8200 From: KennethOng   
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 3:38pm
Subject: Re: Hello Kenneth (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill)

 
  Pure Land Buddhism is centre upon Amitabha Buddha where his land is known as the Land of Utmost Bliss.  According to Mahayana Sutras, Amitabha Buddha have been a Buddha for ten Kalpas and have not gone into Nirvana 
Pure Land Buddhism is based upon these few pillars (from what I think).
a.    recitings of Amitabha Buddha name. In mindfulness we are mindful of feelings, body, consciousness and mental formations.  Pure Land utilised  mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha name so that the mind could reach oneness and break away from dualism. 
b.     To hold on to the ten precepts It is the extension of the five precepts but I think it is different from the ten precepts of Thervadas.  
c.     There is a desire to be born there.  This is the most contentious topic of Pure Land Buddhism because it sounds like Christainity.   Sentinental beings could be born in Amitabha Buddha Pureland if they desire due to the vows he made when Amitabha Buddha is an inspiring Budhisattvas just like Sakyamuni Buddha, when he is a Bodhisattvas, he vow to born in Saha world.  However, there is a catch, you got to practise the ten precepts and also mindfullness of his name (actually can be any other Buddha or Bodhisattvas names as long as the desire is to be born there).  There is no such things as grace or confession or easy way out.  You got to learn to be mindful and practise the ten precepts.
d.     the Transference of merit to all sentinental beings or to Pure Land 
e.     this is a practise by one great Pure Land guru, he said that we got to learn to be humble and always reflect on our own actions. (I think should be including as another pillar).
the reasons I practise Pureland Buddhism is because I am terribly scare of going through the wheel of cycle of life again since there is a better place for me to go, I really wish to go there.  It is like a buying a insurance policy for our retirement.  we pay premiuns like mindfullness and keep our precepts.  Pure Land is enticing (attachment) to me because firstly, Buddha is always there to teach us, all beings lifespans are limitless, thirdly you can practise there until you reach  the last stage of Bodhisattvas or you can choose to go elsewhere, fourly there is no hell beings, ghosts realm, and all are sexless, nameless. In my personal opinin, it is a very good enivronment to practise.
Pure Land Buddhism can be easily lead to superstitions if Practitioners do not know what they are doing and why they are doing this or that.  I welcome comments or discussions so that I could learn more abt Buddhism.  Personnaly I do not have any Pure Land Statutes in my house nor do I go to temple to pay homage because to me the most importantly is that Buddha is inside me and not outside.  
with kindest regards
Kenneth Ong
 
 
  Robert Epstein  wrote: --- Kenneth Ong wrote:

> Dear Sarah,
> I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few years
> of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada also
> because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot
> of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted
> greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana
> Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops
> attachment).
> Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It
> has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another attachement) 
> :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in
> so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have many
> weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very proud
> of myself.
> Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware
> and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning
> mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts
> when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till
> late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand
> does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be appreciated.
> Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family
> commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. 
> Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring
> sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat
> group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn a
> lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this
> opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who
> contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and
> practises.
> My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a
> Singaporean.
> With kind regards
> KO

Kenneth,
I have enjoyed your direct and sincere posts, including our discussions on the
somewhat heated subject of the attack on the U.S. I am happy to hear a bit about
your background and personal history. This has led me to realize that I never
posted an intro myself. I am happy to hear about your family. I have a three
year old daughter myself, although I am a little older than you [I'm a late
starter]. 

One question: Could you say a word about the Pure Land practices? I am familiar
with Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, but I have only heard briefly about Pure Land
Buddhism before. I would be interested in a little talk on that if you feel you
would like to. 

Regards,
Robert E.

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






 
8201 From: rikpa21 
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 4:20pm
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)

 
  ---  "Dan Dalthorp"  wrote:
> Dear Erik,
> Just popping my head into dsg again---I better be careful because 
I'm
> starting to make a habit of it!
>
> Just a few quick comments, in a direct sort of way:

As you know, I do prefer directness, Dan! :)

> > On that note, what practices would you suggest I try to come to 
the
> > point of discerning one of these moments arising and passing away?
>
> Struggling to find a "method" with a formula of "do such-and-such in
> order to have such-and-such experience" is bound to be a dead end
> because ultimately any such ritual is impotent, and the search for 
the
> effective ritual, the silver bullet, THE "technique" is
> silabbataparamasa---a fetter that hinders liberation.

I find these comments unusual, given the Buddha seemed to pretty 
clearly describe a whole slew of "techniques" for cultivating 
mindfulness (cf. the Satipatthana Sutta). By the way, the definition 
of "technique" I am using is the commonly accepted one: "The 
systematic procedure by which a complex or scientific task is 
accomplished". Dukkha-nirodha seems to fit the bill of being a 
complex task, to me. At least, I've never heard anyone suggest that 
dukkha-nirodha is easy.

It appears you're either using a very different definition 
of "technique" than I am, or you have misunderstood the meaning of 
silabbataparamasa (belief in the efficacy of rites and rituals). It 
sound as if you are suggesting that we need not do anything at all, 
not even "focusing on the body...feelings...mind...mental qualities"; 
that enlightenment will just magically drop in our laps apropos of 
nothing--or even more surprising (given I have never seen this 
interpretation anyplace other than DSG), that any efforts at all are 
the fetter of silabbataparamasa and directly hinder enlightenment!

Is this what you're suggesting? I have seen this view expressed often 
here in DSG, so perhaps it is. Since this is a view that seems to be 
endorsed by some of the learned scholars here in DSG, I imagine 
someone should be able to show plenty of support for this in the 
Suttas of  the Pali Canon (something we can all agree represent the 
Buddha's instructions to his disciples). Just a single in-context 
reference from the Suttas would do so much to help clarify this. I 
think this is a rather crucial point, all told.

Also, given you appear to be using the term silabbataparamasa, 
perhaps you can point to a Sutta which provides us with the 
definition of the term as you're using it, which specifically talks 
about thinking of Satipatthana as a "method" is a hindrance to 
awakening. From what I see, Dan's definition of silabbataparamasa 
appears to include any efforts spent practicing the techniques of 
Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, or viewing these 
as "methods".

For the record, I use the definition I have found in the Tripitaka, 
which matches definitions like Buddhadasa Bikkhu's: "Attachment to 
rites and rituals (Silabbatupadana): This refers to clinging to 
meaningless traditional practices that have been thoughtlessly handed 
down, practices which people choose to regard as sacred and not to be 
changed under any circumstances. In Thailand there are beliefs 
involving amulets, magical artifacts, and all manner of secret 
procedures."

Given these definitions of silabbataparamasa and silabbatupadana, I 
can't see how employing techniques and methods and purification 
practices found in, for example, the Satipatthana Sutta, can be 
construed as "silabbataparamasa ". I am not trying to twist your 
words here. If this is not what you mean, can you explain how you see 
these practices in light of the above definition? Since I've heard 
you make this comment on a number of occasions, I assume you have 
some basis for this from the Suttas you can share with us that might 
help clarify your understanding on this.

The reason I am spending so much precious time sitting here 
addressing these issues is because many of the discussions here in 
DSG seem to come back to this in one way or another. The nature of 
Right Effort keeps popping up in some way, and I have seen some
make the argument that there is no need at all to seek out favorable 
conditions for developing Right Mindfulness; that we can, without any 
sort of diligent effort or practice, simply be aware of all realities 
arising here and now, and that this alone leads to Nibbana. Yet 
another opinion I have seen expressed here--taking this idea even 
further--is that any effort spent in cultivating favorable conditions 
for the development of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness is "wrong 
practice" somehow--that by directing one's efforts one is actually 
hindering enlightenment!

I have to say that the only place I have ever seen this opinion 
expressed is right here in DSG, and nowhere else. This opinion 
implies (and I have heard this stated directly on a number of 
occasions, most recently in your post), that those who suggest 
seeking out favorable conditions for development and practicing the 
cultivation of mindfulness using the Four Frames of Reference and all 
the accepted objects--like the breath, the body, the hindrances, the 
Four Noble Truths--are mistaken and advocating silabbataparamasa. By 
my reckoning, that would appear to include the Buddha! And I hope you 
can clarify your interpretation, because that is a pretty tough nut 
to swallow! 

Once again, I am completely and dispassionately open to hearing a 
case made for what you're saying--backed up by references from the 
Suttas--since my sole interest is in any method (or even any non-
method) demonstrated to bring dukkha to cessation--my own and that of 
others if I may be so presumptuous as to imagine I could ever be of 
service in such a way. Because that to me would be in accord with the 
Dhamma as I understand its purpose ("dukkham ceva paññapemi, 
dukkhassa ca nirodham"). Anything not leading directly to the 
cessation of suffering would not be in accord with the teacher's 
instructions as I understand them.

For example, the little book on Mindfulness I brought home from Wat 
Mahatat the other day discusses the practice of Mindfulness. I am 
curious as to how you see these instructions, and if you agree or 
disagree with what they say. And if you agree or disagree, I am 
curious on which points specifically, and why. This goes for anyone 
here who cares to comment:

"[The mediator] must practice mindfulness meditation seriously. If he 
is not serious about the technique or the result of the meditation, 
then he will not put enough effort into the practice. Consequently, 
he will not concentrate his mind well on the object of meditation and 
realize the true nature of nama and rupa. He must also be constantly 
mindful of what is happening in his body and mind. In other words, 
his mindfulness must be constant, sustained, uninterrupted, and 
continuous. Only when he is able to do this will he be able to attain 
the deep concentration to build the insight knowledge which 
penetrates into the true nature of the bodily and mental processes. 
This is a very important point, a very important way in which every 
mediator must follow...Sati means constant, sustained,
uninterrupted mindfulness and not the ordinary mindfulness."

In light of this (which by the way accords in every way with what I 
have been taught in the "Mahayana"), how does the meditation system 
and practice you're advocating enable one to sustain focus such that 
sufficient concentration arises to penetrate the essence of dhammas? 
That is where the rubber meets the road, as I see it. How long can 
you sustain meditation without interruption using the non-method you 
appear to be advocating? Again, based on the above (which concurs not 
only again with everything I've
been taught in the Mahayana, but also accords perfectly with my own 
experience), one should be able to sustain uninterrupted 
concentration without break for long enough periods of time for there 
to be enough of a "head of steam" to penetrate the characteristics of 
nama and rupa, or at the very least to be able to easily discern 
their arising and passing away. If there is not this degree of 
sustained and uninterrupted concentration, I am at a loss to see how 
there is any hope at all of coming to see things as
they are. It just doesn't follow that there would be without the 
basis of rock-solid concentration. And there are a number of 
distinguishing characteristics that become very evident to any 
mediator who's properly practiced sati meditation, which I would be 
happy to enumerate at some other point so we're all on the same page.

> Buddha was much wiser and much more eloquent than I, but even he 
could
> not explain, in plain language, how to replicate that experience
> through diligent effort.

If you do agree with me that the sole reason for the Buddha's use of 
plain language (at least language like "when breathing in long, note 
breathing in long; when breathing out long, note breathing out 
long..." is plain to me, perhaps this is confusing for some) in the 
Suttas was for the express purpose of showing us how to end our 
suffering (thus replicating the Buddha's experience),  how does Dan 
see us getting from suffering sentient being right now to arahat?

I think hearing how we're supposed to do this from your own 
understanding would be the most instructive thing of all here (this 
is what I've been asking for here all along, and in my original 
post), because from this we can perhaps work through the chain of 
cause-and-effect from Dan's understanding of getting from suffering 
sentient being to dukkha nirodha, and see how Dan's version of this 
fits (or not) with the Buddha's teachings on the chain of causes and 
conditions leading from suffering sentient being to arahat. That is, 
if you accept that there is a chain of cause-and-effect that leads 
from suffering sentient being to arahat, which, based on your earlier 
comments, isn't entirely clear to me.

> The problem is that once you start to say
> "I'm going to do this to effect that", the mythical "I" is created 
and
> all efforts go into elaborating on that "I", protecting that "I",
> gratifying that "I", and magnifying that "I". And that "I" is
> remarkably resisient and sneaky.

