experience were enligthtened, and they were certainly capable of laughing at a joke or enjoying a meal. They merely did not have a notion of self or dharma being real or self-existent. Although I am anxious to let go of clingings and attachments, to objects as well as views, [as well as the one I am expressing here ], I want to also be careful not to fall into annihilationism and to think that I must therefore hold onto aversion to those things. I think it was the ascetics that Buddha criticized for being so averse to psychophysical clinging that they abused and neglected their bodies, and that this did not create an appropriate state of mind for realization. If I am distorting this point, which I am uncertain about, please let me know. 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" 7805 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 2, 2001 7:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Mike, Always good to hear from you! --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > This is a great example of the value of commentaries > (I think) as well as an apt and needed exposure of yet > another apparent (but mistaken) support for the > 'primal mind' notion. Also a helpful sidelight on > bhavangacitta, by the way. Thanks and yes. > However, is Ven. Nyanaponika's footnote to be > considered a part of the commentaries approved by one > of the councils of arahatas? Nyanaponika’s footnote was his ‘summary’ of the ancient commentary to AN (not published in English I think). The Pali for the ‘essential’ phrase in the commentary is: ‘navame pabhassaranti pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti bhava"ngacitta.m.’ Jim indicated the meaning: "In the ninth : 'luminous' is clear, pure. 'mind' is bhava"ngacitta.” With regard to the question as to whether the ancient commentaries were approved by which councils and at what dates (maybe Anders’ rather than your question, Mike), others would be able to give far more useful comments on this. I believe it is a generally accepted fact that the pali canon and ancient commentaries as we read them were approved at several Councils over many centuries and show, as I read them very slowly, almost complete uniformity . Robert and Jim have studied the references with regard to the authenticity of the commentaries and abhidhamma in far more detail and Rob wrote some useful posts on this, saved at this link under ‘abhidhamma; its origins’ (or sth like that): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Many thanks again, Mike, Sarah --- Sarah wrote: > When I was trying to answer Erik’s question about > the 6 Pairs in Nyanaponika’s > book, I saw Nyanaponika also quoted from AN1, 10: > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it > is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi0 defilements. This mind is luminous, > and it is freed from > intrusive defilements’ (his transl.) > > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The > commentary to this text explains > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life > continuum (bhavanga), which is > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by > defilements. The > defilements arise only in the active thought > process, not in the subliminal > flow of consciousness’. > 7806 From: m. nease Date: Sun Sep 2, 2001 11:41pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Sarah, --- Sarah wrote: > Nyanaponika’s footnote was his ‘summary’ of the > ancient commentary to AN (not > published in English I think). Thanks, this was what I was getting at (though I don't think my question was clear). What I wondered was if this footnote was Ven. Nyanaponika's comment or his (paraphrased) translation of an old commentary--clearly (now) the latter. > The Pali for the ‘essential’ phrase in the > commentary is: ‘navame pabhassaranti > pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti > bhava"ngacitta.m.’ > > Jim indicated the meaning: "In the ninth : > 'luminous' is clear, pure. > 'mind' is bhava"ngacitta.” Yes, I read Jim's earlier post and appreciated it. Somehow, though, your post citing N.'s footnote (again?) really helped to clarify this. Something I still don't understand is a question I asked once before (Nina kindly responded). I wonder if it would be accurate to say that the bhavangas don't manifest coarse or medium defilements but still pass along (potential) subtle defilements (anusaya). Otherwise I don't understand how accumulated kamma etc. could continue to be passed along from each citta to the next, creating (among other things) the illusion of continuity. > With regard to the question as to whether the > ancient commentaries were > approved by which councils and at what dates (maybe > Anders’ rather than your > question, Mike), others would be able to give far > more useful comments on this. > I believe it is a generally accepted fact that the > pali canon and ancient > commentaries as we read them were approved at > several Councils over many > centuries and show, as I read them very slowly, > almost complete uniformity . I'm certainly willing to accept this as a working hypothesis. I haven't gone in depth into 'hermaneutics' and detailed (and questionable) histories as this sort of approach never seems to dispel much doubt for me. On the other hand, I've found Robert's logical arguments especially convincing (i.e., what motivation would have inspired large numbers of monks, strictly bound by precepts, to conspire to interpolate a huge amount of material into the tipitaka and then lie about it from then on? -excuse the paraphrase, Robert). Admittedly this is just logic, but I believe that's allowed if balanced with comparisons to the suttas and with personal observation. Even Ven. Bodhi who, I gather, accepts the idea of the abhidhamma as a later addition to the tipitaka (see message 3350), has this to say about it: "The reason the Abhidhamma Pitaka is so deeply revered only becomes clear as a result of thorough study and profound reflection, undertaken in the conviction that these ancient books have something significant to communicate. When one approaches the Abhidhamma treatises in such a spirit and gains some insight into their wide implications and organic unity, one will find that they are attempting nothing less than to articulate a comprehensive vision of the totality of experienced reality, a vision marked by extensiveness of range, systematic completeness, and analytical precision. From the standpoint of Theravada orthodoxy the system that they expound is not a figment of speculative thought, not a mosaic put together out of metaphysical hypotheses, but a disclosure of the true nature of existence as apprehended by a mind that has penetrated the totality of things both in depth and in the finest detail. Because it bears this character, the Theravada tradition regards the Abhidhamma as the most perfect expression possible of the Buddha's unimpeded omniscient knowledge (sabbaññuta-ñana). It is his statement of the way things appear to the mind of a Fully Enlightened One, ordered in accordance with the two poles of his teaching: suffering and the cessation of suffering". A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Acariya Anuruddha Excerpt: Introduction by Bhikkhu Bodhi, General Editor > Robert and Jim have studied the references with > regard to the authenticity of > the commentaries and abhidhamma in far more detail > and Rob wrote some useful > posts on this, saved at this link under ‘abhidhamma; > its origins’ (or sth like > that): > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Right--thanks for reminding me of the links. > --- Sarah wrote: > > > When I was trying to answer Erik’s question about > > the 6 Pairs in Nyanaponika’s > > book, I saw Nyanaponika also quoted from AN1, 10: > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but > it > > is defiled by intrusive > > (aagantukehi0 defilements. This mind is luminous, > > and it is freed from > > intrusive defilements’ (his transl.) > > > > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The > > commentary to this text explains > > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life > > continuum (bhavanga), which is > > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted > by > > defilements. The > > defilements arise only in the active thought > > process, not in the subliminal > > flow of consciousness’. 7807 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 0:05am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Robert, Hope you don't mind my butting in (again). --- Robert Epstein wrote: > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Whenever you are attached to either good 'feel' > or bad 'feel' about the > > wholesome things you do or unwholesome things you > do, they are still > > attachement. Attachments = dukka > > Kind regards > > Kenneth > > Thanks, Kenneth. This makes sense. I would just > say that I think it is possible > to enjoy something without being attached to it. > What do you think? Attachment (as I understand it in this context) refers to identification with one of the khandhas. Since there's really no 'you' to enjoy or to be attached, I think the question is, does clinging (upaadaana) to a khandha occur (in this case vedanupaadaana(sp?), or clinging to (identification with) a pleasant feeling. A pleasant feeling (enjoyment?) arising without lobha (another kind of attachment) and vedanaa-upaadaana (identification with (pleasant) feeling--"I'm enjoying this") is a very long shot for us puthujjanas, I think--but maybe that's just 'me'. mike 7808 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 0:21am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Kenneth, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > In my humble opinion as long as there is an an ego, > whenever/whatever we enjoy, there will be an > attachment. Sometimes it is very subtle that we > could not observe it. Technically speaking when we > enjoy something, there is an attachment because > there arise a feeling of pleasure, be it observable > or subtle. Hence in my personal perspective, I do > not think we could at present enjoy something > without being not attached to it. Agreed. > If we are detach > from what we are doing, then the feeling of pleasure > will not arise because we are not attached. And > again techniccally speaking this means there will > not be any enjoyment as there is no arise a feeling > of pleasure. Not sure about this--I thought I remembered the Buddha speaking about 'enjoying' and 'delighting'. Here's an example I came up with: "The Tathagata enjoys non-ill will, delights in non-ill will. To him -- enjoying non-ill will, delighting in non-ill will -- this thought often occurs: 'By this activity I harm no one at all, whether weak or firm.' "The Tathagata enjoys seclusion, delights in seclusion. To him -- enjoying seclusion, delighting in seclusion -- this thought often occurs: 'Whatever is unskillful is abandoned.' Itivuttaka 38 The Group Of Twos http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/itivuttaka/iti2.html It seems to me that sukkha vedanaa will arise when the conditions for it exist (I don't know think that attachment is a necessary condition for pleasant feeling), even when there is no ego--just that lobha and vedanna upaadaana won't arise. But maybe I'm mistaken. What do you think? Thanks for letting me join in your discussion. mike > Robert Epstein wrote: > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > > Whenever you are attached to either good 'feel' or > bad 'feel' about the > > wholesome things you do or unwholesome things you > do, they are still > > attachement. Attachments = dukka > > Kind regards > > Kenneth > > Thanks, Kenneth. This makes sense. I would just say > that I think it is possible > to enjoy something without being attached to it. > What do you think? > > Robert E. 7809 From: Ken Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 8:42am Subject: Re: toeing the party line....;-) Mike You wrote; " . . . These rebukes of the Buddha are always bracingly instructive. I've read this one before, (though I think the translation was 'you foolish man'), but forget the source--can you cite it?" Gladly. The reference given by Walpola Rahula ("What the Buddha Taught" p24), for the Mahatanhasamkhaya-sutta is M I (PTS), p256 ff. I tried to find it on the net but without success. Are you making a collectiio of these rebukes? I'd like to make a collection of the various ways of seeing the Four Foundations of Mindfulness as "the Middle Way." Your recent comment; "In this context I think satipatthaana could be called the middle path between 'dealing with akusala' and ignoring it," will make a good start. Kind regards Ken 7810 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 9:04am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > Nyanaponika's footnote was his `summary' of the > > ancient commentary to AN (not > > published in English I think). > > Thanks, this was what I was getting at (though I don't > think my question was clear). What I wondered was if > this footnote was Ven. Nyanaponika's comment or his > (paraphrased) translation of an old > commentary--clearly (now) the latter. From the superficial comparisons I did from B. Bodhi's notes and the commentaries (in MN), whenever he refers to the ancient Acariya's commentaries, he explicitly says so. When he doesn't, it is implied that the source is not the ancient commentaries. kom 7811 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 0:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Hope you don't mind my butting in (again). > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > > Whenever you are attached to either good 'feel' > > or bad 'feel' about the > > > wholesome things you do or unwholesome things you > > do, they are still > > > attachement. Attachments = dukka > > > Kind regards > > > Kenneth > > > > Thanks, Kenneth. This makes sense. I would just > > say that I think it is possible > > to enjoy something without being attached to it. > > What do you think? > > Attachment (as I understand it in this context) refers > to identification with one of the khandhas. Since > there's really no 'you' to enjoy or to be attached, I > think the question is, does clinging (upaadaana) to a > khandha occur (in this case vedanupaadaana(sp?), or > clinging to (identification with) a