Dan, I think we all accept that the false idea of "I" is always there 
until sotapatti-magga-nana (and the anusaya version of it is there 
until arahata-magga-nana), and there's certainly no need to expend 
any special effort creating it. From my understanding, though, we do 
have to expend serious effort getting rid of that notion, and for 
that there is the practice outlines in the Four Foundations of 
Mindfulness.

If we are entirely honest, there is a sense of "I" to be worked with 
while cultivating the path, and this reality has to be worked with 
skillfully, not simply ignored by sticking our fingers in our ears 
and singing "it's all anatta"--but by applying that undersatnding 
when observing the characteristics of composed things as they arise 
and cease, thus discerning them as impermanent, suffering, and not-
self by observing these very characteristics. Simply understanding 
this fact intellectually doesn't terminate the problem. If that's all 
it took, then we'd all be arahats by now. There has to be more to it 
than this.

And according to my understanding, diligently applying the 
instructions in the Sutra on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness--
focusing on specific objects (body, feelings, mind, mental qualities) 
as a way to train the mind to observe how whatever we're observing 
all share the characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and not-
"self"--is that very way.

> Soon this very "I" starts building up
> an elaborate set of words and concepts and systems to "convince
> itself" that it really doesn't believe in itself, rejects itself.

Glad you mention this, because there appears to be a lot of evidence 
that merely studying scriptures and learning the definitions 
for "anatta", or just saying the words "just seeing", without 
diligently applying this understanding in directed practice (until 
this mindfulness is naturally established such that there is clear 
noting of these characteristics) acts as a condition for exactly the 
sort of problem you indicate.

> Instead of prescribing a ritual to guarantee enlightenment, the 
Buddha
> described the nature of reality and suggested that we carefully
> consider his words, not just intellectually, but as they apply to 
each
> moment in the day.

There's that elusive "moment" again. Where? What does the "reality" 
of this moment look like? What characteristics are we supposed to be 
looking for here? That was my original question, and I still haven't 
gotten a satisfactory answer on this one.

> If you want to sit quietly in the corner, eyes closed, 
and "meditate",
> or to walk back and forth at a snail's pace, noting the lifting,
> raising, moving, touching, placing of the foot, that's fine. It may
> even be helpful...perhaps. There is a danger, though, that
> that "practice" takes on the appearance of a "method" that 
liberates,
> at which point it becomes a dead end.

I would be interested in seeing the references in the Suttas that 
clearly say how the Four Foundations of Mindfulness become a "dead 
end" if they are seen as a "method". The Buddha seemed to teach it as 
a "method": "[Satipatthana] is the direct path for the purification 
of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the 
disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right 
method, & for the realization of Unbinding -- in other words, the 
four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this 
was it said."

"Path" is a synonym of "method" in the thesaurus, Dan, so to me it 
appears that the Buddha is indeed advocating a "method"--which by 
your definition is slabbataparamasa? There are only two possibilities 
I can see here regarding what you've just said: 1) your definition of 
the term "method" differs vastly from mine or 2) your intended 
meaning differs from the Buddha's intended meaning somehow. Given 
you're a college educated chap, I will be generous and assume you at 
least share the same definition of "method" I'm
using, since that would seem pretty basic for anyone who's been 
properly educated in the English language.

> Buddhadasa's word about the kinds of clinging are certainly
> instructive. What kinds of clinging am I experiencing now? A whole
> rash of them are apparent in retrospect, as they occurred a second
> ago, or a few seconds ago. Sometimes it is less than a second ago.
> Sometimes there is a moment or two where there is awareness of 
vedana
> or tanha or bhava without elaboration. These moments are quite
> different from most moments and description of them is difficult.

Ah, now we get to something a bit more meaty. Your suggestion 
that "you" experience vedana, tanha, or bhava without elaboration 
implies you have directly seen realities as they are (yatha-bhuta-
dasa-nana), and now I am really interested in what you have to say, 
because this is exactly the sort of thing I have been hoping to hear 
from someone.

Anyway, I am far less interested in hearing about others' meditative 
experiences (unless doing so is some form of helpful instruction) and 
am far more interested in hearing how I can get the same 
understanding as you claim to have. So, if you would be so kind, 
please tell, how did you get from "deluded Dan" to where you are now 
able to clearly discern these things as impermanent, suffering, and 
not-self? What "method" (as in path) did you employ to bring this 
knowledge about? What were or are the conditions for its arising 
(surely it can't arise absent conditions, there have to be conditions 
someplace, in keeping with the law of cause and effect)?

 
 
8202 From: Christine Forsyth   
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.

 
  Dear Robert,
Thank you for this link.  I have printed it off and will look in 
detail.  I take a while to think things through, not terribly learned 
in Dhamma, but will let you know [eventually :-)] any comments I 
might have.
Previously, I have been practising intermittently the Mahasi method 
of meditating - concentration on rising and falling of the abdomen, 
and was interested in finding out why some people I respect greatly 
do not do sitting meditation.
metta,
Christine 

---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> Dear Christine, 
> I think your question will be answered by reading the Anapanasati 
Sutta, THE SUTRA
> ON THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE BREATHING, in which the Buddha says 
that the breath
> is the foundation for experiencing the four foundations of 
mindfulness and the
> seven factors of awakening.  
> 
> This site has a complete translation by Thannisaro Bikkhu of Saigon:
> 
> http://maxpages.com/drfu6/Anapanasati_Sutra
> 
> I'd be interested in your comments after reading this.
> 
> Best,
> Robert E.

 
8203 From: rikpa21 
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 5:17pm
Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik

 
  ---  Sarah  wrote:
> Hi Erik,

Hi Sarah!

> Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness:

Right, though I am also concerned with the other three, namely, the 
body, the feelings, and mental qualities. It is called the "Four 
Foundations of Mindfulness" after all. :)

> 'he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent, 
clearly
> comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this 
world
> covetousness and grief...'
>
> What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, 
hearing,
> smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door
> experiencing.

I don't quite take away this interpretation from the Maha-
Satipatthana Sutta:

"And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There 
is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that 
the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns 
that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he 
discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without 
aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the 
mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the 
mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without 
delusion. 

"When the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind is 
restricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is 
scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is 
enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is 
not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind 
is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind 
is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the 
mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns 
that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he 
discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he 
discerns that the mind is not released. 

"In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of 
itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally 
& externally on the mind in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the 
phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on the phenomenon 
of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon of 
origination & passing away with regard to the mind. Or his 
mindfulness that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of 
knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by 
(not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains 
focused on the mind in & of itself. "

> E:> This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on 
*forms*
> > arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be
> > mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would 
even
> > go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain 
how
> > one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What
> > in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati
> > finds a firm foundation for arising?
>
> One doesn't go about anything,

Not even "remaining focused" as the Buddha enjoined? Do you mean we 
just sit here like lumps?

> but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in 
front of us. 

Agreed, but how, specifically, does merely knowing this fact engender 
mindfulness and concentration to the degree we can penetrate the 
characteristics of what we're seeing?

> Like you say, if there were no eye-sense or
> arammana (object) to be experienced there would be no seeing. On 
account
of
> what is seen, the fetters arise. Understanding first in theory that 
what
is
> seeing now is just a citta, a moment of experiencing, no self at 
all, can
begin
> to help provide the necessary conditions for satipatthana to arise 
and be
aware
> of its very characteristic or nature. (I'll leave sabhava and 
essence for
> now;-))

I agree that knowing how things are not "self" is critical, and the 
bare beginning point in discerning realities as they are. Unless we 
understand this fact we are liable to interpret what we see as 
permanent, or desirable, for example. But this is only the barest 
beginning point as I understand it. There has to be more, because I 
cannot see how merely knowing this fact (like knowing that the birth 
and death of an self-entity are ultimately illusory) does anything to 
help terminate birth and death. If it were this simple, I am sure 
we'd all be arahats by now.

> I can't find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant 
these same
> realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other 
suttas) such
as
> seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on.

Where are these items mentioned specifically in the Satipatthana 
Sutta and "all the other suttas" other than by implication? Again, 
the objects I see mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta include 
specific parts of the body, specific feelings, specific 
characteristics of the mind, specific mental qualities with reference 
(does "Frame of Reference" have any bearing here?) to the five 
hindrances, the five aggregates, the six sense-bases, the seven 
factors of awakening, the Four Noble Truths.

Other than merely knowing that what we observe arises is not self, it 
doesn't follow that merely being aware of this in theory has any 
bearing on seeing deeply enough into the true nature of things that 
this bringe about the end of suffering. There have to be objects to 
apply this understanding to, so that we come to directly see the 
characteristics of these objects as impermanent, suffering, and not-
self.

> Both the Satipatthana Sutta and the use of states in this quote 
above are
> referring to all conditioned realities that should be known and
understood,
> including consciousness. I have an idea that the confusion is 
because you
may
> have forgotten that seeing, hearing etc are also cittas, or moments 
of
> consciousness.

I have not forgotten, but that is not what I am driving at. Again, I 
question how merely knowing this factually is conducive of the sort 
of concentration needed to penetrate the characteristics of these 
things at all. Again, without an object, there is nothing for sati to 
focus on. And the most important factor in mindfulness is remaining 
focused. This is the basis for sampajana (clear comprehension) and 
sati (mindfulness). Without this deliberate concentration (at least 
at first, until it is so well-established it becomes automatic), the 
mind will never be concentrated enough to penetrate the 
characteristics of anything, because it won't have any object to in 
which it sees these characteristics reflected, being so scattered and 
heedless it flits from one thing to another without ever "sinking in" 
deeply enough to know what it is perceiving with clarity and 
discernment.

> I do understand. The development of awareness is not as simple as 
many
believe
> at all.

Indeed it is not, and it takes enormous discipline to practice to 
develop awareness and clear comprehension to the point they remain 
focused for extended periods of time--which is the prerequisite for 
penetrating the characteristics of any object being noted. 

Mindfulness can only be aware of one object at a time. It may get 
more refined and be able to switch very quickly between different 
objects the more developed it is, but it is not possible for the mind 
to focus on more than one thing at a time, which is why the exercises 
in the Satipatthana Sutta detail various objects and how they are 
best investigated. What is again unclear from your presentation is 
how this degree of focus is established in the first place.

> Studying and considering more about what are the realities now, 
even while
> dreaming about
> Aert (yr girlfriend) is the way that satipatthana will develop for 
sure.
It has
> to be developed in daily life.

Right, but it doesn't just happen just from studying texts, but by 
deliberately noting specific feelings arising and passing away. 
Knowing what these objects of investigation are is the first step, 
the barest beginning, as I see it. To come to see their 
characteristics directly demands diligent effort applied over time, 
until unbroken concentration and awareness are developed enough "sink 
in" to any object being observing.

 
8204 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 6:04pm
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.

 
  ---

Dear Christine,
As I know you realise, the Dhamma of the supreme Buddha is not easily 
comprehended. You are right to query and investigate anything that is 
said. Anapanasati, mindfulness of breath, is an object that has 
numerous benefits, it can be an object for samattha and is also 
included in the satipatthaan sutta. It is the object of samattha from 
which the Buddha emerged and developed vipassana on the morning he 
was enlightened.
However, it has never been an object that was recommended for all 
people. The reason:it is a sublime object and can be misunderstood. 
One may 
focus on breath but it may be with very subtle attachment and
one might not realise this. The feeling will be calm but not
necessarily of kusala. This object does need special conditions
- erect back, fixed posture, quiet, much application etc.; thus
when on dsg we talk about vipassana in daily life it perhaps
seems so different from what people are used to thinking of as
bhavana (mental development- meditation). 

However ,there are other samatha objects that 
can  be developed in daily life in any posture.
The Anguttara nikaya (Book of the Elevens ii 13 p213
Mahanama) says about recollection of
the virtues of the Buddha,  and recollection of the
Dhamma and several other types of sammattha that:

 "` you should develop it as you sit, as you stand, as
you lie, as you apply yourself to business. You should
make it grow as you dwell at home in your lodging
crowded with children"ENDQUOTE

In the Samyutta nikaya V (Sayings on stream entry p347
The great chapter Dhammadina ) 5oo rich merchants 
came to see the Buddha . They asked how they should
live their lives. The Buddha suggested that they train
themselves thus:
 "as to those discourses uttered by the Tathagatha,
deep, deep in meaning, transcendental and concerened
with the void (about anatta) from time to time we will
spend our days learning them. That is how you must
spend your days."
_
Ken (also Australian) recently wrote about a sutta that is very 
worthy of contemplation "I have
taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all
things."    (M III (PTS),p19)  I like this so much, I have been
treating it as a kind of mantra. (!)""   

You might find this letter I wrote helpful
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5540
best wishes
robert



  "Christine Forsyth"  wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> Thank you for this link.  I have printed it off and will look in 
> detail.  I take a while to think things through, not terribly 
learned 
> in Dhamma, but will let you know [eventually :-)] any comments I 
> might have.
> Previously, I have been practising intermittently the Mahasi method 
> of meditating - concentration on rising and falling of the abdomen, 
> and was interested in finding out why some people I respect greatly 
> do not do sitting meditation.
> metta,
> Christine 
> 
>

 
8205 From: Howard 
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 4:02pm
Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat...

 
  Hi, Mike -

In a message dated 9/20/01 8:12:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
mike writes:


> Dear Howard,
> 
> --- Howard wrote:
> 
> > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to
> > > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise
> > after
> > > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon. 
> > > 
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        No, I think it was a reference something to
> > the effect of the mind 
> > being originally luminous, but covered by
> > adventitious defilements that is 
> > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga.
> 
> Really!  This is interesting.  Any idea of what
> commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)?  I'd be
> very interested in finding this idea (an originally
> luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements)
> anywhere in the Pali canon.
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I'm too poor of a Buddhist scholar, unfortunately, to give you any 
specifics here with regard to commentaries, but there is the following sutta:


Anguttara Nikaya I.49-52



Pabhassara Suttas



Luminous

For free distribution only, as a gift of Dhamma <A HREF="http://cambodianbuddhist.org/english/website/canon/anguttara/index.html#an1-49">Context of this sutta</A> 
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." 
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." 
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The 
uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is 
present, which is why I tell you that -- for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill 
person -- there is no development of the mind." "Luminous, monks, is the 
mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed noble 
disciple discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you 
that -- for the well-instructed noble disciple -- there is development of the 
mind." Revised: 9 November 1998 
http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/anguttara/an1-49.html
-------------------------------------------------------

> > (BTW, I'm not sure 
> > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the
> > suttas.)
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm not sure either, not at all sure.  You know, last
> time we chatted off-list, I expressed some grave
> reservations about the abhidhamma, and the conviction
> that it was of far less significance than the other
> two baskets.  Fickle fellow that I am, I seem to've
> swung back into a more standard Theravadin view.  At
> the time I think I was reacting against some of Jon's
> comments regarding the path.  I REALLY didn't want to
> give up my path--unfortunately, I've come to the
> conclusion that Jon was right, and yet another view
> lies in ruins (damn--I thought they were already all
> kaput!)
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       My "view" remains pretty much as it was. I have reservations and 
questions about the Abhidhamma, but I also value it highly; and it has had 
its effect on my understanding of the Dhamma, a salutary one.
-------------------------------------------------------

> 
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > > Unfortunately, it seems to open a door for the
> > > positing of some sort of 'cosmic consciousness',
> > which
> > > concept I believe is clearly alien to the
> > Theravada. 
> > > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        I don't even have a clue what "cosmic
> > consciousness" would be. But 
> > awareness without an object, beyond all conditions
> > and conditioning, unborn, 
> > and deathless would be nibbana to me.
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Well, by my reading of Mr. Webster, 'boundless
> awareness' could certainly be a synonym for 'cosmic
> consciousness'--an expression I've heard often, and
> for a long time.  I didn't mean to be insulting,
> though.
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I didn't think you had. I was just clarifying my perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Shalom!
> 
------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Hah! ;-)) And Salaam as well.
----------------------------------------------------
> 
> mike
> 

==========================
With metta,
Howard

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



 
8206 From: Derek Cameron   
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:44pm
Subject: Unsubscribing

 
  Hi, all,

I haven't posted in a long long time but there is so much happening 
in my life right now I am going to unsubscribe. Thank you all for 
your stimulating posts.

Derek.

 
8207 From: Gayan Karunaratne   
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:03pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Unsubscribing

 
  OK, sir,

pls return with a vengence!

:o)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Cameron" 
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 8:44 AM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Unsubscribing


> Hi, all,
>
> I haven't posted in a long long time but there is so much happening
> in my life right now I am going to unsubscribe. Thank you all for
> your stimulating posts.
>
> Derek.

 
8208 From: Dan Dalthorp   
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:18pm
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)

 
  Excellent, Erik! You are asking all the right questions. They are all 
frequently discussed in dsg, but I (for one) never tire of discussing 
them. I do have other obligations, though, so I can't spend too much 
time writing here, and I really mustn't make of habit of posting. I 
hope to address each of your questions, in my own clumsy way, but I 
certainly won't be able to do it all today. Only a few very brief 
comments for now.

> If you do agree with me that the sole reason for the Buddha's use of 
> plain language (at least language like "when breathing in long, note 
> breathing in long; when breathing out long, note breathing out 
> long..." is plain to me, perhaps this is confusing for some)

I agree that he uses plain language but not so clear that he is 
discussing "technique". Is this really an accurate translation of 
Buddha's words? This has quite a different ring to it than what I am 
familiar with (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html): "Breathing 
in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out 
long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in 
short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out 
short, he discerns that he is breathing out short." There is a 
distinct difference between the two. The first is prescriptive, a 
thing-to-do. The second is descriptive, what is discerned. It could be 
that the "technique" of the first, leads to the awareness in the 
second. Sometimes. Perhaps. Now, what is that technique? "Sit 
cross-legged on a cushion. Note the rising and falling of the abdomen 
as the breath goes in and out. Note whether the breath is long or 
short." Can you see how this is ultimately the same as any other 
ritual? I am not asking how it differs from other rituals, but what it 
has in common with other rituals. I don't think I'd ever be able to 
convince you that "technique" is a cryptic synonym for "ritual", but 
it may be useful to think about how it might be so.

Dan

 
8209 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 6:07am
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)

 
  --- 
Dear Dan,
If I could just butt in a little to your interesting conversation.
I think we can say that samatha bhavana (tranquility meditation) is, 
at least to some degree, dependent on following a correct method (as 
well as much understanding of the actual nature of kusala and 
akusala - not easy). And that method is described in the suttas and 
commentaries. 
 It is  vipassana bhavana, profound insight into dhammas as are they 
are, that can't (I believe) be reduced to a simple technique.
robert

 "Dan Dalthorp"  wrote:
> Excellent, Erik! You are asking all the right questions. They are 
all 
> frequently discussed in dsg, but I (for one) never tire of 
discussing 
> them. I do have other obligations, though, so I can't spend too 
much 
> time writing here, and I really mustn't make of habit of posting. I 
> hope to address each of your questions, in my own clumsy way, but I 
> certainly won't be able to do it all today. Only a few very brief 
> comments for now.
> 
> > If you do agree with me that the sole reason for the Buddha's use 
of 
> > plain language (at least language like "when breathing in long, 
note 
> > breathing in long; when breathing out long, note breathing out 
> > long..." is plain to me, perhaps this is confusing for some)
> 
> I agree that he uses plain language but not so clear that he is 
> discussing "technique". Is this really an accurate translation of 
> Buddha's words? This has quite a different ring to it than what I 
am 
> familiar with (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 
> 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html): "Breathing 
> in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out 
> long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in 
> short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out 
> short, he discerns that he is breathing out short." There is a 
> distinct difference between the two. The first is prescriptive, a 
> thing-to-do. The second is descriptive, what is discerned. It could 
be 
> that the "technique" of the first, leads to the awareness in the 
> second. Sometimes. Perhaps. Now, what is that technique? "Sit 
> cross-legged on a cushion. Note the rising and falling of the 
abdomen 
> as the breath goes in and out. Note whether the breath is long or 
> short." Can you see how this is ultimately the same as any other 
> ritual? I am not asking how it differs from other rituals, but what 
it 
> has in common with other rituals. I don't think I'd ever be able to 
> convince you that "technique" is a cryptic synonym for "ritual", 
but 
> it may be useful to think about how it might be so.
> 
> Dan

 
8210 From: Cybele Chiodi   
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:30pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Unsubscribing

 
  Sweetheart!

Best wishes to you and however life is more
stimulating than our blah, blah!
All the best for your practice and your life. :-)

Love
Cybele



--- Derek Cameron  wrote:
> Hi, all,
> 
> I haven't posted in a long long time but there is so
> much happening 
> in my life right now I am going to unsubscribe.
> Thank you all for 
> your stimulating posts.
> 
> Derek.



 
8211 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 9:50am
Subject: Re: Hello Kenneth (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill)

 
  Thanks, Kenneth.  I appreciate the description of Pure Land Buddhism.  

Wouldn't it be nice if we all wound up, in one of these lifetimes, in the company
of Amitahba and each other, in the land of Utmost Bliss?

It sounds pretty good to me.

Best Wishes to you,
Robert E.

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


--- KennethOng  wrote:
> 
> Pure Land Buddhism is centre upon Amitabha Buddha where his land is known as the
> Land of Utmost Bliss.  According to Mahayana Sutras, Amitabha Buddha have been a
> Buddha for ten Kalpas and have not gone into Nirvana 
> Pure Land Buddhism is based upon these few pillars (from what I think).
> a.    recitings of Amitabha Buddha name. In mindfulness we are mindful of
> feelings, body, consciousness and mental formations.  Pure Land utilised 
> mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha name so that the mind could reach oneness and
> break away from dualism. 
> b.     To hold on to the ten precepts It is the extension of the five precepts
> but I think it is different from the ten precepts of Thervadas.  
> c.     There is a desire to be born there.  This is the most contentious topic
> of Pure Land Buddhism because it sounds like Christainity.   Sentinental beings
> could be born in Amitabha Buddha Pureland if they desire due to the vows he made
> when Amitabha Buddha is an inspiring Budhisattvas just like Sakyamuni Buddha,
> when he is a Bodhisattvas, he vow to born in Saha world.  However, there is a
> catch, you got to practise the ten precepts and also mindfullness of his name
> (actually can be any other Buddha or Bodhisattvas names as long as the desire is
> to be born there).  There is no such things as grace or confession or easy way
> out.  You got to learn to be mindful and practise the ten precepts.
> d.     the Transference of merit to all sentinental beings or to Pure Land 
> e.     this is a practise by one great Pure Land guru, he said that we got to
> learn to be humble and always reflect on our own actions. (I think should be
> including as another pillar).
> the reasons I practise Pureland Buddhism is because I am terribly scare of going
> through the wheel of cycle of life again since there is a better place for me to
> go, I really wish to go there.  It is like a buying a insurance policy for our
> retirement.  we pay premiuns like mindfullness and keep our precepts.  Pure Land
> is enticing (attachment) to me because firstly, Buddha is always there to teach
> us, all beings lifespans are limitless, thirdly you can practise there until you
> reach  the last stage of Bodhisattvas or you can choose to go elsewhere, fourly
> there is no hell beings, ghosts realm, and all are sexless, nameless. In my
> personal opinin, it is a very good enivronment to practise.
> Pure Land Buddhism can be easily lead to superstitions if Practitioners do not
> know what they are doing and why they are doing this or that.  I welcome
> comments or discussions so that I could learn more abt Buddhism.  Personnaly I
> do not have any Pure Land Statutes in my house nor do I go to temple to pay
> homage because to me the most importantly is that Buddha is inside me and not
> outside.  
> with kindest regards
> Kenneth Ong
>  
>  
>   Robert Epstein  wrote: --- Kenneth Ong wrote:
> 
> > Dear Sarah,
> > I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few
> years
> > of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada
> also
> > because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot
> > of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted
> > greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana
> > Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops
> > attachment).
> > Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It
> > has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another
> attachement) 
> > :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in
> > so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have
> many
> > weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very
> proud
> > of myself.
> > Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware
> > and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning
> > mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts
> > when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till
> > late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand
> > does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be
> appreciated.
> > Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family
> > commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. 
> > Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring
> > sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat
> > group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn
> a
> > lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this
> > opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who
> > contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and
> > practises.
> > My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a
> > Singaporean.
> > With kind regards
> > KO
> 
> Kenneth,
> I have enjoyed your direct and sincere posts, including our discussions on the
> somewhat heated subject of the attack on the U.S. I am happy to hear a bit about
> your background and personal history. This has led me to realize that I never
> posted an intro myself. I am happy to hear about your family. I have a three
> year old daughter myself, although I am a little older than you [I'm a late
> starter]. 
> 
> One question: Could you say a word about the Pure Land practices? I am familiar
> with Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, but I have only heard briefly about Pure
> Land
> Buddhism before. I would be interested in a little talk on that if you feel you
> would like to. 
> 
> Regards,
> Robert E.