pleasant feeling. > > A pleasant feeling (enjoyment?) arising without lobha > (another kind of attachment) and vedanaa-upaadaana > (identification with (pleasant) feeling--"I'm enjoying > this") is a very long shot for us puthujjanas, I > think--but maybe that's just 'me'. > > mike Thanks, Mike, I appreciate the discussion. It's sort of an important topic to me, and I'll try to explain why. I understand your point, and I probably agree, that for us folks on the way here it's probably a long shot to have enjoyments without attachment or unpleasant experiences without aversion. But it's important to me to point at a model of experience that does not involve being attached to aversion or averse to attachment. It seems to me that if the model is 'anti-experience' based on the addictive nature of experience, that new karmic effects are created on top of the ones that already need to be released. I am saying that when enjoyment or pleasure arises, that the subtle response 'I shouldn't be enjoying this because it will cause attachment' may be in the mind of the practitioner, and that this is a mistake. That this is not an expression of mindfulness but of thought-reaction to what is arising. If one instead takes the attitude that I believe the Buddha prescribes, if I am correct, one would simply want to say: 'See pleasure as pleasure, and if attachment is present, see attachment as attachment', etc. I think that it is important to not only look at primary attachment and aversion, but attachment to aversion and aversion to attachment. I would consider these a practioner's problems, because they would only arise for someone who sincerely cared about the path. But I think they're very important to someone who has already committed themselves to not feeding attachment. Does any of this make sense? Robert E. 7812 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 0:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Kenneth, > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > In my humble opinion as long as there is an an ego, > > whenever/whatever we enjoy, there will be an > > attachment. Sometimes it is very subtle that we > > could not observe it. Technically speaking when we > > enjoy something, there is an attachment because > > there arise a feeling of pleasure, be it observable > > or subtle. Hence in my personal perspective, I do > > not think we could at present enjoy something > > without being not attached to it. > > Agreed. > > > If we are detach > > from what we are doing, then the feeling of pleasure > > will not arise because we are not attached. And > > again techniccally speaking this means there will > > not be any enjoyment as there is no arise a feeling > > of pleasure. > > Not sure about this--I thought I remembered the Buddha > speaking about 'enjoying' and 'delighting'. Here's an > example I came up with: > > "The Tathagata enjoys non-ill will, delights in > non-ill will. To him -- enjoying non-ill will, > delighting in non-ill will -- this thought often > occurs: 'By this activity I harm no one at all, > whether weak or firm.' > > "The Tathagata enjoys seclusion, delights in > seclusion. To him -- enjoying seclusion, delighting in > seclusion -- this thought often occurs: 'Whatever is > unskillful is abandoned.' > > Itivuttaka 38 > The Group Of Twos Thanks, Mike. I think these are good examples of Buddha describing a kind of benign enjoyment and delight, and is part of what I was hinting at. It may be for advanced states only, but is still something to understand, so that we don't see all pleasant experience as being inherently expressions of attachment. Wouldn't it be a shame if we were meant to enjoy, without attachment, the subtle flavor of the advanced portion of the path to enlightenment, and instead suppressed this, thinking it erroneously to represent attachment? Perhaps lower enjoyments that attach us to the things of the world are suspect, but the enjoyment of the path itself may not be attached, but may be natural expressions of the correct mood on the way to Nirvana. I also recall some discussion of the jhanas or other progressive states where it is mentioned in each stage how pleasant and enjoyable each state is. Perhaps someone else can remind me where the Buddha speaks this way. Thanks, Robert E. =============== 7813 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 1:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation Hi Sarah, This is a wonderful post. I learned from it a lot. Thank you and all who participated in this discussion. ~mettha Ranil >From: Sarah >Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation >Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 17:57:06 +0800 (CST) > >Dear Mike C, > >thank you very much for your post and comments below (and thanks Frank for >your >help). > > > From: Michael Chu < > > Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:13 pm > > Subject: cultivation style and the need for sitting > > meditation > > > Dear Sara and all, > >> > > I am very lazy at my practice of meditation. I > > average about fifteen > > minutes of meditation every other day. Comparing > > myself to my fellow > > cultivator friends, namely Frank and William, who do > > at least one hour of > > sitting meditation each day continuously for several > > years, I have noticed > > their ability to be mindful and serene far exceed > > mine. > >Mike, may I make 2 quick comments here? I don’t think it’s very fruitful to >compare yourself with others. Doesn’t this just lead to thoughts of >inferiority >(in this case) and unhappy feelings? Secondly, do we ever really know >another’s >state of mind? isn’t it hard enough to know when we’re really calm or have >mindfulness as opposed to a pleasant feeling or subtle clinging? We can >never >tell in another just be the appearance or posture what the state of mind >is. > > > > I personally noticed that lacking the mindfulness of > > cultivation from > > meditation, I am having a much more difficult time > > progressing in the Noble > > Eightfold Path compare to my peers. On the > > concentration group, I can only > > sporadically address my present moment with the right > > effort, mindfulness, > > and concentration. Without the appropriate > > concentration, I find myself to > > have further difficulty achieving the right speech and > > action. > >Mike, i think you have the right idea when you recognise that the time for >mindfulness is the present moment. However, it seems that you have an idea >of a >‘self’ that should be able to progress, concentrate, be mindful and achieve >rt >speech and action. When we mind so much about these states, doesn’t it also >show how much we cling to ME, myself. Doesn’t it show how much we’d like to >be >the mindful, concentrated one with good speech and action? > >What about when we compare or wish to have mindfulness, being aware of the >clinging to self at these times? Wouldn’t that be a little progress? People >have the idea that concentration should be fixing undistractedly on an >object . >But in what way is it pure or wholesome when this happens? There is >concentration all the time, even when we’re distracted (according to the >Teachings). > > My progress > > of having the right understanding, thought, and speech > > is also hindered. By > > lacking the right understanding, I find myself making > > poor plans for my > > livelihood. My clarity of mind is always compromised. > >We all lack right understanding most the time, Mike. Recognizing how little >understanding there is, is a really good start. Actually, I think the more >understanding develops, the more it sees what real beginners we are. As one >of >our members, suggested, we think we know and then there’s a little >breakthrough >and we realise it was all wrong after all! For understanding to really >develop, >we need to hear and consider more about what are the actual phenomena that >can >be known. > >When we talk about livelihood plans, we can talk about them from many >angles. >Frank is considering taking early retirement and living in a forest. Form a >conventional point of view, these would be poor livelihood decisions. From >a >Buddhist point of view, it would depend on the intentions and motivations >involved, because in Buddhism, we’re always more concerned with the present >state of mind than ‘the story’. I hope your livlihood works out better in >both >regards! > > > > I also noticed lacking the ability to be mindful even > > hinders the right > > breathing and induces undesirable states like > > sluggishness, impatience, > > restlessness, and anger. I can only so far only be > > able to do a limited > > form of damage control on these undesirable states > > when I occasionally > > remember to stay away from them. Another thing I > > noticed is that these > > undesirable statements can be quickly terminated if I > > catch them on their > > early stages. To be able to catch the arising of > > these undesirable states, > > we need to be mindful. > >It seems that we can ‘catch’ them or stop them arising and conventionally, >this >is often true. Hence we say to a child ‘snap out of it’ and the child >sometimes >does! On a deeper level, however, we can see we’re pretty much stuck with >our >‘character’ and inclinations, so that sooner or later these negative states >will arise again and again in spite of good intentions. Why is this? >Because >they have been gathering for so very long and are not controllable. Even if >mindfulness is mindful of the anger or impatience for a moment, what about >next >moment? > >Again, may I suggest, that the reason we mind so much about these states is >not >usually because we see the danger of ALL kinds of unwholesomeness, but >because >the ones you’ve mentioned are unpleasant and we cling so much to a self! >When >we’re having a great time and there’s no anger or impatience, do we mind >about >the excitement and attachment? What about all the ignorance in between? > > > >> The very reason why we should apply appropriate > > mindfulness and catch the > > arising anger before it gets any bigger and out of > > control. > > > > So far the best way to achieve mindfulness that I know > > of is through > > practicing proper meditation. If you have any > > suggestion that we can better > > achieve mindfulness, I would love to know. > >Actually, Mike, there is no self to apply mindfulness or do anything. This >doesn’t mean ‘give up’ and it doesn't mean 'sit' or 'don't sit', it means >learn >more about what mindfulness really is, what the objects of mindfulness are >and >develop understanding (by understanding , not doing) of these same >realities at >any time. This is what I call bhavana or meditation. > >One or two practical suggestions: > >1) Join DSG, go to ‘Useful Posts’ at this link and scroll down to ‘new to >Dhamma’ for some suggestions or other topics that look interesting. > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > >2) Keep asking questions here....be patient for replies and ignore posts >that >are too technical for now. > >3) Go to this website and read anything that doesn’t seem too hard >http://www.abhidhamma.org/ > >Hope to hear more form you, > >Best wishes, >Sarah > 7814 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 3:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief! Dear Num, Num wrote: > Hi Kom and Nina, > > Hope you guys don't mind I try to get in the discussion about paccaya. It's > hard for me reading about paccaya. Again, please do correct me and I always > appreciate every input. This is only my opinion. Nina may add more when she comes back from her trip, but meanwhile my turn to ‘get in’ to your discusion;-) Paccaya are very complicated and it’s just these few days with no students that I can give them a little more attention. (Actually I tried last week, but didn’t have a yahoo connection and then other posts jumped the queue!) > > From your writing (Nina's) about conditions and from other sources I have > read and listened, Jhana paccaya included both miccha-samadhi and > samma-samadhi. Also from your books and some discussion with Kom, all 7 > Jhana( esp ekaggata) factors can arise in both kusula or akusula citta. In > Dosa based samadhi, only domanassa can be a vedana along with other Jhana > factors, viakka, vicara as well as ekaggata. In Lobha based samadhi vitakka, > > vicara, piti, somanassa(sukha), ekaggata and I think even upekkha can be a > Jhanna factors here b/c at time lobha-mula-citta can accompany by upekkha as > well, not only in last stage of Jhana in both four and five level. But if > samadhi is samma-samadhi, which means it's accompanied by panna, Jhana cannot > > be akusala in nature. So panna distinguishs Jhana into kusala and akulasa. Num, this all seems pretty correct to me (no guarantees, though!!). From U Narada’s text (below), we read ‘It is due to jhana condition that a faultless or faulty action in thought, word or deed can be completely performed from the beginning right thought to the end. Without jhana condition it would not be possible (1) to shoot birds and animals...’etc Those who wish to read more can do so at: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ I also find U Narada’s ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’ helpful (PTS) As Dan wrote (very helpfully) recently, it’s so easy to confuse different states and to confuse kusala with akusala. It’s also easy to overestimate one’s own attainments in these areas, I think. It’s helpful to reflect on how jhana can be taken in this wide sense as condition to see how even strong samadhi and the other factors can all be unwholesome. As Nina writes: ‘When there is no panna which precisely knows when there is kusala cita and when akusala citta, one can take wrong concentration for right concentration. One may mistakenly believe that the citta is calm when one just sits and for example looks for a long time at a kasina (disk) whih is one of the meditation subjectys. Instead of true calm which is wholesome there is merely clinging to quiet’. A little later she adds: ‘When one overestimates the development of jhana there will be wrong concentration. It is dificult to distinguish between jhana factors such as vitakka and vicara. While we are thinking there must be vitakka and vicara performing their functions, they arise together, but do we discern their different characteristics? Do we know the characteristic of piti and can we distinguish it from sukha, pleasant feeling? When we find out for ourselves how difficult it is to distinguish between these jhana-factors, we will understand that there must be a high degree of panna for the development of the jhana-factors’. >> Also in Magga paccaya, miccha-ditthi has been included as a factor, but > ditthi and panna(samma-ditthi) cannot arise together. If magga paccaya at > that moment has samma-ditthi(panna), all other magga factors also have been > entitled as samma- â€|.., if it's not a right path (with miccha-ditthi) > whatever magga factors which coarise at that moment all become part of > miccha-magga. Exactly so. Someone recently (Robert E?) suggested one couldn’t follow the wrong path for 30 years if one was sincere in one’s endeavours (or something to that effect, apologies Rob E if this isn’t correct). On the contrary, I think that if miccha -ditthi is being taken for samma-ditthi, it’s very possible to just be accumulating more miccha-ditthi, not just for 30 years but for aeons of lifetimes! Nina gives an example under ‘Path condition’ which is relevant to some of the discussions on dsg: ‘One may take the wrong path for the right path when one thinks that one should not be aware of akusala, that one should suppress it before one can develop vipassana. When we understand that akusala citta is conditioned by numerous factors, some of them stemming from the past, some of them factors of the present, we are reminded to be aware of akusala in order to see it as not self.’ Thanks for your comments and encouragement to consider a little more in these areas, Num. Hope you had a good trip to Canada and look forward to more of your timely insights. Very heavy rain in Hong Kong, so a good chance to catch up here;-) Sarah 7815 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 5:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief! Dear Kom and all, I appreciated your comments, Thai commentary notes and Nina’s very helpful pointers on this topic which I’ve been pursuing a little as I just told Num. --- Kom Tukovinit wrote:............................................ > . 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. .................................................. In addition to Nina’s clear and helpful comments given here in brief: ........................................... 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 ............................................... I’d like to add another quote from U Narada later(p.218)which might also be helpful. This is regard to sukha, translated as bliss. I think it’ll be easy to see how domanassa performs its function in the same (opposite) way: ‘Next, bliss performs its function of great relish so that consciousness cannot turn away from the object which it enjoys. for although consciousness enjoys the object, unless the relish is very great the object will not be dear enough for consciousness to fasten on to it. Because the delight, which takes place for a short while owing to the novelty of the object, will soon turn into disgust and eventually consciousness will turn away from the object’. Kom, returning to the Sutta > Digha Nikaya 21 > Sakka-pañha Sutta > Sakka's Questions > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn21.html and the 2 kinds of domanassa, to be pursued and not to be pursued again, firstly thanks for your Thai commentary notes (yes, not available in English, but your translation is very helpful). I think I may have been barking up the wrong tree. Nina gave me a good clue below when she likened it to the tanha issue in the Netti which some of us discussed at length: ........................................ Nina: 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, .......................................... As I mentioned, Khun Sujin stressed that it should not be understood that tanha was ever kusala in anyway. However tankha for following the noble path is or developing kusala is not as bad as other kinds of tanha (connected to the 5 sensualities) as it can be upanissaya paccaya for kusala and this is what should be understood. This is how I read the Thai comm notes you provided, but it may not sound convincing to others;-) ........................................... Kom: ‘The commentary mentioned that domanassa that should not be pursued includes domanassa that is connected to the 5 sensualities. The domanassa that should be pursued includes domanassa resulting from wanting to attain the lokutarra phala but doesn't attain adaquate amount of vipassana in a certain period of time, the wanting of the same kind of ayatana as the ariyans. As a result of the want, the domanassa arises. "To be pursued" domannassaa includes: domanassa resulting from leaving the 5 sensualities, from vipassana, from being mindful - being aware, from the 1st Jhana, etc. It was then explained in detail how a Bikhu can have domanassa resulted from wanting to have the result but has not attained. .................................................. Finally, a quote from Nyanaponika on the jhana factors in ‘Abhidhamma Studies, p57: ‘The intensity of a state of consciousness does not allow anything to be said about its ethical value or its spiritual rank. It is a point common to the intensifying factors and the pentad of sense-contact that both groups are ethically indifferent; they may occur in wholesome, unwholesome, and karmically neutral consciousness. Both groups take, as it were, the colour of their “root sap”, that is, they assume the quality of thw wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral “root causes’ (muula or hetu) associated with them....’ Kom, Num and others, let me just say I’m just learning a little a I write and any corrections or comments from your ‘bright brains’ are very welcome or from any others. It’s been interesting and I think the understanding of jhana (and path) factors, both kusala and akusala as conditions at this moment is very useful, even if it’s mostly theoretical for now! Best wishes, Sarah 7816 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 5:20pm Subject: Anusaya-latent tendencies-Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Yes, I read Jim's earlier post and appreciated it. > Somehow, though, your post citing N.'s footnote > (again?) really helped to clarify this. yes, sometimes it has to be the right note at the right time....;-)) > > Something I still don't understand is a question I > asked once before (Nina kindly responded). I wonder > if it would be accurate to say that the bhavangas > don't manifest coarse or medium defilements but still > pass along (potential) subtle defilements (anusaya). > Otherwise I don't understand how accumulated kamma > etc. could continue to be passed along from each citta > to the next, creating (among other things) the > illusion of continuity. yes, all the anusaya are passed along from citta to citta regardless of which jati (plane) the citta is (i.e whether kusala- wholesome, akusala-unwholesome, vipaka-result or kiriya-inoperative), so even with the bhavanga cittas, with no gap or interval between them. We have to go back to the paccaya (conditions) to understand the intricacies of how this happens and how the citta arising now could not be any other citta than it is. Excuse this brief answer for now (I'm jhana-ed out)! Others may add more detail too. Thanks for your other comments about the comentaries, Mike. Btw when I mentioned the verse in 'Good Grief' posts was a little more tricky, I didn't realise how tricky;-)) Speak soon, Sarah 7817 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 5:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation Ranil, --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > This is a wonderful post. I learned from it a lot. Thank you and all who > participated in this discussion. I appreciate your kind comments and thank you for participating by reading and reflecting;-)) Look forward to hearing more from you. Sarah > > > From: Michael Chu < > > > Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:13 pm > > > Subject: cultivation style and the need for sitting > > > meditation 7818 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 5:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Kenneth, You're another one who has slipped in quietly I believe?? That's fine and you're very welcome. I'm enjoying (yes, plenty of attachment for sure) your posts with Robert E and others. If you also care to tell us a little more about your'self' and dhamma background and where you live, that would be interesting too... Btw, I can't fault what you've written here!! Best regards, Sarah --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > > > Whenever you are attached to either good 'feel' or bad 'feel' about the > > wholesome things you do or unwholesome things you do, they are still > > attachement. Attachments = dukka > > Kind regards > > Kenneth 7819 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 5:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi Anders, I’ll keep this pretty brief as I know you’re busy and trying to take a break;-)) --- Anders Honore wrote: > > So soon? The Pali Canon was compiled centuries after his Parinibbana, > and I'll bet the commentaries are even later. It is always easy to > slap the label "300 arahants" on them commentators to canonify their > writings as well, but I do not take such statements on blind > authority (nor do I take the Mahayana teachings on blind authority). I think I’ve answered this (as best I can without more research)in my note to Mike under the same heading.... > > Well, writings such as the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not even make > any pretense: It says outright that there is a self (Nirvana/Buddha- > nature). Prominent figures such as Nagarjuna (who, if aybody, must be > regarded as "canon" within Mahayana) said the same thing. > As I have stated several times here, I have found no place whatsoever > in the Pali Canon that says that there categorically no self. The > only thing that comes close is the "Sabbe dhamma anatta", but as we > know "dhamma" is pretty much a catch-all prhase which can mean a > multitude of things. There a loads of suttas in which the Buddha > explains in great detail how all conditioned dhammas are anatta > (where he basically goes trhough the entire chain of dependent co- > origination), but he never once mentions Nibbbana specifically in > relation to annatta. The Buddha encourages us to understand the paramattha dhammas which are appearing now and can be known now. These are the conditioned realities appearing through the 6 doorways which as you said, should be known by panna. He doesn’t talk about a primal mind or bodhi citta appearing through one of these doorways because these are concepts, along with nibbana (until realised) that cannot be known directly. The concern in the teachings is with realities to be known right now. > Again, how does your own understanding of anatta accord with the > criterions in the Kalama sutta? When I read any of the suttas (from the difficult one I was discussing with Mike and Kom to the Satipatthana sutta or Kalama sutta to any others), they are all about paramattha dhammas, the understanding of these dhammas as anatta and the development of satipatthana and vipassana. Different suttas have a different emphasis according to the audience at the time. In the Kalama Sutta, the emphasis is on understanding directly those states which are wholesome and those which are unwholesome, those which bring ‘good’ results and those which bring ‘bad’ results. As I just stressed on the tricky jhana post, there cannot be any bhavana (mental development or meditation) of either samatha or vipassana if there is no understanding of the difference between wholesome and unwholesome moments. When I read these suttas, they remind me right now to develop awareness and understand whether the citta which is directing these words and the acompanying mental states are wholesome or unwholesome. Are we lost in stories now? Is there seeing and visible object now? Is there any self or primal mind in the seeing or is it just the nama which experiences an object for a moment, and then gone? Very much look forward to more in due course, Anders. Sarah 7820 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 8:33pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Rob E, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > You raise an interesting point. If samatha/jhana 'practice' is a > > necessary part of the development of the path, is a person with stiff hips > > or jogger's knees handicapped in the quest for enlightenment?! ;--)) ;--)) > > My immediate response is 'no' and then my secondary response is 'yes'. > I think > it's 'no' in the sense that no physical obstacle should be sufficient to > bar > someone from exercising mindfulness. On the other hand, I can't say > that > meditating lying down is going to have the same effect as meditating > sitting up, > or that slumping over is going to have the same effect as sitting up > straight, or > that sitting with tension in body and breathing is going to have the > same effect > as sitting with gentle uprightness. > > I am not aware of what the Buddha said on posture and position, but I > know that if > I sit cross-legged on the floor and watch the breath it is a very > different > experience in some ways than what happens if I lie down [which I do when > falling > asleep] and watch the breath. In the Satipatthana Sutta (in the section on The Modes of Deportment), the Buddha had this to say about posture and position: "And further, O bhikkhus, when he is going, a bhikkhu understands: 'I am going'; when he is standing, he understands: 'I am standing'; when he is sitting, he understands: 'I am sitting'; when he is lying down, he understands: 'I am lying down'; or just as his body is disposed so he understands it…. Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body…." The 4 postures and positions described here--going, standing sitting and lying down--between them cover all postures that may be assumed at any time. This helps us to understand that satipatthana (ie. mundane insight) is not limited as to posture or time. Nor is it limited as to kind of activity. In the same sutta, Section on The Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, the Buddha said: "And further, a bhikkhu, in going forwards (and) in going backwards, is a person practising clear comprehension; in looking straight on (and) in looking away from the front, is a person practising clear comprehension; in bending and in stretching, … in wearing the robes and bowl, … in regard to what is eaten, drunk, chewed and savoured, … in defecating and in urinating, … in standing (in a place), in sitting (in some position), in sleeping, in waking, in speaking and in keeping silence, is a person practising clear comprehension. … Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body…" This likewise covers all activities at any time of the day. So although things do seem different depending on whether we are, for example, sitting or lying down, being quiet or rushing around, with the family or 'in practice', satipatthana as taught by the Buddha is something that cuts across all these differences. It is something that is independent of situation or occasion. It can be useful to ask ourselves whether our understanding of what satipatthana is consistent with this, or whether we have an idea of satipatthana that requires that certain conditions as to posture, activity or time need to be satisfied in order for it to arise. Jon 7821 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 8:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samatha-Vipassana Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Binh) - > This is an interesting sutta you quote below, particularly the > last > paragraph, apparently indicating a jhana-less approach to arahantship: On my reading, 2 of the 4 approaches given here (ie. numbers 2 and 4 below) indicate a jhana-less approach. (By 'jhana-less' I mean in the sense of not requiring prior development of mundane jhana. But all 4 ways are accompanied by concentration that is jhana-equivalent in its force.) Here are the 4 ways again, with extracts from footnotes to the translation [passages in square brackets are mine]: 1. After developing samatha The footnote says that this refers to one who makes tranquillity the vehicle of his practice (samatha-yaanika). Tranquillity here refers to access concentration, the jhanas or the formless attainments. 2. Before developing samatha The commentary reads: "This refers to one who by his natural bent first attains to insight and then, based on insight produces concentration (samadhi)." The sub-com reads: "This is one who makes insight the vehicle (vipassanaa-yaanika)." 3. In conjunction with the development of samatha [This is the instance of insight being 'based on' jhana. The insight arises after emerging from jhana, and takes the jhana moments as its object. This is the 'yoked/conjoined' instance.]. 4. By overcoming the corruptions (ie without any part being played by samatha) The footnote reads: 'According to AA [the commentary], the "agitation" (uddhacca) meant here is a reaction to the arising of the ten "corruptions of insight" when they are wrongly taken as indication path-attainment. The term dhammavitakka, "thoughts about higher states" is taken to refer to the same ten corruptions. …' Regarding the 4th way just given, you observe: > AN IV, 165 > Translation 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' > 83. Ways to Arahantship > "Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation caused by > higher > states of mind. But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally > steadied, composed, unified and concentrated; then the path arises in > him. . He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he > is > doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies > eliminated." > ************************************************* > The questions that occur to me are the following: > > 1) What is meant by "higher states of mind"? > > 2) What sort of agitation would arise as a result of them? > > 3) Exactly what is the state wherein one's "mind becomes > internally > steadied, composed, unified and concentrated"? It sounds like it *could* be > access concentration or khanika samadhi (moment-to-moment > concentration). > That would be interesting. This would, indeed, suggest an approach to > complete enlightenment, one out of four, that does not have jhanic > attainment > as a requirement at all, though it still requires a strong and rather > stable > one-pointedness of mind. Your questions (1) and (2) are covered by the footnote, I think. On your Q.3, we need to keep in mind the distinction between samatha and samadhi. Samatha bhavana (tranquillity development) refers to the development of kusala by concentration on a single object, eventually to a degree of absorption in the object where all sense-door impressions, and the akusala associated with those experiences, are suppressed. Being (temporarily) freed from akusala, the mind becomes exceedingly tranquil. Samadhi cetasika (concentration mental factor) is a cetasika whose function is to fix the citta on whatever object is the object of the citta at that moment. It accompanies every citta. At moments of enlightenment (magga citta) samadhi cetasika arises and performs its function with an intensity equivalent to that of the jhanas. It is developed to this 'jhana-equivalent' level during the course of the development of mundane insight over the many (millions of) lifetimes it has taken to attain to enlightenment. In other words, every moment of satipatthana during this lifetime means the further development and accumulation of khanika samadhi. So, yes, it may well be that 'concentration' in the passage from the sutta refers to khanika samadhi; but this does not connote the development of samatha bhavana. I think the important point to realise about all this is as follows, if my understanding is correct: Regardless of which of the 4 ways of enlightenment one is talking about, attainment of supramundane path consciousness (enlightenment) is always the culmination of the development of mundane path consciousness (ie. mundane insight--vipassana bhavana). In other words, it is not the culmination of samatha bhavana. Even those whose attainment is 'based on' jhana (No. 3 in the series above) cannot attain unless mundane insight has been developed to the necessary degree. So on a practical level, it always comes back to the development of awareness of realities appearing at the present moment, as taught in the Satipatthana Sutta--for this is how mundane insight is developed. Jon 7822 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 8:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief!- Num Correction: --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Num, > > Those who wish to read more can do so at: > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > I meant to add that those who wished to read in more detail can do so in 'Conditions' by Nina Van Gorkom at this website. (A lot easier to digest than the Pathana, imho;-)) 7823 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 8:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation Thanks Sarah, From your post I learnt the following important point: No point of comparing myself with others (even to the extent of the status of the mind.). I am myself and I am where I am and I have to act according to that state of mind or the situation ...etc. Ofcoures I knew it throuht my life but your post made me really understand it. It was like a missing peace which made the picture complete. Also, yesterday I heard in a sermon over here in Sri Lanka (from Rev. Uduwe Dhammaloka) that when ever you are in troble, having problems...etc Buddha has told to do 2 things. 1. To adhere to the five percepts 2. Try to control your mind No 1 will solve most of the problems itseems. for example you may end all the lies you have told and you have to tell just by telling the truth once (ofcourse there might be a bomb blast after you tell the truth but at least your problem is going to be over) and you may stop drinking is you are in to drinking. And by no 2 you can avoid yourself falling into more problems by being mindful. But again we have to use the above wisely. Should not tell the truth like a fool. Now I have to ask this. There are some situations in life that it may seem easier not to tell the truth. Say like this. If I tell the truth another person will get hurt. If I dont tell, I will get hurt. So I will not tell the truth because the other person will get hurt. How should these situations be handled? ~meththa to you and all Ranil >From: "ranil gunawardena" >Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation >Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 05:47:34 > >Hi Sarah, > >This is a wonderful post. I learned from it a lot. Thank you and all who >participated in this discussion. > >~mettha >Ranil > > > >From: Sarah > > > >Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation > >Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 17:57:06 +0800 (CST) > > > >Dear Mike C, > > > >thank you very much for your post and comments below (and thanks Frank >for > >your > >help). > > > > > From: Michael Chu < > > > Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:13 pm > > > Subject: cultivation style and the need for sitting > > > meditation > > > > > Dear Sara and all, > > >> > > > I am very lazy at my practice of meditation. I > > > average about fifteen > > > minutes of meditation every other day. Comparing > > > myself to my fellow > > > cultivator friends, namely Frank and William, who do > > > at least one hour of > > > sitting meditation each day continuously for several > > > years, I have noticed > > > their ability to be mindful and serene far exceed > > > mine. > > > >Mike, may I make 2 quick comments here? I don’t think it’s very fruitful >to > >compare yourself with others. Doesn’t this just lead to thoughts of > >inferiority > >(in this case) and unhappy feelings? Secondly, do we ever really know > >another’s > >state of mind? isn’t it hard enough to know when we’re really calm or >have > >mindfulness as opposed to a pleasant feeling or subtle clinging? We can > >never > >tell in another just be the appearance or posture what the state of mind > >is. > > > > > > I personally noticed that lacking the mindfulness of > > > cultivation from > > > meditation, I am having a much more difficult time > > > progressing in the Noble > > > Eightfold Path compare to my peers. On the > > > concentration group, I can only > > > sporadically address my present moment with the right > > > effort, mindfulness, > > > and concentration. Without the appropriate > > > concentration, I find myself to > > > have further difficulty achieving the right speech and > > > action. > > > >Mike, i think you have the right idea when you recognise that the time >for > >mindfulness is the present moment. However, it seems that you have an >idea > >of a > >‘self’ that should be able to progress, concentrate, be mindful and >achieve > >rt > >speech and action. When we mind so much about these states, doesn’t it >also > >show how much we cling to ME, myself. Doesn’t it show how much we’d like >to > >be > >the mindful, concentrated one with good speech and action? > > > >What about when we compare or wish to have mindfulness, being aware of >the > >clinging to self at these times? Wouldn’t that be a little progress? >People > >have the idea that concentration should be fixing undistractedly on an > >object . > >But in what way is it pure or wholesome when this happens? There is > >concentration all the time, even when we’re distracted (according to the > >Teachings). > > > > My progress > > > of having the right understanding, thought, and speech > > > is also hindered. By > > > lacking the right understanding, I find myself making > > > poor plans for my > > > livelihood. My clarity of mind is always compromised. > > > >We all lack right understanding most the time, Mike. Recognizing how >little > >understanding there is, is a really good start. Actually, I think the >more > >understanding develops, the more it sees what real beginners we are. As >one > >of > >our members, suggested, we think we know and then there’s a little > >breakthrough > >and we realise it was all wrong after all! For understanding to really > >develop, > >we need to hear and consider more about what are the actual phenomena >that > >can > >be known. > > > >When we talk about livelihood plans, we can talk about them from many > >angles. > >Frank is considering taking early retirement and living in a forest. Form >a > >conventional point of view, these would be poor livelihood decisions. >From > >a > >Buddhist point of view, it would depend on the intentions and motivations > >involved, because in Buddhism, we’re always more concerned with the >present > >state of mind than ‘the story’. I hope your livlihood works out better in > >both > >regards! > > > > > > I also noticed lacking the ability to be mindful even > > > hinders the right > > > breathing and induces undesirable states like > > > sluggishness, impatience, > > > restlessness, and anger. I can only so far only be > > > able to do a limited > > > form of damage control on these undesirable states > > > when I occasionally > > > remember to stay away from them. Another thing I > > > noticed is that these > > > undesirable statements can be quickly terminated if I > > > catch them on their > > > early stages. To be able to catch the arising of > > > these undesirable states, > > > we need to be mindful. > > > >It seems that we can ‘catch’ them or stop them arising and >conventionally, > >this > >is often true. Hence we say to a child ‘snap out of it’ and the child > >sometimes > >does! On a deeper level, however, we can see we’re pretty much stuck with > >our > >‘character’ and inclinations, so that sooner or later these negative >states > >will arise again and again in spite of good intentions. Why is this? > >Because > >they have been gathering for so very long and are not controllable. Even >if > >mindfulness is mindful of the anger or impatience for a moment, what >about > >next > >moment? > > > >Again, may I suggest, that the reason we mind so much about these states >is > >not > >usually because we see the danger of ALL kinds of unwholesomeness, but > >because > >the ones you’ve mentioned are unpleasant and we cling so much to a self! > >When > >we’re having a great time and there’s no anger or impatience, do we mind > >about > >the