 
8212 From: rikpa21 
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:13am
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)

 
  ---  "Dan Dalthorp"  wrote:
> Excellent, Erik! You are asking all the right questions. They are 
all 
> frequently discussed in dsg, but I (for one) never tire of 
discussing 
> them. 

Nor do I, as these questions are central to the cessation of dukkha, 
as I see it. If by believing Satipatthana is not something to be 
diligently developed, then that has direct bearing on whether or not 
there is the cessation of dukkha, because without this understanding, 
there will never be the appropriate effort (sammapadana) of arousing 
persistence, developing, endeavouring, upholding and exerting one's 
intent for the abandoning unskillful qualities and taking up and 
developing skillful qualities. Any suggestion that we need not 
energetically pursue the development of practices like Satipatthana 
does not appear to accord with the criteria as the teacher's 
instruction, since it is not conducive to aroused persistence, not to 
laziness (cf. Gotami Sutta).

> I agree that he uses plain language but not so clear that he is 
> discussing "technique". Is this really an accurate translation of 
> Buddha's words?

My question to you was, and is, by observing that Satipatthana is 
a "method" or "technique", does this have any bearing whatsoever on 
whether or not it works? Perhaps the words the Blessed One spoke here 
would be beneficial to consider, as I think this addresses the 
question you raise (and the Buddha even talks about, Brahma forbid, 
*the wish for results*!)

"...Any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, right 
resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, 
right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy 
life even when having made a wish [for results], they are capable of 
obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made 
no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the 
holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, 
they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life 
even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they 
are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an 
appropriate way of obtaining results."

The Bhumija Sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn126.html

 This has quite a different ring to it than what I am 
> familiar with (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 
> 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html): "Breathing 
> in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out 
> long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in 
> short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out 
> short, he discerns that he is breathing out short." There is a 
> distinct difference between the two. The first is prescriptive, a 
> thing-to-do. The second is descriptive, what is discerned. It could 
be 
> that the "technique" of the first, leads to the awareness in the 
> second. Sometimes. Perhaps.

This sounds like a case semantic hair-spliting to these ears. I see 
no fundamental difference between the intended meaning of "noting" 
vs. that of "discerning". I think the important issue is that one 
practice noting/discerning on the appropriate objects, in an 
appropriate fashion, such that one comes to see them as impermanent, 
suffering, and not-self. That is what I see as being the thing that 
that matters here, not whether we label that technique "noting" 
or "discerning" (both synonyms, by the way). To get caught on 
superficial distinctions between mere labels while ignoring what 
those labels are pointing at seems to be a case of focusing on the 
finger, rather than  the moon.

> Now, what is that technique? "Sit 
> cross-legged on a cushion. Note the rising and falling of the 
abdomen 
> as the breath goes in and out. Note whether the breath is long or 
> short." Can you see how this is ultimately the same as any other 
> ritual? I am not asking how it differs from other rituals, but what 
it 
> has in common with other rituals. I don't think I'd ever be able to 
> convince you that "technique" is a cryptic synonym for "ritual", 
but 
> it may be useful to think about how it might be so.

I don't see how this is profitable at all, because I can't see any 
connection between this and the cessation of dukkha. I can't see how 
thinking of Satipatthana as a technique or method has any bearing on 
whether or not it works if practiced diligently, the the point one 
has established unbroken concentration on the appropriate objects of 
discernment, such that one comes to see them as they are: anicca, 
dukkha, and anatta. 
.

 
8213 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:48am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E.

 
  --- Christine Forsyth  wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> Thank you for this link.  I have printed it off and will look in 
> detail.  I take a while to think things through, not terribly learned 
> in Dhamma, but will let you know [eventually :-)] any comments I 
> might have.
> Previously, I have been practising intermittently the Mahasi method 
> of meditating - concentration on rising and falling of the abdomen, 
> and was interested in finding out why some people I respect greatly 
> do not do sitting meditation.
> metta,
> Christine 

Following and noting of the rising and falling of the breath is the root of my own
practice as well.  I think the Sutra will give you some good clues as to how you
can expand that awareness to include the Four Foundations of Mindfulness once
concentration is adequate and begin to observe all arising dharmas from the anchor
of the breath.

I speak as someone who finds it a possibilty and sees the potential there, but my
meditation practice is not always so consistent.

Best,
Robert E.

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


> ---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> > Dear Christine, 
> > I think your question will be answered by reading the Anapanasati 
> Sutta, THE SUTRA
> > ON THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE BREATHING, in which the Buddha says 
> that the breath
> > is the foundation for experiencing the four foundations of 
> mindfulness and the
> > seven factors of awakening.  
> > 
> > This site has a complete translation by Thannisaro Bikkhu of Saigon:
> > 
> > http://maxpages.com/drfu6/Anapanasati_Sutra
> > 
> > I'd be interested in your comments after reading this.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robert E.



 
8214 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 1:27pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on lokuttara, sense-door, mind-door

 
  Nina
 
> > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks.  In
> Cambodia,
> > A.
> > Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors
> in
> > our
> > daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the
> > mind-door
> > does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each
> > sense-door
> > process. But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and
> > concepts,
> > the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at
> > such
> > moments realities that arise and fall away. My feeling is: we think of
> > concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking
> > there
> > are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not
> > appear.
> > Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door
> > process is hidden by the sense-door processes?
> 
> My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a
> passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'.  Have I got this
> wrong?  Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door
> being
> hidden by sense-doors.  Thanks.

Here is the passage from the Cambodia talks I have in mind.  It was about
this passage that Sarah asked one or two questions in Bangkok.

"Sujin:  At this moment realities are appearing, such as seeing
arising in the eye-door process. However, people do not know the
true nature of what appears, they take what they see for people
and things. Therefore, the thinking on account of what was seen,
thus, the thinking of people and things, hides the truth. In
reality dhammas appear for an extremely short moment, they arise
and then fall away immediately. Thus, the thinking in a
mind-door process is hiding the sense-door processes. At this
moment it is not evident that what appears through the eyes
falls away. It seems that one sees all the time, but in reality
there are cittas of a mind-door process arising and falling away
in succession in between the citta that sees and the citta that
hears, and these cittas arise each in a different sense-door
process."

As regards the subject of 'mind-door being hidden by the sense-doors', I
found the following reference in one of your footnotes to the Cambodia
talks--

"3. There are several stages of insight knowledge, vipassanå
ñåùa. The first stage is distinguishing the difference between
nåma and rúpa and this arises in a mind-door process. Rúpa can
be known through a sense-door and through the mind-door, and
nåma can only be known through the mind-door. Thus, the
difference between nåma and rúpa is known through the mind-door.
Now, at this moment, the mind-door is covered up by the
sense-doors, but at that stage of insight knowledge it is
understood what the mind-door is. 
Acharn Sujin explains in A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Part
V, Ch 2, The Stages of Insight:  The rúpas which are
sense-objects are experienced through the corresponding
sense-doors and after each sense-door process the object is
experienced through the mind-door. However, when there is no
vipassanå ñåùa, insight knowledge, the mind-door process does
not appear, it is as it were hidden by the sense objects
experienced in the sense-door processes. At the moments of
vipassanå ñåùa, rúpas appear very clearly through the mind-door,
and at that moment the mind-door hides as it were the
sense-doors. Then the situation is opposite to the moments when
there is no vipassanå ñåùa. "

Hope this clarifies!

Jon



 
8215 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 2:53pm
Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re:

 
  Mike
 --- "m. nease"  wrote: > Jon,
 
> > Yes, I think that follows.  Actually, I'm not very
> > familiar with appamada
> > as meaning 'diligence'.  I am more familiar with its
> > meaning of
> > 'heedlessness' which is pretty much the negative
> > formulation of
> > 'mindfulness' (= your satipatthana above).
> 
> I assume you meant 'heedfulness' here, rather than
> 'heedlessness'?

Thanks for this correction, and my apologies to all for any confusion.

  Ven. Buddhadatta has, for appamaada:
> 
> vigilance; earnestness.
> 
> and for pamaada:
> 
> negligence; indolence; remissness; carelessness.

I think this is similar to the meaning of the term (bramaat -- as in 'yaa
bramaat') as used in Thai.

Jon

> > Nyanatiloka in his 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the
> > meanings of 'zeal,
> > non-laxity, earnestness and diligence', and notes
> > that "In the
> > commentaries, it is often explained as the presence
> > (lit. non-absence) of
> > mindfulness (satiyaa avippavaasa).'
> 
> Glad for this confirmation.
> 
> > As to mundane vs. supramundane, I take the com. as
> > saying that even though
> > it is a (mere) mundane state, because of what it
> > leads to it is reckoned
> > as chief among the supramundane states.
> 
> Somehow not surprising that it bridges the gap
> (because being both a mundane and supramundane
> factor).
> 
> > Difficult to know for sure with so little available
> > from the Com. (and so
> > much ignorance!).
> 
> Yes, some speculation here.
> 
> mike



 
8216 From: dalthorp 
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)

 
  Erik:
> Nor do I, as these questions are central to the cessation of 
dukkha, 
> as I see it. If by believing Satipatthana is not something to be 
> diligently developed, then that has direct bearing on whether or 
not 
> there is the cessation of dukkha, because without this 
understanding, 
> there will never be the appropriate effort (sammapadana) of 
arousing 
> persistence, developing, endeavouring, upholding and exerting one's 
> intent for the abandoning unskillful qualities and taking up and 
> developing skillful qualities. Any suggestion that we need not 
> energetically pursue the development of practices like Satipatthana 
> does not appear to accord with the criteria as the teacher's 
> instruction, since it is not conducive to aroused persistence, not 
to 
> laziness (cf. Gotami Sutta).

I agree 100%. Satipatthana is to be diligently developed. Where we 
disagree is on the necessity of viewing satipatthana as a ritual. I 
consider clinging to ritual a fetter to be broken, and you say you 
don't think it's important how satipatthana can be misinterpreted as 
a ritual (In response to my suggestion to think about how 'technique' 
interpretation of satipatthana is taking satipatthana as ritual, you 
wrote: "I don't see how this is profitable at all, because I can't 
see any connection between this and the cessation of dukkha. I can't 
see how thinking of Satipatthana as a technique or method has any 
bearing on whether or not it works...").


> "...Any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, right 
> resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right 
effort, 
> right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy 
> life even when having made a wish [for results], they are capable 
of 
> obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having 
made 
> no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the 
> holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no 
wish, 
> they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life 
> even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they 
> are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an 
> appropriate way of obtaining results."
 
Hmmmm....Being endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech, 
right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, & 
right concentration and living the holy life brings results? I should 
say so! Now which ritual was he selling here?

> This sounds like a case semantic hair-spliting to these ears. I see 
> no fundamental difference between the intended meaning of "noting" 
> vs. that of "discerning". 

I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs. 
declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting, but 
the difference in meaning is tremendous.

 
 
8217 From: Sarah   
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 8:29pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E

 
  Dear Rob E,

Sorry for the slow response to the useful points and questions here:

--- Robert Epstein  wrote: > Thanks, Sarah, for your
message.
> 
> Yes, the mechanics of which factor is at play at any given moment is both
> interesting in its own right, and gives a strong indication for the approach
> to
> Vipassana meditation.  
> 
> I don't know if this is redundant for this group, but I am interested in how
> one
> applies this methodology to the four foundations of mindfulness.  It seems
> that
> most of the discussion of Adhidhamma focusses on the relationship between the
> sense doors and the mind doors and how they interact, as well as the
> accumulation
> of panna.
> 
> I wonder how the breakdown into body/sensations, feelings/emotions, mind and
> objects of mind [do I have that right?] is incorporated into the analysis. 
> Or is
> that more or less incidental to the actual seeing of the specific reality of
> the
> moment?

Firstly these points are most certainly not ‘redundant for this group’ and go
to the very core of the Teachings and understanding of satipatthana and
Abhidhamma.

Let me simply say that the abhidhamma talks (in precise detail) about all
realities that can ever be experienced, including the ones you mention. When we
talk about panna (rt understanding) developing and understanding specific
realities ‘of the moment’, they are the same realities referred to in the four
foundations of mindfulness.

‘If one considers the teaching of Abhidhamma starting with Dhammasangani (first
book of the Abhidhamma), and ending with Patthana (last book of the
Abhidhamma), it will be seen that aggregates, bases, elements and so on are
expounded in them.  This shows that the realities, with which Abhidhamma deals,
consist of aggregates, bases and elements that behave according to their own
natures and, therefore, are not dependent on one’s wishes.  In other words, the
realities behave according to the principle of anatta.’<end quote> U Narada,
‘Guide to Conditional Relations’, xii

These very same aggregates, bases and elements in the abhidhamma are the mental
and physical phenomena discussed in the four foundations of mindfulness (and
all the other suttas), i.e: 

1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose, tongue
and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) = <kayanupassi>

2) the vedana (feelings) which arise with every moment of citta (consciousness)
= <vedanupassi> 

3) the cittas (moments of conciousness themselves) which (as I explained to
Erik) include moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching,
experiencing through the body-sense, and mind-door experiencing =
<cittanupassi>

4) the cetasikas (mental factors), excluding vedana,  accompanying the cittas
(moments of consciousness). These include phassa (contact), sanna (memory),
lobha (attachment, dosa (aversion) and all the other ones = <dhammanupassi>

In fact these are just the same realities as discussed in the 5 khandhas
(aggregates) for example, but different ‘groupings’ are given in different
suttas or contexts. The aim of the ‘groupings’ are merely to help us understand
there is no self existing in any form at all in these conditioned realities.

Rob, I think if you read the first 2 or 3 chapters of ‘Abhidhamma in Daily
Life’, available on most the websites on the dsg homepage, it will clarify
these  points further. Of course as you well know now , it’s not so much a
matter of applying any methodology so much as knowing (first in theory) what
the realities are to be understood so that panna and sati can go about their
respective tasks of understanding and being aware when conditions are right.
This is how vipassana bhavana (mental development/meditation) can slowly be
developed at this very moment by panna.

Hope this helps. Let me know if I haven't answered the question.

Sarah 

p.s Many thanks for your unusual and interesting late intro (and I enjoyed the
wordiness;-)) 


 
8218 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 9:04pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging (Dan)

 
  It seems that on one hand we are here discussing about Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising it right now while we are typing the emails.  I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated up.  Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations. 
It is definitely impt to be mindfull, actually mindfullness is the pivotal practises, all school of thoughts, be it Thervadas, Zen, Tibetan or Other Mahayana Schools, on depend on this to reach enlightment.  My humble opinion is that this is the "mother of all practises"
If I am not wrong what dalthorp (sorry did not get your name) trying to point out is that, cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness.  From your point of view, it seems like everything is a ritual.  If i am not wrong in my interpretation of your view,  it seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual.  You are not wrong by saying that.  If I do not forget, there is a story about letting go of the raft after crossing the river. But I have to admit that I really needs this raft.   It is excellent that you have point this ritual as a fetter, however presently in my humblest opinion I really need this ritual in order to practise.
I hope I do not get you wrong. Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative and imperative.  I quite confuse what you are referring to. 
Sorry if I have misinterpret your meaning.  With my kindest regards
Kenneth Ong
 P.S.  Could I suggest that all of us kindly provide a name or initials after the end of our email so that we could identify each other as sometimes the reply could get very confusing and I always wondering who is who.
 
 
 
  dalthorp wrote: Erik:
> Nor do I, as these questions are central to the cessation of 
dukkha, 
> as I see it. If by believing Satipatthana is not something to be 
> diligently developed, then that has direct bearing on whether or 
not 
> there is the cessation of dukkha, because without this 
understanding, 
> there will never be the appropriate effort (sammapadana) of 
arousing 
> persistence, developing, endeavouring, upholding and exerting one's 
> intent for the abandoning unskillful qualities and taking up and 
> developing skillful qualities. Any suggestion that we need not 
> energetically pursue the development of practices like Satipatthana 
> does not appear to accord with the criteria as the teacher's 
> instruction, since it is not conducive to aroused persistence, not 
to 
> laziness (cf. Gotami Sutta).

I agree 100%. Satipatthana is to be diligently developed. Where we 
disagree is on the necessity of viewing satipatthana as a ritual. I 
consider clinging to ritual a fetter to be broken, and you say you 
don't think it's important how satipatthana can be misinterpreted as 
a ritual (In response to my suggestion to think about how 'technique' 
interpretation of satipatthana is taking satipatthana as ritual, you 
wrote: "I don't see how this is profitable at all, because I can't 
see any connection between this and the cessation of dukkha. I can't 
see how thinking of Satipatthana as a technique or method has any 
bearing on whether or not it works...").


> "...Any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, right 
> resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right 
effort, 
> right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy 
> life even when having made a wish [for results], they are capable 
of 
> obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having 
made 
> no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the 
> holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no 
wish, 
> they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life 
> even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they 
> are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an 
> appropriate way of obtaining results."

Hmmmm....Being endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech, 
right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, & 
right concentration and living the holy life brings results? I should 
say so! Now which ritual was he selling here?

> This sounds like a case semantic hair-spliting to these ears. I see 
> no fundamental difference between the intended meaning of "noting" 
> vs. that of "discerning". 

I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs. 
declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting, but 
the difference in meaning is tremendous. 



 
8219 From: rikpa21 
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 9:07pm
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)

 
  ---  Dan D wrote:

Dan,

> I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs. 
> declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting, 
but 
> the difference in meaning is tremendous.

Since you seem to believe this is so critical, then I imagine you 
should have no problem describing from your own experience how you 
have found this distincion directly applicable to overcoming dukkha. 

Or if you don't have any direct experience to share on this, where 
the Buddha clearly noted the importance of this to overcoming dukkha.

 
8220 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 7:06am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E

 
  Dear Sarah,
I think your post is very much on point to what I was asking.  I am somewhat
quizzical as to why there are all these different classification schemes in
different parts of the canon, but considering that there are even more than one
canon, I suppose that is to be expected.  

It seems that at different times, for different audiences, the Buddha broke down
even the technical realities of perception, thought and consciousness in different
types of classifications or nomenclatures.  Perhaps he even developed his
understand of how best to break these things down at different points in his
career.  I would guess that even the Buddha would reserve the right to get clearer
about how to explain things as he went along.  In any case, it isn't particularly
helpful for coordinating one's [already lax] understanding of different suttas.  

The 3 schemes mentioned here are:  4 foundations of mindfulness; 5 kandhas;
aggregates, bases and elements.  I guess if you study them, they could be
coordinated.  But your basic point on this is that they are not 'actual' divisions
of experience, but ways of organizing them in order to highlight their mechanics
and the main point of anatta being the essence of them all.  [?]

I keep getting myself in hot water, in the sense that each of my questions leads
to a reading assignment!  I will try to read those chapters.  Thanks for your
explanation.

And thanks for your nice response to my 'wordy' self-intro.    :-)

Best,
Robert E. 

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

--- Sarah  wrote:
>  Dear Rob E,
> 
> Sorry for the slow response to the useful points and questions here:
> 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote: > Thanks, Sarah, for your
> message.
> > 
> > Yes, the mechanics of which factor is at play at any given moment is both
> > interesting in its own right, and gives a strong indication for the approach
> > to
> > Vipassana meditation.  
> > 
> > I don't know if this is redundant for this group, but I am interested in how
> > one
> > applies this methodology to the four foundations of mindfulness.  It seems
> > that
> > most of the discussion of Adhidhamma focusses on the relationship between the
> > sense doors and the mind doors and how they interact, as well as the
> > accumulation
> > of panna.
> > 
> > I wonder how the breakdown into body/sensations, feelings/emotions, mind and
> > objects of mind [do I have that right?] is incorporated into the analysis. 
> > Or is
> > that more or less incidental to the actual seeing of the specific reality of
> > the
> > moment?
> 
> Firstly these points are most certainly not ‘redundant for this group’ and go
> to the very core of the Teachings and understanding of satipatthana and
> Abhidhamma.
> 
> Let me simply say that the abhidhamma talks (in precise detail) about all
> realities that can ever be experienced, including the ones you mention. When we
> talk about panna (rt understanding) developing and understanding specific
> realities ‘of the moment’, they are the same realities referred to in the four
> foundations of mindfulness.
> 
> ‘If one considers the teaching of Abhidhamma starting with Dhammasangani (first
> book of the Abhidhamma), and ending with Patthana (last book of the
> Abhidhamma), it will be seen that aggregates, bases, elements and so on are
> expounded in them.  This shows that the realities, with which Abhidhamma deals,
> consist of aggregates, bases and elements that behave according to their own
> natures and, therefore, are not dependent on one’s wishes.  In other words, the
> realities behave according to the principle of anatta.’<end quote> U Narada,
> ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’, xii
> 
> These very same aggregates, bases and elements in the abhidhamma are the mental
> and physical phenomena discussed in the four foundations of mindfulness (and
> all the other suttas), i.e: 
> 
> 1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose, tongue
> and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) = <kayanupassi>
> 
> 2) the vedana (feelings) which arise with every moment of citta (consciousness)
> = <vedanupassi> 
> 
> 3) the cittas (moments of conciousness themselves) which (as I explained to
> Erik) include moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching,
> experiencing through the body-sense, and mind-door experiencing =
> <cittanupassi>
> 
> 4) the cetasikas (mental factors), excluding vedana,  accompanying the cittas
> (moments of consciousness). These include phassa (contact), sanna (memory),
> lobha (attachment, dosa (aversion) and all the other ones = <dhammanupassi>
> 
> In fact these are just the same realities as discussed in the 5 khandhas
> (aggregates) for example, but different ‘groupings’ are given in different
> suttas or contexts. The aim of the ‘groupings’ are merely to help us understand
> there is no self existing in any form at all in these conditioned realities.
> 
> Rob, I think if you read the first 2 or 3 chapters of ‘Abhidhamma in Daily
> Life’, available on most the websites on the dsg homepage, it will clarify
> these  points further. Of course as you well know now , it’s not so much a
> matter of applying any methodology so much as knowing (first in theory) what
> the realities are to be understood so that panna and sati can go about their
> respective tasks of understanding and being aware when conditions are right.
> This is how vipassana bhavana (mental development/meditation) can slowly be
> developed at this very moment by panna.
> 
> Hope this helps. Let me know if I haven't answered the question.
> 
> Sarah 
> 
> p.s Many thanks for your unusual and interesting late intro (and I enjoyed the
> wordiness;-)) 



 
8221 From: Christine Forsyth   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:01am
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.