excitement and attachment? What about all the ignorance in between? > > > > > >> The very reason why we should apply appropriate > > > mindfulness and catch the > > > arising anger before it gets any bigger and out of > > > control. > > > > > > So far the best way to achieve mindfulness that I know > > > of is through > > > practicing proper meditation. If you have any > > > suggestion that we can better > > > achieve mindfulness, I would love to know. > > > >Actually, Mike, there is no self to apply mindfulness or do anything. >This > >doesn’t mean ‘give up’ and it doesn't mean 'sit' or 'don't sit', it means > >learn > >more about what mindfulness really is, what the objects of mindfulness >are > >and > >develop understanding (by understanding , not doing) of these same > >realities at > >any time. This is what I call bhavana or meditation. > > > >One or two practical suggestions: > > > >1) Join DSG, go to ‘Useful Posts’ at this link and scroll down to ‘new to > >Dhamma’ for some suggestions or other topics that look interesting. > > > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > > >2) Keep asking questions here....be patient for replies and ignore posts > >that > >are too technical for now. > > > >3) Go to this website and read anything that doesn’t seem too hard > >http://www.abhidhamma.org/ > > > >Hope to hear more form you, > > > >Best wishes, > >Sarah > > > > 7824 From: frank kuan Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 1:31am Subject: Can we enjoy without attachment? My comments are at the end. -fk [ken] > Whenever you are attached to either good 'feel' or bad 'feel' about the > wholesome things you do or unwholesome things you do, they are still > attachement. Attachments = dukka [rob e] Thanks, Kenneth. This makes sense. I would just say that I think it is possible to enjoy something without being attached to it. What do you think? [ken] > In my humble opinion as long as there is an an ego, whenever/whatever we enjoy, > there will be an attachment. Sometimes it is very subtle that we could not > observe it. Technically speaking when we enjoy something, there is an attachment > because there arise a feeling of pleasure, be it observable or subtle. Hence in > my personal perspective, I do not think we could at present enjoy something > without being not attached to it. If we are detach from what we are doing, then > the feeling of pleasure will not arise because we are not attached. And again > techniccally speaking this means there will not be any enjoyment as there is no > arise a feeling of pleasure. [rob e] I am no expert, but it seems to me, Kenneth, that you are equating pleasureable feelings or sensations with attachment itself. It seems to me for the path to function through mindfulness, there must be a possibility of any experience being able to be non-attached to through looking at it with awareness and becoming aware of its characteristics of not-self, emptiness and impermanence. Does seeing the insubstantial nature of an object or experience remove the sensation or feeling of pleasure, and does pleasure or enjoyment only arise as an outgrowth of attachment? These are interesting questions. I think that it is possible to enjoy something but not cling to it and to let it go when it is over. I think this is more possible when encountering it with mindfulness and not getting absorbed by the experience. I recognize that this would be hard, however, and if you are saying mainly that in our current state this would be extremely unlikely, then I can understand your point of view. But if one is free of attachment, I do not imagine that this person would necessarily be like a robot, seeing what is there but with absolutely no experience of a response to it. Can one have a response and be non-attached at the same time? That is again an interesting question which I am not in a position to answer. I have met a few people in my life whom I believe by reputation and experience were enligthtened, and they were certainly capable of laughing at a joke or enjoying a meal. They merely did not have a notion of self or dharma being real or self-existent. Although I am anxious to let go of clingings and attachments, to objects as well as views, [as well as the one I am expressing here ], I want to also be careful not to fall into annihilationism and to think that I must therefore hold onto aversion to those things. I think it was the ascetics that Buddha criticized for being so averse to psychophysical clinging that they abused and neglected their bodies, and that this did not create an appropriate state of mind for realization. [mike nease] Attachment (as I understand it in this context) refers to identification with one of the khandhas. Since there's really no 'you' to enjoy or to be attached, I think the question is, does clinging (upaadaana) to a khandha occur (in this case vedanupaadaana(sp?), or clinging to (identification with) a pleasant feeling. A pleasant feeling (enjoyment?) arising without lobha (another kind of attachment) and vedanaa-upaadaana (identification with (pleasant) feeling--"I'm enjoying this") is a very long shot for us puthujjanas, I think--but maybe that's just 'me'. "The Tathagata enjoys non-ill will, delights in non-ill will. To him -- enjoying non-ill will, delighting in non-ill will -- this thought often occurs: 'By this activity I harm no one at all, whether weak or firm.' "The Tathagata enjoys seclusion, delights in seclusion. To him -- enjoying seclusion, delighting in seclusion -- this thought often occurs: 'Whatever is unskillful is abandoned.' Itivuttaka 38 The Group Of Twos http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/itivuttaka/iti2.html It seems to me that sukkha vedanaa will arise when the conditions for it exist (I don't know think that attachment is a necessary condition for pleasant feeling), even when there is no ego--just that lobha and vedanna upaadaana won't arise. But maybe I'm mistaken. What do you think? Thanks for letting me join in your discussion. [rob e] Thanks, Mike, I appreciate the discussion. It's sort of an important topic to me, and I'll try to explain why. I understand your point, and I probably agree, that for us folks on the way here it's probably a long shot to have enjoyments without attachment or unpleasant experiences without aversion. But it's important to me to point at a model of experience that does not involve being attached to aversion or averse to attachment. It seems to me that if the model is 'anti-experience' based on the addictive nature of experience, that new karmic effects are created on top of the ones that already need to be released. I am saying that when enjoyment or pleasure arises, that the subtle response 'I shouldn't be enjoying this because it will cause attachment' may be in the mind of the practitioner, and that this is a mistake. That this is not an expression of mindfulness but of thought-reaction to what is arising. If one instead takes the attitude that I believe the Buddha prescribes, if I am correct, one would simply want to say: 'See pleasure as pleasure, and if attachment is present, see attachment as attachment', etc. I think that it is important to not only look at primary attachment and aversion, but attachment to aversion and aversion to attachment. I would consider these a practioner's problems, because they would only arise for someone who sincerely cared about the path. But I think they're very important to someone who has already committed themselves to not feeding attachment. Does any of this make sense? [rob e commenting on sutta references] Thanks, Mike. I think these are good examples of Buddha describing a kind of benign enjoyment and delight, and is part of what I was hinting at. It may be for advanced states only, but is still something to understand, so that we don't see all pleasant experience as being inherently expressions of attachment. Wouldn't it be a shame if we were meant to enjoy, without attachment, the subtle flavor of the advanced portion of the path to enlightenment, and instead suppressed this, thinking it erroneously to represent attachment? Perhaps lower enjoyments that attach us to the things of the world are suspect, but the enjoyment of the path itself may not be attached, but may be natural expressions of the correct mood on the way to Nirvana. I also recall some discussion of the jhanas or other progressive states where it is mentioned in each stage how pleasant and enjoyable each state is. Perhaps someone else can remind me where the Buddha speaks this way. [fk] I don't have anything enlightening to add, just some more thoughts to add to the confusion :-) 1) Rob E already beat me to the punch, but looking at how the progressive jhana states become more subtle and the pleasure is more refined, moving from physical pleasure toward mental bliss towards pure equanimity, it gives us an idea of what kind of pleasure the noble ones could "enjoy without attachment". 2) On a mundane level, even the noble ones experience pleasant, unpleasant, and neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings. 3) Often, when non-noble ones and people who haven't attained proficiency in the jhanas start pulling the "enjoyment without attachment" card, I seriously wonder if there is just a rationalization to pleasure seek. (not attacking or accusing anyone here, if anything, I have to guard myself from that tendency :-) An excerpt from Samyutta I just read last night that always helps me to put things in perspective: page 648, first volume BB translation: "Bhikkhus, one who seeks delight in the earth element seeks delight in suffering. ONe who seeks delight in suffering, I say , is not freed from suffering. (repeat for other 3 elements of form aggregate...) One who does not seek delight in the earth element does not seek delight in suffering. ONe who does not seek delight in suffering, I say, is freed from suffering." -fk 7825 From: Howard Date: Mon Sep 3, 2001 11:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samatha-Vipassana Hi, Jon - Thank you for this! It is a very detailed, informative, and reasonable (to me) offering. Much appreciated! I have a brief question and brief comment. The question pertains to: ********************************* 1. After developing samatha The footnote says that this refers to one who makes tranquillity the vehicle of his practice (samatha-yaanika). Tranquillity here refers to access concentration, the jhanas or the formless attainments. ******************************** (Is the last sentence part of the footnote? It surprises me that access concentration is included here.) My comment pertains to: ********************************** 3. In conjunction with the development of samatha [This is the instance of insight being 'based on' jhana. The insight arises after emerging from jhana, and takes the jhana moments as its object. This is the 'yoked/conjoined' instance.]. ********************************* (This is the approach reportedly taken by Sariputta.) ============================= With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/3/01 8:38:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Binh) - > > This is an interesting sutta you quote below, particularly the > > last > > paragraph, apparently indicating a jhana-less approach to arahantship: > > On my reading, 2 of the 4 approaches given here (ie. numbers 2 and 4 > below) indicate a jhana-less approach. (By 'jhana-less' I mean in the > sense of not requiring prior development of mundane jhana. But all 4 ways > are accompanied by concentration that is jhana-equivalent in its force.) > > Here are the 4 ways again, with extracts from footnotes to the translation > [passages in square brackets are mine]: > > 1. After developing samatha > The footnote says that this refers to one who makes tranquillity the > vehicle of his practice (samatha-yaanika). Tranquillity here refers to > access concentration, the jhanas or the formless attainments. > > 2. Before developing samatha > The commentary reads: "This refers to one who by his natural bent first > attains to insight and then, based on insight produces concentration > (samadhi)." The sub-com reads: "This is one who makes insight the > vehicle (vipassanaa-yaanika)." > > 3. In conjunction with the development of samatha > [This is the instance of insight being 'based on' jhana. The insight > arises after emerging from jhana, and takes the jhana moments as its > object. This is the 'yoked/conjoined' instance.]