 
  Dear Robert E., Robert K.,

I'd like to share this excerpt that was posted on D-L recently.

metta,
Christine

                                  "The Indispensable Factor

Buddhist practice constantly emphasizes one major factor for spiritual
evolution:

    Commitment to continuous and correct practice!

It is this single factor which advances or impedes spiritual 
development.
The fruits of meditation and the spiritual life will not mysteriously 
appear
without constant watchfulness and development. The Buddhist devotee is
repeatedly urged to pursue cultivation of meditation and other 
aspects of
the spiritual life in an appropriate, non stressful and skilled 
manner.

As a young novice monk, my teachers taught me Buddhist philosophy and
meditation principles for many years.  All my instructors, especially 
my
first teacher, constantly emphasized the importance of devotion and
continuity in training. I became bored and impatient hearing these
admonishments years after year.  A few years later, I became an 
instructor
and taught for some time.  I realized that I had only "book" Dharma, 
so I
entered a period of intensive, uninterrupted vipassana meditation for 
seven
months.  I finally understood their intention and great kindness in 
teaching
their students so well.

When truly realizing the necessity of cultivating the mind, we will
understand that training takes place everywhere.  Self-cultivation 
contnues
*all the time*. To "break" training does not arise for the meditator 
who
fully comprehends the implications of mind development.  When we 
decide to
become seriously committed to practice, there are no disturbances 
which can
harm our practice.  No longer is "meditating" confined to the formal 
sitting
posture, being in a special environment or associating with like-
minded
friends.

We can try our best to stay wide awake in the midst of all sights, 
sounds
and experiences.

THIS ATTITUDE IS THE REAL DEVELOPEMENT OF INSIGHT MEDITATION...not 
grasping
and attaching to any circumstance in life and using skillful means at 
every
opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities. Then our life is really 
free
and unburdened, moment to moment.  Insight meditation in daily life is
cultivated by developing the "Art of Non-Attachment."

Achan Sobin S.Namto
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 
8222 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:22am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E.

 
  Dear Christine,
This message has an important point, but I have a couple of questions about it.

1/  It seems contradictory in a sense.  The writer says that Insight Meditation
should take place at all times and does not begin or end with formal meditation. 
Yet it was apparently his [?] 7 months of intensive meditation that opened his
eyes to this reality.  

Is he advocating a commitment to Insight meditation or not?  It is hard for me to
tell from this message.

2/  It seems that he is promoting a particular view of practice, and rather
strongly.  To say that commitment to real and correct practice is the one
essential ingredient that causes progress is both obvious and simplistic.  It is
certainly important, but sometimes it's not good enough and sometimes it's not the
most important ingredient.   The idea that if we are really committed 'nothing can
disturb' our practice seems too simple to me.  But maybe that is because I haven't
entered that level of commitment.  My commitment has been very long, but my
practice has not always been very consistent.   It doesn't seem a simple matter to
me to become consistent. 

On the other hand, if one is consistent but has the wrong spirit of practice, or
has a practice that is not right for him, commitment and even 'correctness' will
not be enough.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure what is the main point I'm supposed to get out of it
is, but I'd be happy to hear from you what you think are the most important
points. 

Best,
Robert E.

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


--- Christine Forsyth  wrote:
> Dear Robert E., Robert K.,
> 
> I'd like to share this excerpt that was posted on D-L recently.
> 
> metta,
> Christine
> 
>                                   "The Indispensable Factor
> 
> Buddhist practice constantly emphasizes one major factor for spiritual
> evolution:
> 
>     Commitment to continuous and correct practice!
> 
> It is this single factor which advances or impedes spiritual 
> development.
> The fruits of meditation and the spiritual life will not mysteriously 
> appear
> without constant watchfulness and development. The Buddhist devotee is
> repeatedly urged to pursue cultivation of meditation and other 
> aspects of
> the spiritual life in an appropriate, non stressful and skilled 
> manner.
> 
> As a young novice monk, my teachers taught me Buddhist philosophy and
> meditation principles for many years.  All my instructors, especially 
> my
> first teacher, constantly emphasized the importance of devotion and
> continuity in training. I became bored and impatient hearing these
> admonishments years after year.  A few years later, I became an 
> instructor
> and taught for some time.  I realized that I had only "book" Dharma, 
> so I
> entered a period of intensive, uninterrupted vipassana meditation for 
> seven
> months.  I finally understood their intention and great kindness in 
> teaching
> their students so well.
> 
> When truly realizing the necessity of cultivating the mind, we will
> understand that training takes place everywhere.  Self-cultivation 
> contnues
> *all the time*. To "break" training does not arise for the meditator 
> who
> fully comprehends the implications of mind development.  When we 
> decide to
> become seriously committed to practice, there are no disturbances 
> which can
> harm our practice.  No longer is "meditating" confined to the formal 
> sitting
> posture, being in a special environment or associating with like-
> minded
> friends.
> 
> We can try our best to stay wide awake in the midst of all sights, 
> sounds
> and experiences.
> 
> THIS ATTITUDE IS THE REAL DEVELOPEMENT OF INSIGHT MEDITATION...not 
> grasping
> and attaching to any circumstance in life and using skillful means at 
> every
> opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities. Then our life is really 
> free
> and unburdened, moment to moment.  Insight meditation in daily life is
> cultivated by developing the "Art of Non-Attachment."
> 
> Achan Sobin S.Namto
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------



 

 
8225 From: Christine Forsyth   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 11:28am
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.

 
  Dear Robert,

Thank you for your reply.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn't expecting you to get any 
point out of it.  I was hoping for any comments you cared to make (or 
not). Totally selfish - wanting to learn. :-)I guess I am still at 
the pre-school stage of learning Dhamma and see everyone else as, at 
the very least, in High School, if not the teacher. And I don't seem 
to learn the first time I read/hear what seems to be a perfectly 
straightforward explanation. I am quite intelligent in most respects, 
Uni degrees etc.  But Social Work and Management studies don't seem 
to help much with Dhamma. It is so exasperating.

It seemed to me that the excerpt might have been meaning that sitting 
meditation was a sort of beginning/intermediate  practice to learn 
concentration, and once that was thoroughly known and  easily evoked, 
one could/should leave it behind and go on to a generalised 
continuous mindfullness. 

Yes, I do see the over-simplifying and possible contradictions. 
Perhaps because this is an excerpt from a book and not an article 
complete in itself.

metta,
Christine
---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> This message has an important point, but I have a couple of 
questions about it.
> 
> 1/  It seems contradictory in a sense.  The writer says that 
Insight Meditation
> should take place at all times and does not begin or end with 
formal meditation. 
> Yet it was apparently his [?] 7 months of intensive meditation that 
opened his
> eyes to this reality.  
> 
> Is he advocating a commitment to Insight meditation or not?  It is 
hard for me to
> tell from this message.
> 
> 2/  It seems that he is promoting a particular view of practice, 
and rather
> strongly.  To say that commitment to real and correct practice is 
the one
> essential ingredient that causes progress is both obvious and 
simplistic.  It is
> certainly important, but sometimes it's not good enough and 
sometimes it's not the
> most important ingredient.   The idea that if we are really 
committed 'nothing can
> disturb' our practice seems too simple to me.  But maybe that is 
because I haven't
> entered that level of commitment.  My commitment has been very 
long, but my
> practice has not always been very consistent.   It doesn't seem a 
simple matter to
> me to become consistent. 
> 
> On the other hand, if one is consistent but has the wrong spirit of 
practice, or
> has a practice that is not right for him, commitment and 
even 'correctness' will
> not be enough.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not quite sure what is the main point I'm supposed to 
get out of it
> is, but I'd be happy to hear from you what you think are the most 
important
> points. 
> 
> Best,
> Robert E.
> 
> ======================

 
8226 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 11:42am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E.

 
  Hi Christine.

Thanks for the clarification.

I guess what I would say is that each person should seriously find what works for
them.  To me this means that you can try out a number of approaches, and at some
point you may find one particular way of contemplating or meditating or focussing
or learning that will allow you to grow in understanding.

I tend to be eclectic, so I can't give any great testimonials on commitment to one
form of practice, but there is still a strong pattern of growth in my spiritual
history.  It's just hard for me to define.  At this point in my life, I see that
Buddhism resonates for me the most clearly.  I wanted to say that I was committing
myself to a Zen view, but then my interest expanded into both Dzogchen [Tibetan]
and Theravada.  This list has introduced me to the abhidhamma, which I am finding
fascinating, and so my attempts to focus seem to only lead me to more expansion.

Within all of this, there have been two actual practices that have been stable for
long periods of time:  one is the practice of physical yoga, which I did and
taught for many years, and the other is basic Vipassana meditation, starting with
breathing awareness and then trying to become mindful of arising conditions as
completely as possible.  

Since my three-year old was born it's been difficult for me to have a regular
practice and to find quiet time, and I find that I don't feel up to it by the time
she goes to bed [late].  So these days my practice is mainly trying to practice
awareness and mindfulness at all times, to the extent I can.  I've made my life an
imperfect meditation, but it seems to lead to insights at times.

When I do have a chance to sit, I love it.  I would never give up the idea of
sitting meditation because I find it deepens my experience of everything.  I also
would never give up the idea of practicing mindfulness in everyday life.  I think
both is a great combination.  That way, you can have your specialized meditation
time, and you can also have your commitment to making life an exercise in
awareness.  Best of both worlds.

Regards,
Robert E.

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

--- Christine Forsyth  wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn't expecting you to get any 
> point out of it.  I was hoping for any comments you cared to make (or 
> not). Totally selfish - wanting to learn. :-)I guess I am still at 
> the pre-school stage of learning Dhamma and see everyone else as, at 
> the very least, in High School, if not the teacher. And I don't seem 
> to learn the first time I read/hear what seems to be a perfectly 
> straightforward explanation. I am quite intelligent in most respects, 
> Uni degrees etc.  But Social Work and Management studies don't seem 
> to help much with Dhamma. It is so exasperating.
> 
> It seemed to me that the excerpt might have been meaning that sitting 
> meditation was a sort of beginning/intermediate  practice to learn 
> concentration, and once that was thoroughly known and  easily evoked, 
> one could/should leave it behind and go on to a generalised 
> continuous mindfullness. 
> 
> Yes, I do see the over-simplifying and possible contradictions. 
> Perhaps because this is an excerpt from a book and not an article 
> complete in itself.
> 
> metta,
> Christine
> ---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> > Dear Christine,
> > This message has an important point, but I have a couple of 
> questions about it.
> > 
> > 1/  It seems contradictory in a sense.  The writer says that 
> Insight Meditation
> > should take place at all times and does not begin or end with 
> formal meditation. 
> > Yet it was apparently his [?] 7 months of intensive meditation that 
> opened his
> > eyes to this reality.  
> > 
> > Is he advocating a commitment to Insight meditation or not?  It is 
> hard for me to
> > tell from this message.
> > 
> > 2/  It seems that he is promoting a particular view of practice, 
> and rather
> > strongly.  To say that commitment to real and correct practice is 
> the one
> > essential ingredient that causes progress is both obvious and 
> simplistic.  It is
> > certainly important, but sometimes it's not good enough and 
> sometimes it's not the
> > most important ingredient.   The idea that if we are really 
> committed 'nothing can
> > disturb' our practice seems too simple to me.  But maybe that is 
> because I haven't
> > entered that level of commitment.  My commitment has been very 
> long, but my
> > practice has not always been very consistent.   It doesn't seem a 
> simple matter to
> > me to become consistent. 
> > 
> > On the other hand, if one is consistent but has the wrong spirit of 
> practice, or
> > has a practice that is not right for him, commitment and 
> even 'correctness' will
> > not be enough.
> > 
> > Anyway, I'm not quite sure what is the main point I'm supposed to 
> get out of it
> > is, but I'd be happy to hear from you what you think are the most 
> important
> > points. 
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robert E.
> > 


 
8227 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 1:57pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Howard

Catching up.  Just found this earlier post of yours that I had part
answered and put aside. Sorry for the delay in getting back.

--- Howard wrote: 
>>Jon:
> > In the meantime, I would be interested to hear an example/instance of
> > 'conventional' Right Effort of the Eightfold Path, as might apply in
> your
> > own case.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        I'll try to answer this in a few ways. An example of conventional
> 
> right effort during meditation is to initiate mindfulness and focus on
> the 
> meditation subject, to further these when already present, and to return
> to 
> these when the mind has wandered. When not meditating, a general example
> is 
> to let go of akusala thoughts when these are present, to initiate kusala
> 
> thoughts when not present, and to further kusala thoughts when already 
> present.

Yes, these are examples of conventional effort.  But if one thinks about
it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right'
effort.

Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the letting
go of akusala thoughts when these are present.  Suppose we notice that we
are angry.  'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also
itself be akusala;  for example, if we viewed the anger as an unwelcome
interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make
awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it showed
us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons
shouldn't be there.  As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious
akusala could not be 'right effort'.

On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger, or of
the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it
didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional sense*. 
As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever (including
the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can
arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture.  Or there might
be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for example,
that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different reality
altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation in
the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this
difference in practice?],  or that the moments of seeing or visible object
arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the mind
with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and are
themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger).

When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is
kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously 'letting go
of' the akusala.

I know this was intended to be implicit in what you say above, but it is
easy to fall into the trap of looking at things in a 'situational' light
-- eg, anger is akusala so I need to do something about it, if I had less
anger/attachment I could be having more awareness, I'm letting go of the
anger so it must be kusala.

Because we all have the ingrained tendency to think in these terms, we
need to be reminded frequently and in detail of the fact that there need
not be any idea of 'letting go' of the anger in order for kusala of some
level to occur.  When kusala does arise at such moments the effort is
'right' by nature and the anger is indeed let go of for just those
moments.  In the longer term, it is the accumulation of these moments of
kusala that leads to more sustained moments/periods of kusala of whatever
level or, to put it another way, that the mind becomes more focussed on
kusala.  But this development can only come slowly and gradually, by
natural accretion rather than by deliberate accumulation (in that sense of
the word).

'Right effort' is the effort *of* kusala, rather than the effort *to have*
kusala.

Jon



 
8228 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 2:00pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike

 
  Mike

--- "m. nease"  wrote: > Jon,
> 
> --- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> 
> > The anusaya (latent
> > unwholesome tendencies) are carried forward not just
> > in the bhavanga citta
> > but in every citta, including the kusala citta.
> 
> Understood--also latent wholesome tendencies etc.
> 
> > So the explanation for this might not be quite as
> > intricate as Suan has
> > described in his interesting example.  It just
> > happens to be that way, in
> > the same way that every moment of sanna is also
> > passed on in every citta. 
> > It has to do perhaps with the relationship
> > (conditions/paccaya) between
> > one citta and the next, and the fact that there is
> > no 'gap' between the 2.
> 
> Yes, this makes sense.  I'm thinking that maybe
> 'passed along' or 'carried forward' are somewhat
> misleading expressions (to me).  Maybe what's
> accumulated and inherited by each citta is more like
> history--that is that each citta inherits the
> 'history' (conditions/paccaya?) of all the cittas
> preceding it.  I've been thinking of it as something
> like data or information or memory.

I tend to think of it as the totality of the experience of every previous
moment of consciousness.  However, I don't know of any texts that explain
this aspect of things.  Anyone?

>       I suppose saññaa
> is largely latent too (like anusaya), or wouldn't
> recognition of everything experienced be occurring all
> the time? 

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that 'latent' is the right word for
sanna since, as you know, sanna actually arises with every citta.

>      So that this 'history' is the condition
> that makes it possible for latent perception, or
> kusala or akusala citta to (re)arise when conditions
> are right.  Still, it seems somehow to carry a lot of
> 'information'.  I still don't get it--maybe someday...

Certainly as far as latent kusala or akusala is concerned, it is all
accumulated and lies there latent, ready to arise when, as you say,
conditions are right.  Difficult concepts to grasp, but we can see in our
lives how the kilesas do pop up without the slightest provocation and
despite our best resolutions to the contrary ie. for no reason other than
that we have that particular accumulation of unwholesomeness (this is
easier to see in others than in ourselves, of course!).

Jon





 
8229 From: Sarah   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 2:56pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E

 
  Dear Rob E,

 --- Robert Epstein  wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> I think your post is very much on point to what I was asking.  I am somewhat
> quizzical as to why there are all these different classification schemes in
> different parts of the canon, but considering that there are even more than
> one
> canon, I suppose that is to be expected.  

I’m not  sure we can say there is more than one canon, but I’ll leave that to
others;-))

The reason, I think, why there are different classification schemes is to
stress different realities to be known in different contexts and with different
audiences. 

We could just say that all paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities) are namas
(mental phenomena) or rupas (physical phenomena) and leave it at that. For most
people, however, this simple classification does not give enough detail to
really understand those realities or to understand the anattaness, impermanence
or unsatisfactoriness of them. 

So, for example, when talking about the 5 khandhas of rupas (physical
phenomena), vedana (feelings), sanna (perception), sankhara (formations) and
vinnana (consciousness), we have a further break down of the namas (mental
phenomena) to help us understand that consciousness (=citta) is different from,
but accompanied by mental factors (= cetasikas). Further more, in this
classification, feelings and perception are given their ‘own’ aggregate to
stress their important roles. 

Both arise with every single moment of consciousness. Aren’t we so very
affected by the feelings accompanying seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and so
on. We complain about dosa (aversion) because the feeling is unpleasant and we
seldom object to lobha (attachment) because the feeling is usually so pleasant.
In the same way, sanna (perception) plays a critical role. Seeing now merely
sees its object, but it is the perception, the marking which helps give rise to
the world of concepts in which we live (with right or wrong view). Could we
even function for an instant without sanna? Even the arahats who have
eradicated all kilesa still have vedana and sanna accompanying every citta .   
 
> It seems that at different times, for different audiences, the Buddha broke
> down
> even the technical realities of perception, thought and consciousness in
> different
> types of classifications or nomenclatures.  Perhaps he even developed his
> understand of how best to break these things down at different points in his
> career.  I would guess that even the Buddha would reserve the right to get
> clearer
> about how to explain things as he went along.  In any case, it isn't
> particularly
> helpful for coordinating one's [already lax] understanding of different
> suttas. 

I think that the classifications used on different occasions by the Buddha were
probably perfectly clear and appropriate from the start. With his omniscience
and wisdom, he knew at any time what would be most helpful.

I don’t think it matters very much whether we remember the numbers or different
classifications (I’ve always been hopeless at remembering the details, unlike
Rob or Kom or Num, for example, who have a more ‘scientific’ bent). What is
really important is to begin to understand different realities, however they
are classified and then, whatever one reads or studies, it becomes clearer what
is being discussed.
> 
> The 3 schemes mentioned here are:  4 foundations of mindfulness; 5 kandhas;
> aggregates, bases and elements.  I guess if you study them, they could be
> coordinated.

Even here, if you look under the 4th foundation, dhammanupassana, you’ll see it
actually includes ALL realities:
1. The 5 hindrances
2. The 5 aggregates (yes, our friends the khanhas all included here)
3. the 6 internal and the 6 external sense-bases
4. the 7 Factors of Enlightenment
5. the 4 Noble Truths

So again, we have different realities being stressed in different
classifications. Rupas, vedana and cittas were given their own ‘Foundation’ but
are included again here. The hindrances (5 cetasikas) are discussed as a
category of their own and so on. None of this is meant to be confusing or meant
to be memorised. As I mentioned before, the Buddha discusses the different
phenomena that can be known right now in daily life in order that we can see
that there is no self or lasting consciousness anywhere to be found .

   But your basic point on this is that they are not 'actual'
> divisions
> of experience, but ways of organizing them in order to highlight their
> mechanics
> and the main point of anatta being the essence of them all. [?]

YES! Very nicely put too.
> 
> I keep getting myself in hot water, in the sense that each of my questions
> leads
> to a reading assignment!  I will try to read those chapters.  Thanks for your
> explanation

The same happens to me too. This weekend is pretty busy because I’m attending
some yoga workshops and have a lot of work to do. I think I'll just be here for
a few minutes and then I find I need to check a reference, start reading more
and so on;-))

Thanks for your encouragement,

Sarah

p.s. a minor correction here to my last post:
> > 1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose,
> tongue
> > and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) = <kayanupassi>

This should have just read as sense doorways (b/c body already comes under the
5 sense doorways)




 
8230 From: Herman 
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.

 
  Dear Robert E.

---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> Hi Christine.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> I guess what I would say is that each person should seriously find 
what works for
> them.  

I am sorry to take just one line out of the recent discussion and to 
query you on this alone. I hope you don't mind. ( I guess it means I 
found nothing controversial in the preceding).

How does one know if something works for them ? To me this implies a 
knowledge of the goal before one has started the journey ie already 
having been there previously. 

The reason why I would follow the prescriptions of the Buddha is 
because he has said that he has reached enlightenment, and he has 
described how he got there. When the Buddha describes the goal he has 
reached, of course I have no idea what he is talking about. I only 
imagine my imaginations to be similar to what he found along the way. 
But I acknowledge as I go, that I know nothing, and need to shed even 
that. But back to sitting. When I sit, am I on the way to 
enlightenment? The Buddha says so, he's been there and I haven't.

Simplistic? I don't think so. Simply an acknowledgement that a Buddha 
is one who knows.


Love 

Herman

 
8231 From: Sarah   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 8:17pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik

 
  Hi Erik,

I’m back!

 --- rikpa21 wrote: > Hi Sarah!
> 
> > Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness:
> 
> Right, though I am also concerned with the other three, namely, the 
> body, the feelings, and mental qualities. It is called the "Four 
> Foundations of Mindfulness" after all. :)

Good, we’re all agreed here.

S:> > What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, 
> hearing,
> > smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door
> > experiencing.
> 
> I don't quite take away this interpretation from the Maha-
> Satipatthana Sutta:

Hopefully my posts to Rob E have clarified;-) ‘ citte
cittaanupassi....viharati’ - he lives contemplating consciousness in
consciousness. I’ve personally found it really  helps to consider any sutta in
the light of other suttas, the abhidhamma and commentary notes, but I know this
is all controversial;-))
> 
> "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There 
> is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that 
> the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns 
> that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he 
> discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without 
> aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the 
> mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the 
> mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without 
> delusion. 
> 
> 
S: > > One doesn't go about anything,
> 
> Not even "remaining focused" as the Buddha enjoined? Do you mean we 
> just sit here like lumps?

The translation for this section by Soma Thera starts:

“And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating consciousness in
conciousness?”
“ Here, o bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust; the
conciousness without lust, as without lust;  the consciousness with hate, as
with hate............”

By contemplating consciousness (cittanupassanaa) is meant sati (awareness) of
the cittas discussed. There is no self to remain focussed or to sit like a lump
except in the world of pa~n~natti (concepts).
> 
> > but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in 
> front of us. 
> 
> Agreed, but how, specifically, does merely knowing this fact engender 
> mindfulness and concentration to the degree we can penetrate the 
> characteristics of what we're seeing?

Again, we don’t penetrate anything. It may seem, like you were saying to Dan,
that we’re arguing about semantics, but like he expressed so clearly, these are
very important distinctions. By beginning to understand more precisely the
difference between concepts and realities now, by knowing more and more what
the objects of sati (awareness) are, by realizing there is nothing at all to be
done by you or me, no method to follow at all, sati can and will begin to be
aware of these same realities and panna (understanding) will begin to know or
penetrate the characteristics. If there is doubt about this (or anything else)
or attachment to results (or anything else), these are also realities which can
be known as they arise now. 
 
> I agree that knowing how things are not "self" is critical, and the 
> bare beginning point in discerning realities as they are. Unless we 
> understand this fact we are liable to interpret what we see as 
> permanent, or desirable, for example. But this is only the barest 
> beginning point as I understand it. There has to be more, because I 
> cannot see how merely knowing this fact (like knowing that the birth 
> and death of an self-entity are ultimately illusory) does anything to 
> help terminate birth and death. If it were this simple, I am sure 
> we'd all be arahats by now.