. > > 4. By overcoming the corruptions (ie without any part being played by > samatha) > The footnote reads: 'According to AA [the commentary], the "agitation" > (uddhacca) meant here is a reaction to the arising of the ten "corruptions > of insight" when they are wrongly taken as indication path-attainment. > The term dhammavitakka, "thoughts about higher states" is taken to refer > to the same ten corruptions. …' > > Regarding the 4th way just given, you observe: > > > AN IV, 165 > > Translation 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' > > 83. Ways to Arahantship > > "Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation caused by > > higher > > states of mind. But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally > > steadied, composed, unified and concentrated; then the path arises in > > him. . He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he > > is > > doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies > > eliminated." > > ************************************************* > > The questions that occur to me are the following: > > > > 1) What is meant by "higher states of mind"? > > > > 2) What sort of agitation would arise as a result of them? > > > > 3) Exactly what is the state wherein one's "mind becomes > > internally > > steadied, composed, unified and concentrated"? It sounds like it *could* > be > > access concentration or khanika samadhi (moment-to-moment > > concentration). > > That would be interesting. This would, indeed, suggest an approach to > > complete enlightenment, one out of four, that does not have jhanic > > attainment > > as a requirement at all, though it still requires a strong and rather > > stable > > one-pointedness of mind. > > Your questions (1) and (2) are covered by the footnote, I think. > > On your Q.3, we need to keep in mind the distinction between samatha and > samadhi. > > Samatha bhavana (tranquillity development) refers to the development of > kusala by concentration on a single object, eventually to a degree of > absorption in the object where all sense-door impressions, and the akusala > associated with those experiences, are suppressed. Being (temporarily) > freed from akusala, the mind becomes exceedingly tranquil. > > Samadhi cetasika (concentration mental factor) is a cetasika whose > function is to fix the citta on whatever object is the object of the citta > at that moment. It accompanies every citta. At moments of enlightenment > (magga citta) samadhi cetasika arises and performs its function with an > intensity equivalent to that of the jhanas. It is developed to this > 'jhana-equivalent' level during the course of the development of mundane > insight over the many (millions of) lifetimes it has taken to attain to > enlightenment. In other words, every moment of satipatthana during this > lifetime means the further development and accumulation of khanika > samadhi. > > So, yes, it may well be that 'concentration' in the passage from the sutta > refers to khanika samadhi; but this does not connote the development of > samatha bhavana. > > I think the important point to realise about all this is as follows, if my > understanding is correct: > > Regardless of which of the 4 ways of enlightenment one is talking about, > attainment of supramundane path consciousness (enlightenment) is always > the culmination of the development of mundane path consciousness (ie. > mundane insight--vipassana bhavana). In other words, it is not the > culmination of samatha bhavana. Even those whose attainment is 'based on' > jhana (No. 3 in the series above) cannot attain unless mundane insight has > been developed to the necessary degree. > > So on a practical level, it always comes back to the development of > awareness of realities appearing at the present moment, as taught in the > Satipatthana Sutta--for this is how mundane insight is developed. > > Jon > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 7826 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 6:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Jon, I appreciate your comments, and I would expect that Buddha would account for mindfulness being cultivated within all of the activities of living. At the same time, it still seems that certain attentional or energetic correspondences to the meditative process do indeed take place when sitting on the floor with gently upright spine. I would ask, if all positions are equally good for cultivating satipatthana, why is it that everyone who wants to practice serious Buddhist meditation sits cross-legged on the floor? Or at least most do........ I would be seriously interested in your answer. Whatever the answer is, I will still agree, even if sitting in the traditional way is necessary, it doesn't mean that mindfulness cannot be cultivated the rest of the time, or that there aren't other ways of doing it. I'm just looking for the special significance that this posture and bearing seems to have on promoting mindfulness, samatha and insight. Best, Robert E. --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > You raise an interesting point. If samatha/jhana 'practice' is a > > > necessary part of the development of the path, is a person with stiff > hips > > > or jogger's knees handicapped in the quest for enlightenment?! ;--)) > ;--)) > > > > My immediate response is 'no' and then my secondary response is 'yes'. > > I think > > it's 'no' in the sense that no physical obstacle should be sufficient to > > bar > > someone from exercising mindfulness. On the other hand, I can't say > > that > > meditating lying down is going to have the same effect as meditating > > sitting up, > > or that slumping over is going to have the same effect as sitting up > > straight, or > > that sitting with tension in body and breathing is going to have the > > same effect > > as sitting with gentle uprightness. > > > > I am not aware of what the Buddha said on posture and position, but I > > know that if > > I sit cross-legged on the floor and watch the breath it is a very > > different > > experience in some ways than what happens if I lie down [which I do when > > falling > > asleep] and watch the breath. > > In the Satipatthana Sutta (in the section on The Modes of Deportment), the > Buddha had this to say about posture and position: > > "And further, O bhikkhus, when he is going, a bhikkhu understands: 'I am > going'; > when he is standing, he understands: 'I am standing'; > when he is sitting, he understands: 'I am sitting'; > when he is lying down, he understands: 'I am lying down'; > or just as his body is disposed so he understands it…. > Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body…." > > The 4 postures and positions described here--going, standing sitting and > lying down--between them cover all postures that may be assumed at any > time. This helps us to understand that satipatthana (ie. mundane insight) > is not limited as to posture or time. > > Nor is it limited as to kind of activity. In the same sutta, Section on > The Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, the Buddha said: > > "And further, a bhikkhu, in going forwards (and) in going backwards, is a > person practising clear comprehension; > in looking straight on (and) in looking away from the front, is a person > practising clear comprehension; > in bending and in stretching, … in wearing the robes and bowl, … in regard > to what is eaten, drunk, chewed and savoured, … in defecating and in > urinating, … in standing (in a place), in sitting (in some position), in > sleeping, in waking, in speaking and in keeping silence, is a person > practising clear comprehension. … > Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body…" > > This likewise covers all activities at any time of the day. > > So although things do seem different depending on whether we are, for > example, sitting or lying down, being quiet or rushing around, with the > family or 'in practice', satipatthana as taught by the Buddha is something > that cuts across all these differences. It is something that is > independent of situation or occasion. > > It can be useful to ask ourselves whether our understanding of what > satipatthana is consistent with this, or whether we have an idea of > satipatthana that requires that certain conditions as to posture, activity > or time need to be satisfied in order for it to arise. > > Jon > > > > > ===== 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" 7827 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 8:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: toeing the party line....;-) Thanks, Ken, --- Ken wrote: > Mike > > You wrote; > > " . . . These rebukes of the Buddha are always > bracingly instructive. I've read this one before, > (though I think the translation was 'you foolish > man'), but forget the source--can you cite it?" > Gladly. The reference given by Walpola Rahula > ("What the > Buddha Taught" p24), for the Mahatanhasamkhaya-sutta > is > M I (PTS), p256 ff. > > I tried to find it on the net but without success. Here's a link, mistakenly identified on the home page as the cula, rather than the mahaa: "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven’t I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit and that will be for your undoing and unpleasantness for a long time". http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/037-culatanhasankhaya-sutta-e1.htm > Are you making a collection of these rebukes? No, but I think it's a great idea. Someday, maybe! > I'd > like to make a > collection of the various ways of seeing the Four > Foundations of > Mindfulness as "the Middle Way." Your recent > comment; "In this > context I think satipatthaana could be called the > middle path > between 'dealing with akusala' and ignoring it," > will make a good > start. Thanks again, but I owe the idea entirely to the patience of the 'elders' of dsg--I would never have come to this (tentative) conclusion without their patient encouragement. mike 7828 From: frank k Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 9:22am Subject: Re: Simile of saw, evil/kind mistress, right speech Thanks for the correction Robert. I also want to clarify that I'm not opposed to the extremely graphic similes that the Buddha uses across the board. It's just that particular one with the saw that I didn't connect with. In other suttas, the graphic nature of some of the similes really serves to emphasize the importance of the topic. An example: in the MN simile comparing the painful burning side effects of leprosy to sensual desire, that analogy is just SO PERFECT. If you guys don't know which one I'm talking about, write me an offline email and I'll post an excerpt from it when I have more free time. -fk --- Robert wrote: > Dear Frank, > I agree with the gist of your post. Just a small correction. the > commentary to the sutta about the monk who committed suicide notes > that the monk was not yet enlightened when he cut his throat. The > pain was an object for satipatthana and he went though the vippasana > insights and stages of enlightenment from the time of cutting his > throat and before finally collapsing and dieing. It can happen very > fast when the conditions are right. 7829 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 9:25am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Robert, As usual we're generally in agreement. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > Hope you don't mind my butting in (again). > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > > > > Whenever you are attached to either good > 'feel' > > > or bad 'feel' about the > > > > wholesome things you do or unwholesome things > you > > > do, they are still > > > > attachement. Attachments = dukka > > > > Kind regards > > > > Kenneth > > > > > > Thanks, Kenneth. This makes sense. I would > just > > > say that I think it is possible > > > to enjoy something without being attached to it. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Attachment (as I understand it in this context) > refers > > to identification with one of the khandhas. Since > > there's really no 'you' to enjoy or to be > attached, I > > think the question is, does clinging (upaadaana) > to a > > khandha occur (in this case vedanupaadaana(sp?), > or > > clinging to (identification with) a pleasant > feeling. > > > > A pleasant feeling (enjoyment?) arising without > lobha > > (another kind of attachment) and vedanaa-upaadaana > > (identification with (pleasant) feeling--"I'm > enjoying > > this") is a very long shot for us puthujjanas, I > > think--but maybe that's just 'me'. > > > > mike > > Thanks, Mike, I appreciate the discussion. It's > sort of an important topic to me, > and I'll try to explain why. I understand your > point, and I probably agree, that > for us folks on the way here it's probably a long > shot to have enjoyments without > attachment or unpleasant experiences without > aversion. But it's important to me > to point at a model of experience that does not > involve being attached to aversion > or averse to attachment. I think we're still in agreement. That model is satipatthaana, as I understand it. That is that, in a moment of satipatthaana, aversion to attachment (or anything else) can't occur--but it can--and reoccur too, many times after (and before and in between). > It seems to me that if the > model is 'anti-experience' > based on the addictive nature of experience, that > new karmic effects are created > on top of the ones that already need to be released. I see your point and if I understand you correctly, agree. That is that, the kammic result (thought, speech or action) of, say, aversion to 'the addictive nature of experience', does add to kamma/vipakka. > I am saying that when > enjoyment or pleasure arises, that the subtle > response 'I shouldn't be enjoying > this because it will cause attachment' may be in the > mind of the practitioner, and > that this is a mistake. Agreed. > That this is not an > expression of mindfulness but of > thought-reaction to what is arising. Agreed. > If one instead > takes the attitude that I > believe the Buddha prescribes, if I am correct, one > would simply want to say: 'See > pleasure as pleasure, and if attachment is present, > see attachment as attachment', > etc. I think that it is important to not only look > at primary attachment and > aversion, but attachment to aversion and aversion to > attachment. Yes, I think so too. I know I don't need to remind you that it's dangerous to think that there's anyone to adopt any attitude. > I would consider > these a practioner's problems, because they would > only arise for someone who > sincerely cared about the path. But I think they're > very important to someone who > has already committed themselves to not feeding > attachment. I think all of these are very real problems (or rather obstacles) not to anyone, but to the arising of understanding (as I think you understand). In any moment lacking satipatthaana, attachment is always, I think, being nourished, but not by you or me. Which opens the door to another (though related) subject, that of 'nourishment'. Don't know much about this. > Does any of this make sense? Yes, all of it--hope I haven't misconstrued your words. My comments are (as usual) vague and imprecise. I mean to correct my own views rather than anyone else's--corrections welcomed. mike 7830 From: Fa Hui Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 6:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Hello, My name is Fa Hui, I am a Lay disciple of the Yunmen monastery in China of the Ch'an tradition. However, I do study various elements of the Pali Canon. I came upon this study group through a friend. I would just like to say that you can achieve any meditative absorbtion doing practically anything. What enlightenment means to me is that it is only in this very moment and that the Buddha did not discover the way TO enlightenment but the way OF enlightenment. The only reason that meditation is done a great deal in the cross-legged posture is due to the fact that it was just the posture they used for meditation 2545 years ago. And quite frankly it's still in use, of course. May you reach Enlightenment in this lifetime, Fa Hui 7831 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 11:51am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Can we enjoy without attachment? Dear Frank, Thanks for your helpful assemblage of the discussion on attachment. It looks very interesting when laid out this way. I think we can probably agree that lower pleasures involved in the world probably have a greater chance of arising from and containing attachment than the subtle pleasures of an advanced practitioner who has learned to enjoy seclusion and subtle development of jhanas. This person has already defeated many of the attachments that are most difficult, almost impossible, for most people. I think your ending comment and your ending quote point in two useful directions, so I will repeat them here: ------------------------------ 3) Often, when non-noble ones and people who haven't attained proficiency in the jhanas start pulling the "enjoyment without attachment" card, I seriously wonder if there is just a rationalization to pleasure seek. (not attacking or accusing anyone here, if anything, I have to guard myself from that tendency :-) -------------------------------------- [This is probably true and a useful warning. -Robert E.] -------------------------------------- An excerpt from Samyutta I just read last night that always helps me to put things in perspective: page 648, first volume BB translation: "Bhikkhus, one who seeks delight in the earth element seeks delight in suffering. ONe who seeks delight in suffering, I say , is not freed from suffering. (repeat for other 3 elements of form aggregate...) One who does not seek delight in the earth element does not seek delight in suffering. ONe who does not seek delight in suffering, I say, is freed from suffering." ---------------------------------------------- This quote, Frank, points in the direction of attachment being part and parcel of the involvement in the physical and earthly life. It points to the possibility of seeking delight and pleasure in that which is *not* suffering, and I speculate based on the other quotes in this thread, that Buddha allowed for those higher enjoyments which did not lead to attachment and suffering. I would speculate further that one who was a fully realized Arahat might be able to engage in worldly and physical activities without experiencing attachment, but that is more of a speculation. So far I have nothing to back that idea up. And I have heard a number of comments here that an arahat would not engage in any activities that were unwholesome, so it is a question of what activities would be in the unwholesome category. Is there such a thing as an arahant householder, who continues to live with a spouse and children and continues to have all the involvements of those relationships? Or are all arahats, once fully realized, either monks or recluses? 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" 7832 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 11:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > Thanks Sarah, > > From your post I learnt the following important point: > > No point of comparing myself with others (even to the extent of the status > of the mind.). I am myself and I am where I am and I have to act according > to that state of mind or the situation ...etc. > > Ofcoures I knew it throuht my life but your post made me really understand > it. It was like a missing peace which made the picture complete. > > Also, yesterday I heard in a sermon over here in Sri Lanka (from Rev. Uduwe > Dhammaloka) that when ever you are in troble, having problems...etc Buddha > has told to do 2 things. > > 1. To adhere to the five percepts > 2. Try to control your mind > > No 1 will solve most of the problems itseems. for example you may end all > the lies you have told and you have to tell just by telling the truth once > (ofcourse there might be a bomb blast after you tell the truth but at least > your problem is going to be over) and you may stop drinking is you are in to > drinking. > > And by no 2 you can avoid yourself falling into more problems by being > mindful. > > But again we have to use the above wisely. Should not tell the truth like a > fool. > > Now I have to ask this. There are some situations in life that it may seem > easier not to tell the truth. Say like this. If I tell the truth another > person will get hurt. If I dont tell, I will get hurt. So I will not tell > the truth because the other person will get hurt. > > How should these situations be handled? Dear Ranil, Just an idea, but it may be possible to be discreet and withhold harmful information without actually lying or being untruthful. 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" 7833 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 11:57am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > As usual we're generally in agreement. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > > > Dear Robert, > > > > > > Hope you don't mind my butting in (again). > > > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > > > > > > Whenever you are attached to either good > > 'feel' > > > > or bad 'feel' about the > > > > > wholesome things you do or unwholesome things > > you > > > > do, they are still > > > > > attachement. Attachments = dukka > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > Kenneth > > > > > > > > Thanks, Kenneth. This makes sense. I would > > just > > > > say that I think it is possible > > > > to enjoy something without being attached to it. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Attachment (as I understand it in this context) > > refers > > > to identification with one of the khandhas. Since > > > there's really no 'you' to enjoy or to be > > attached, I > > > think the question is, does clinging (upaadaana) > > to a > > > khandha occur (in this case vedanupaadaana(sp?), > > or > > > clinging to (identification with) a pleasant > > feeling. > > > > > > A pleasant feeling (enjoyment?) arising without > > lobha > > > (another kind of attachment) and vedanaa-upaadaana > > > (identification with (pleasant) feeling--"I'm > > enjoying > > > this") is a very long shot for us puthujjanas, I > > > think--but maybe that's just 'me'. > > > > > > mike > > > > Thanks, Mike, I appreciate the discussion. It's > > sort of an important topic to me, > > and I'll try to explain why. I understand your > > point, and I probably agree, that > > for us folks on the way here it's probably a long > > shot to have enjoyments without > > attachment or unpleasant experiences without > > aversion. But it's important to me > > to point at a model of experience that does not > > involve being attached to aversion > > or averse to attachment. > > I think we're still in agreement. That model is > satipatthaana, as I understand it. That is that, in a > moment of satipatthaana, aversion to attachment (or > anything else) can't occur--but it can--and reoccur > too, many times after (and before and in between). > > > It seems to me that if the > > model is 'anti-experience' > > based on the addictive nature of experience, that > > new karmic effects are created > > on top of the ones that already need to be released. > > I see your point and if I understand you correctly, > agree. That is that, the kammic result (thought, > speech or action) of, say, aversion to 'the addictive > nature of experience', does add to kamma/vipakka. > > > I am saying that when > > enjoyment or pleasure arises, that the subtle > > response 'I shouldn't be enjoying > > this because it will cause attachment' may be in the > > mind of the practitioner, and > > that this is a mistake. > > Agreed. > > > That this is not an > > expression of mindfulness but of > > thought-reaction to what is arising. > > Agreed. > > > If one instead > > takes the attitude that I > > believe the Buddha prescribes, if I am correct, one > > would simply want to say: 'See > > pleasure as pleasure, and if attachment is present, > > see attachment as attachment', > > etc. I think that it is important to not only look > > at primary attachment and > > aversion, but attachment to aversion and aversion to > > attachment. > > Yes, I think so too. I know I don't need to remind > you that it's dangerous to think that there's anyone > to adopt any attitude. > > > I would consider > > these a practioner's problems, because they would > > only arise for someone who > > sincerely cared about the path. But I think they're > > very important to someone who > > has already committed themselves to not feeding > > attachment. > > I think all of these are very real problems (or rather > obstacles) not to anyone, but to the arising of > understanding (as I think you understand). In any > moment lacking satipatthaana, attachment is always, I > think, being nourished, but not by you or me. Which > opens the door to another (though related) subject, > that of 'nourishment'. Don't know much about this. > > > Does any of this make sense? > > Yes, all of it--hope I haven't misconstrued your > words. My comments are (as usual) vague and > imprecise. I mean to correct my own views rather than > anyone else's--corrections welcomed. > > mike Dear Mike, I think you understood what I meant to say right down the line. Your caution not to think that these experiences are taking place for someone are also apt. It's easy to imply that there is someone being averse or attached, especially in language. And I won't claim that I don't have a subtle or sometimes not-so-subtle attachment to the idea of self, because that would probably be lying! Robert E. 7834 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 11:59am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Fa Hui wrote: > Hello, > > My name is Fa Hui, I am a Lay disciple of the Yunmen monastery in China of > the Ch'an tradition. However, I do study various elements of the Pali Canon. > I came upon this study group through a friend. Dear Fa Hui, Thank you for your comments. If you wold like to say more about yourself, and the Ch'an work you do as a monk, and how you relate to the Pali Canon, I would be very interested. Best, Robert E. ---------------- > I would just like to say that you can achieve any meditative absorbtion doing > practically anything. What enlightenment means to me is that it is only in > this very moment and that the Buddha did not discover the way TO > enlightenment but the way OF enlightenment. The only reason that meditation > is done a great deal in the cross-legged posture is due to the fact that it > was just the posture they used for meditation 2545 years ago. And quite > frankly it's still in use, of course. > > May you reach Enlightenment in this lifetime, > > Fa Hui > > > > > > > ===== 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" 7835 From: Fa Hui Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 8:15am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Well, I'm not a monk, although my teacher often calls me young monk, I do love to study the dharma. I like a few sutras of the Pali Canon because of their basic application to daily life. Mahasatipatthana, Anapansati, Mahanidana and few others are personal favorites of mine and really contribute to Ch'an practice. These days I really think that we will see the wall between Theravadin and Ch'an crumble and have them be a great way to practice. As I have learned and still learning, mindfulness is the key. Fa Hui 7836 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 0:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Fa Hui, Very pleased to meet you. --- Fa Hui wrote: > Hello, > > My name is Fa Hui, I am a Lay disciple of the Yunmen > monastery in China of > the Ch'an tradition. However, I do study various > elements of the Pali Canon. > I came upon this study group through a friend. Our good luck, I think. > I would just like to say that you can achieve any > meditative absorbtion doing > practically anything. Agreed! (Or that, absorption can arise with practically any object). > What enlightenment means to > me is that it is only in > this very moment and that the Buddha did not > discover the way TO > enlightenment but the way OF enlightenment. The > only reason that meditation > is done a great deal in the cross-legged posture is > due to the fact that it > was just the posture they used for meditation 2545 > years ago. Yes--I'm fairly sure that this style of meditation (as well as many others) was commonplace before the Buddhasassana. Please do continue! Best wishes, Sir, mike 7837 From: Binh A Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 1:52pm Subject: Right Concentration (Re: Samatha-Vipassana) G'day, For your information, John Bullitt has just uploaded a Dhamma essay by Ajahn Suwat Suvaco on Right Concentration, translated by Ajahn Thanissaro, at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/suwat/concentration.html Enjoy reading and contemplating! Metta, Binh 7838 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 2:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach That is true mindulness is the key. But discernment is also impt because it is the door :) To me why do pple sit in mediation. Logically thinking if we lay down, we tend to get sleepy. If we stand up, we tend to get tired easily. If we walk or eat, we tend to get distracted. I think that is why sitting is the prefer method:) Kind regards Kenneth Ong Fa Hui wrote: Well, I'm not a monk, although my teacher often calls me young monk, I do love to study the dharma. I like a few sutras of the Pali Canon because of their basic application to daily life. Mahasatipatthana, Anapansati, Mahanidana and few others are personal favorites of mine and really contribute to Ch'an practice. These days I really think that we will see the wall between Theravadin and Ch'an crumble and have them be a great way to practice. As I have learned and still learning, mindfulness is the key. Fa Hui 7839 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 2:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Fa Hui wrote: > Well, I'm not a monk, although my teacher often calls me young monk, I do > love to study the dharma. > > I like a few sutras of the Pali Canon because of their basic application to > daily life. Mahasatipatthana, Anapansati, Mahanidana and few others are > personal favorites of mine and really contribute to Ch'an practice. These > days I really think that we will see the wall between Theravadin and Ch'an > crumble and have them be a great way to practice. As I have learned and > still learning, mindfulness is the key. > > Fa Hui Thanks for your response. I hope you will say more and contribute to the dialogue between Ch'an and Theravada. I have been more oriented towards Ch'an/Zen myself, but I have become very interested in the teachings of the Theravadin path through this group, and reading some of the basic sutras which seem to create very clear and solid foundations and distinctions. Anyway, welcome! Robert E. 7840 From: Ranil Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 3:49pm Subject: Re: (to sarah) need for sitting meditation > Dear Ranil, > Just an idea, but it may be possible to be discreet and withhold harmful > information without actually lying or being untruthful. > > Robert E. Yes Robert, You are correct. Thank you, Ranil 7841 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 3:57pm Subject: The leash Dear group, A favourite sutta: The "Kindred Sayings"(III, Khandha vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch V, par. 99, The Leash) Just as, monks, a dog tied up by a leash to a strong stake or pillar, keeps running round and revolving round and round that stake or pillar, even so, monks, the untaught many folk... regard body as self, regard feeling, perception, activities, consciousness as self... they run and revolve round and round from body to body, from feeling to feeling, from perception to perception, from activities to activities, from consciousness to consciousness...they are not released therefrom, they are not released from rebirth, from old age and decay, from sorrow and grief, from woe, lamentation and despair... they are not released from dukkha, I declare... " The Buddha then says that the ariyan disciple who does not take any dhamma for self is released from dukkha. How does this relate to satipatthana? One of the things that perhaps most of us have been through is the idea that the path involves getting very pure and calm and that this will by itself lead to insight. However, I think we see that this idea can be a type of silabataparamsa. While all kusala - sila, dana and samatha is supportive it is not the same as the path. The firm and right understanding is the most essential element (apart from prior wholesome accumulations, pubbekata punnata); and it takes time to develop. The intellectual understanding supports direct awareness but direct awareness helps the conceptual understanding to grow too. I think it would be hard to have firm understanding of anatta if there had never been direct awareness. Theoretical and direct understanding grow together- and other faculties such as saddha, confidence also naturally become powerful as insight develops. There are also the paramis (perfections leading to enlightenment -see http://www.abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of%20enlightenment.htm )which are a vital part of the exceedingly long path to parinibbana(the final extinction of nama and rupa). These are very much linked to right understanding though. Take khanti(patience parami): when there is regular, profound contemplation of the khandas one is able to accept anything with patience. One sees that the stories of monks of old who were patient (with awareness )while being killed was not just legend. One of these was a putthujana (worldling) who gained full insight while being devoured by a tiger. One knows that one could endure anything too when panna and sati are present. At those times no dhamma is attached too; whatever appears is experienced with a degree of detachment, each khanda is seen as alien, anatta, uncontrollable, not me or mine. Correspondingly one sees that whenever one is upset or worried or excited, happy or sad over some event, that this is because there is no understanding of the conditioned nature of dhammas, that one is lost in a world of concept, with attachment and ignorance of the true nature of dhammas. The commentary to the UDANA says "it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, women, beings) and since it does not dart among those things that do exist (i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas).endquote. This is clear. But one doesn't expect there to be always/often awareness- or even right thinking- because it should be known that this is conditioned- it can't be conjured up. Before learning Dhamma I was good sometimes and bad sometimes - just like now. The difference: it was ALL self. (now only 99.99%) robert 7842 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 5:51pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: >--- Robert Epstein wrote: > Jon, > > > I'm still a little unsure what role sila plays in one's development, > > according to > > Theravada doctrine, and whether one should 'work on' one's impurities or > > just > > leave them alone. Or is the idea to just treat everything with > > mindfulness and > > let things work themselves out. Dear Jon, Once King Kosol met Buddha and asked whether there is one dhamma to achieve nirvana and a good family life both. Buddha said Yes. King Kosol asked what it is? Then Buddha said "Appamado" - Means not to be late. Not to be late for what ? 1. To do things which has to be done 2. To stop things which has to be stoped 1. what has to be done? in very short - Kusala (the opposite of below) 2. what has to be stoped in very short - Akusala (greed, hetred & delution) What is the way to do these two? 1. Sila - good activities in speech and bodyly acts 2. Samadhi - concentration 3. Prangna - wisdom why sila - for happiness (now we are going towards meditation) why happiness - for the feeling of not having the weight of your body (now we are going towards samadhi) why the feeling of not having the weight of your body - for concentration - samadhi (now we are going towards pranngna or wisdom) why concentration - to understand the reality why understand the reality - for not clinging why not clinging - for vimukkthi - releaf from Duka why vimukkthi (releaf from Duka) - for Nirvana :-) Our goal ~meththa Ranil 7843 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 8:57pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Dear Ranil, Thanks for this great post. Appamaada is also translated as 'vigilance' or 'earnestness' and was also one of the very last exhortations of the Buddha. Unless I'm mistaken, it's also a synonym for mindfulness (corrections welcomed). As I understand it, in a moment of mindfulness silaa, samaadhi and paññaa are all present as the mundane path-factors (the eight, minus right speech, action & livelihood as these are not paramattha dhammas--corrections welcomed again). Could you please tell us where to find this sutta in the Tipitaka? Thanks again, mike --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > >--- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Jon, > > > > > I'm still a little unsure what role sila plays > in one's development, > > > according to > > > Theravada doctrine, and whether one should 'work > on' one's impurities or > > > just > > > leave them alone. Or is the idea to just treat > everything with > > > mindfulness and > > > let things work themselves out. > > Dear Jon, > > Once King Kosol met Buddha and asked whether there > is one dhamma to achieve > nirvana and a good family life both. Buddha said > Yes. King Kosol asked what > it is? Then Buddha said "Appamado" - Means not to be > late. > > Not to be late for what ? > 1. To do things which has to be done > 2. To stop things which has to be stoped > > 1. what has to be done? > in very short - Kusala (the opposite of below) > > 2. what has to be stoped > in very short - Akusala (greed, hetred & delution) > > What is the way to do these two? > 1. Sila - good activities in speech and bodyly acts > 2. Samadhi - concentration > 3. Prangna - wisdom > > > > why sila - for happiness > > (now we are going towards meditation) > > why happiness - for the feeling of not having the > weight of your body > > (now we are going towards samadhi) > > why the feeling of not having the weight of your > body - for > concentration - samadhi > > (now we are going towards pranngna or wisdom) > > why concentration - to understand the reality > why understand the reality - for not clinging > why not clinging - for vimukkthi - releaf from Duka > why vimukkthi (releaf from Duka) - for Nirvana :-) > Our goal > > ~meththa > Ranil > > > > > > 7844 From: Fa Hui Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 5:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Oh I agree on that Discernment is just as important. It wouldn't be mindfulness without it. I mean once I started contemplating feelings within the feelings, it really just seem to help a great deal and I felt better too. Fa Hui 7845 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 9:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samatha-Vipassana Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > Thank you for this! It is a very detailed, informative, and > reasonable > (to me) offering. Much appreciated! > I have a brief question and brief comment. The question pertains > to: > > ********************************* > 1. After developing samatha > The footnote says that this refers to one who makes tranquillity the > vehicle of his practice (samatha-yaanika). Tranquillity here refers to > access concentration, the jhanas or the formless attainments. > ******************************** > (Is the last sentence part of the footnote? It surprises me that > access concentration is included here.) Yes, straight from the footnote. But no source is given, so presumably it does not come from the commentary to the sutta. (I thought you'd find this snippet interesting!) > My comment pertains to: > > ********************************** > 3. In conjunction with the development of samatha > [This is the instance of insight being 'based on' jhana. The insight > arises after emerging from jhana, and takes the jhana moments as its > object. This is the 'yoked/conjoined' instance.]. > ********************************* > (This is the approach reportedly taken by Sariputta.) Thanks for this comment, Howard Jon 7846 From: Fa Hui Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 5:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Foundations are necessary and thats what I think the teachings of the Pali Canon help to do, lay a really good foundation. Not that Pali or Theravadin is just "basic" but that it has a good basis to start out at so that one can progress and see what's really going on. Fa Hui 7847 From: Anders Honore Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 10:03pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Anders, > The Buddha encourages us to understand the paramattha dhammas which are > appearing now and can be known now. These are the conditioned realities > appearing through the 6 doorways which as you said, should be known by panna. > He doesn't talk about a primal mind or bodhi citta appearing through one of > these doorways because these are concepts, along with nibbana (until realised) > that cannot be known directly. The concern in the teachings is with realities > to be known right now. All I can say is that what the Buddha did say was that whenever the was the (false) notion of self, it is always (categorically) in relation to the kandhas. However the most important teaching on this (imo) is that among the false views of self he refuted were: I have a self" as well as "I have no self." > > Again, how does your own understanding of anatta accord with the > > criterions in the Kalama sutta? > > In the Kalama Sutta, the emphasis is on understanding directly those states > which are wholesome and those which are unwholesome, those which bring `good' > results and those which bring `bad' results. As I just stressed on the tricky > jhana post, there cannot be any bhavana (mental development or meditation) of > either samatha or vipassana if there is no understanding of the difference > between wholesome and unwholesome moments. When I read these suttas, they > remind me right now to develop awareness and understand whether the citta which > is directing these words and the acompanying mental states are wholesome or > unwholesome. Are we lost in stories now? Is there seeing and visible object > now? Is there any self or primal mind in the seeing or is it just the nama > which experiences an object for a moment, and then gone? > > Very much look forward to more in due course, Anders. Yes. It's about the direct experience of things. Not the conceptual understanding, which ultimately brings no liberation. How big a role does relinquishing views (of all kinds) feature in your practise? For me it's essential. 7848 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Tue Sep 4, 2001 10:06pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear anders, u said-> > Well, writings such as the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not even make > any pretense: It says outright that there is a self (Nirvana/Buddha- > nature). I couldnt find this in Mahaparinibbana sutta, if you have time pls help me to get the correct reference. If nibbana is self then there should be I-ness or Mine-ness there, but in Mulpariyaya sutta(MN1) buddha says like this, "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person -- who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma -- He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana .Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana , he conceives things about Nibbana , he conceives things in Nibbana , he conceives things coming out of Nibbana , *he conceives Nibbana as 'mine,' * he delights in Nibbana . Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you. " "A monk who is a trainee (at least a sotapanna[stream-winner], at most an anagamin[non-returner])-- yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled -- He directly knows Nibbana as Nibbana . Directly knowing Nibbana as Nibbana , let him not conceive things about Nibbana , let him not conceive things in Nibbana , let him not conceive things coming out of Nibbana ,* let him not conceive Nibbana as 'mine,'* let him not delight in Nibbana . Why is that? So that he may comprehend it. " "A monk who is a Worthy One(arahant), devoid of mental fermentations -- who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge -- He directly