I think it’s simple and not simple. It’s simple in that nothing has to be done
or changed. Realities are already arising and falling away and when awareness
begins to be aware of them, it’s not a matter of changing them or leading a
different lifestyle at all. It’s not simple because although we repeat that
these realities are not self and so on,  there is no understanding at all of
what this means if there isn’t any understanding now of the reality appearing,
whether it is seeing, visible object, doubt or attachment .
> 
> > I can't find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant 
> these same
> > realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other 
> suttas) such
> as
> > seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on.
> 
> Where are these items mentioned specifically in the Satipatthana 
> Sutta and "all the other suttas" other than by implication? Again, 
> the objects I see mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta include 
> specific parts of the body, specific feelings, specific 
> characteristics of the mind, specific mental qualities with reference 
> (does "Frame of Reference" have any bearing here?) to the five 
> hindrances, the five aggregates, the six sense-bases, the seven 
> factors of awakening, the Four Noble Truths.

Let me know if this still isn’t clear after my posts to Rob E. All realities
are  included at least twice over as I read it. The same realities are
discussed over and over in the suttas. In the Samyutta Nikaya (Kindred
Sayings), Salayatana-vagga, there are many suttas which discuss the ‘6 worlds’
and the 'All'. In First Fifty, Ch 111, par 25 we read:

‘The eye, monks, must be abandoned by fully knowing, by fully comprehending it.
 Objects..eye-consciousness..eye-contact..that pleasant feeling, unpleasant
feeling or neutral feeling..that also must be abandoned by fully knowing , by
fully comprehending it.

The mind..mind-states..that pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral
feeling..that also must be abandoned by fully knowing it, by comprehending it.’
> 
> Other than merely knowing that what we observe arises is not self, it 
> doesn't follow that merely being aware of this in theory has any 
> bearing on seeing deeply enough into the true nature of things that 
> this bringe about the end of suffering. There have to be objects to 
> apply this understanding to, so that we come to directly see the 
> characteristics of these objects as impermanent, suffering, and not-
> self.

Exactly so, and this is why your questions here about the objects of
satipatthana are exactly the questions many of us have been waiting quite a
long time for you to ask;-)) 
 
> I have not forgotten, but that is not what I am driving at. Again, I 
> question how merely knowing this factually is conducive of the sort 
> of concentration needed to penetrate the characteristics of these 
> things at all. Again, without an object, there is nothing for sati to 
> focus on. And the most important factor in mindfulness is remaining 
> focused. This is the basis for sampajana (clear comprehension) and 
> sati (mindfulness). Without this deliberate concentration (at least 
> at first, until it is so well-established it becomes automatic), the 
> mind will never be concentrated enough to penetrate the 
> characteristics of anything, because it won't have any object to in 
> which it sees these characteristics reflected, being so scattered and 
> heedless it flits from one thing to another without ever "sinking in" 
> deeply enough to know what it is perceiving with clarity and 
> discernment.

I'd say, forget about this deliberate concentration, ‘sinking in’ and
focussing. They are all accompanied by a subtle idea of self ‘trying to do’.
Understanding is the key. If there is minding about the object, it shows the
attachment rather than the understanding. Concentration (ekaggata cetasika) as
we’ve discussed before, will in any case arise with every citta and when there
is a wholesome citta,  concentration will be wholesome anyway, assisting the
other cetasikas and citta by being one-pointed on the object or 'welding
together the co-existent states' at that moment. As the citta falls away in an
instant (right now), concentration falls away with it. It doesn't make it last
longer.
> 
> and it takes enormous discipline to practice to 
> develop awareness and clear comprehension to the point they remain 
> focused for extended periods of time--which is the prerequisite for 
> penetrating the characteristics of any object being noted. 

Does it? Is it?
> 
> Mindfulness can only be aware of one object at a time.

True. It lasts for an instant and then gone!

 It may get 
> more refined and be able to switch very quickly between different 
> objects the more developed it is, but it is not possible for the mind 
> to focus on more than one thing at a time, which is why the exercises 
> in the Satipatthana Sutta detail various objects and how they are 
> best investigated. What is again unclear from your presentation is 
> how this degree of focus is established in the first place.

I don’t find any exercises in the Sutta and I think it's more interesting to 
understand what awareness is and what the objects are rather than focussing.
> 
> Right, but it doesn't just happen just from studying texts, but by 
> deliberately noting specific feelings arising and passing away.

Being aware rather than deliberately noting with attachment.
 
> Knowing what these objects of investigation are is the first step, 
> the barest beginning, as I see it. 

YES!

To come to see their 
> characteristics directly demands diligent effort applied over time, 
> until unbroken concentration and awareness are developed enough "sink 
> in" to any object being observing.

....now we’re off on different tracks again ;-((

Erik, your recent posts and questions are really showing a sincere interest in
understanding all the dhammas discussed by the Buddha  and described in the
Tipitaka. Please be patient if we’re slow to respond or don’t make ourselves
clear enough .

Sarah 



 
8232 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:19pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Right View as to kamma and vipaka

 
  Nina

Thanks very much for the comments below and the reference to 'Asoka's
Footsteps' which I have just read (I found it very helpful).

 --- Nina van Gorkom  wrote: 

> Dear Jon and all, 
> A.Sujin spoke in India about the understanding of kamma and vipaka,
> kammassakata ~naa.na (saka meaning one's own, kamma that is one's own),
> see
> my in Asoka's Footsteps, Ch 3, Zolag Web. She explained that there is
> this
> understanding at each stage of insight. At those moments there is no
> self,
> no world, no doer of deeds, nobody who receives results. Panna can
> realize
> seeing as a conditioned element. It realizes seeing as nama. Panna can
> realize immediately that seeing is vipaka, different from kusala or
> akusala,
> no need to think. We read in the Sumangala Vilasini, Co to Sangiti Sutta
> (D.N.) that the panna that is kammasakata ~naa.na is vipassana
> adhipanna,
> higher panna of vipassana. We may have theoretical understanding of
> kamma
> and vipaka,and this is a level of panna, but the deep understanding is
> developed through satipatthana.

On this last point, I think that clarifies the question I had.  It must be
a level of panna (ie, samatha or vipassana), but only the panna of
satipatthana brings deep understanding.

Jon



 
8233 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:25pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma

 
  Nina

I was interested to read the passage below, which seems to suggest there
are different 'methods' of practice -- sutta, vinaya and abhidhamma --
whereas I would have expected to hear the opposite coming from Khun Sujin.
 I would be interested to hear what you make of this.  Do the 'methods'
refer to practice or to the manner of teaching?

Jon

 --- Nina van Gorkom  wrote: > Dear friends, many times
we discussed the methods of Sutta and
> Abhidhamma.
> We know that there is also Abhidhamma in the suttas, and Suan explained
> this
> very well recently. Now I would like to quote from A.Sujin's Cambodian
> talks
> about this subject. Her approach is directed towards the practice. She
> stresses all the time that right understanding should be developed of
> the
> characteristics of realities appearing now, through six doors, otherwise
> we
> shall only have theoretical understanding. Then we shall also understand
> the
> deep meaning of the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma. The
> method
> of the Vinaya is important, also for laypeople. When you are used to the
> idea of the Suttanta method as being the Dhamma explained in
> conventional
> terms, you may wonder why A.Sujin says that the Buddha in the suttas
> explained about confidence, moral shame and fear of blame. These
> accompany
> kusala citta, and the Suttanta method teaches us to see the benefit of
> kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Moral shame, hiri, and fear of
> blame, ottappa, perform their functions when one sees the disadvantage
> of
> akusala.  Again, the purpose is not the theory, but the practice. Now I
> quote:  
> 
> <The purpose of listening to the Dhamma should not merely be theoretical
> understanding  of realities, but it should be the practice, that is the
> development of paññå according to the method of the Suttanta, of the
> Abhidhamma and of the Vinaya, the Book of Discipline for the monks .
> 
> Question: In which way is the practice according to those three methods
> different?
> 
> Sujin: They are different methods. The Vinaya deals with conduct through
> body and speech. When we study the Vinaya we know that wholesome conduct
> through body and speech is developed by kusala citta. An example of this
> is
> the case of a monk who entered a house and sat down without having been
> invited by the owner of the house. When the Buddha heard of this he laid
> down a rule that only when the owner of a place had invited the monk he
> could sit down. Thus, when the monk goes to someone1s house, but the
> owner
> has not yet invited him, should he sit down? Even small matters, matters
> that concern etiquette and manners, such as while one is eating, are all
> explained in the Vinaya, and everybody can apply these. We do not need
> to
> sit down and consider how many more sílas in addition to the five
> precepts
> we shall observe. Síla concerns our conduct through body and speech.
> As to the method of the Suttanta, this is very subtle and detailed, such
> as
> the teaching of dukkha-dukkha (intrinsic dukkha, bodily pain and unhappy
> feeling), vipariùåma-dukkha (dukkha because of change) and
> saòkhåra-dukkha
> (dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities). We should study the
> Suttanta
> so that we acquire a more detailed understanding of confidence, saddhå,
> moral shame, hiri, and fear of blame, ottappa. When we listen to the
> Dhamma
> there is confidence, sati, hiri and ottappa. We do not realize that
> there
> are hiri and ottappa, even though they are there in reality. Whenever
> kusala
> citta arises it is accompanied by hiri and ottappa, without the need to
> think that we are ashamed of akusala. We do not need to think first of
> moral
> shame in order that it arises and that we shall listen to the Dhamma.
> Whenever the reality of moral shame arises there is kusala citta at that
> moment. Thus, we should have more understanding of realities in detail.
> With regard to the  Abhidhamma method, this is in accordance with the
> characteristics of each and every one of the realities. The practice
> according to the Abhidhamma method is not merely knowledge of the
> concepts
> nåma and rúpa, but it is the realization of the characteristics of nåma
> and
> rúpa that are appearing. When satipaììhåna arises there is awareness and
> understanding of the characteristics of realities, one at a time. When
> anger
> arises, is there anybody who does not know this, even if he does not
> study
> the Abhidhamma. When jealousy or stinginess arises, is it necessary to
> study
> the Abhidhamma so that one knows it? People know it without study, but
> they
> take these realities for self, and they do not know that these are only
> different dhammas. If one practises according to the Abhidhamma method
> one
> understands that all realities are non-self. When attachment, aversion
> or
> conceit arise, or when we enjoy ourselves, there is no person, no self.
> When
> there is the firm remembrance of the truth of anattå, a person will not
> have
> misunderstandings about it and believe that he can do whatever he likes
> because everything is anattå anyway. Then he uses anattå as a trick to
> excuse his behaviour and he gives his own interpretation of this term.
> As
> regards the truth of anattå, does paññå grasp already its meaning? Or do
> we
> just repeat that everything is anattå? There is a considerable
> difference in
> the understanding of someone who merely studies the theory of the Dhamma
> and
> of someone who develops pañña and knows the characteristics of realities
> as
> they are. We should understand this correctly: if we know only terms and
> names of dhammas, we shall remain only at that level, and we shall
> continue
> to know only terms. We should develop pañña so that the truth of anattå
> can
> be realized, in accordance with the teaching that all dhammas are
> anattå.
> Otherwise, to use a  simile, we are like the ladle that serves the curry
> but
> does not know the taste of it. If we study but we do not realize the
> true
> nature of realities, how many lives shall we be only at that level, and
> this
> means that we study and then forget what we learnt.
> 
> If we know that we study with the purpose of understanding realities at
> this
> very moment, then our understanding will be in accordance with our
> ability.
> We can understand, for example, what årammaùa, object, is. It is
> impossible
> that citta does not experience an object. Citta is the reality that
> experiences and thus there  must be something that is experienced. That
> which is experienced can be anything, it can be citta, cetasika, rúpa or
> nibbåna. A concept, paññatti , is the object of citta that