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 Context of this sutta "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.’ 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) = 2) the vedana (feelings) which arise with every moment of citta (consciousness) = 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 = 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 = 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.’ 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) = > > 2) the vedana (feelings) which arise with every moment of citta (consciousness) > = > > 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 = > > > 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 = > > 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) = 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: > > 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 thinks. We > can > know when the citta knows a concept and when an ultimate reality, > paramattha > dhamma. When a paramattha dhamma is the object of citta, it must have > the > characteristic of arising and falling away, it has a true > characteristic. > When the object is not a paramattha dhamma with its true characteristic, > the > object is a concept. If we understand this, sati can be aware of the > characteristics of paramattha dhammas, because satipaììhåna must know > paramattha dhammas. The study can support correct understanding of the > way > of development of paññå. Everything we learn from the beginning is > accumulated as the khandha of formations, saòkhårakkhandha, and this is > a > condition for the growth of pañña.> > > End quote. Nina. 8234 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Howard (Still catching up) --- Howard wrote: > I would like to add just a drop of a (possibly clarifying) > comment. > Many of us on this list, including Cybele and me, and *possibly* > including a > few of the students of Khun Sujin, *do* engage in regular, formal > meditation, > sitting and/or walking, as well as maintaining a "general mindfulness" > of > mind and body in various positions and activities. However, it *does* > seem > that most of the followers of Khun Sujin on this list do *not* engage in > > formal meditation. Perhaps a few of them engage in no meditation at all. > But > most of her followers here, I think, *do* attempt to maintain a "general > > mindfulness" as described above. Because of this last, I think it may be > not > entirely accurate to say that they don't meditate at all. As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental state, posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do with one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness. So I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general mindfulness. Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. Jon 8235 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:43pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > But is there any doubt that the Buddha himself and all his > immediate adherents sat in full lotus or a variation and practiced > mindfulness meditation? > So the safe bet would be to do likewise, no? As Fa Hui pointed out, this posture has always been in general use. So it would surely not be safe to infer a special significance from it's use by the Buddha at the time of his enlightenment. Of more relevance would be anything the Buddha might have said in the discourses, or any mention in the ancient commentaries, about a special significance. As far as this goes, I don't believe there is any particular connection to be found. Some take the view that the best (or perhaps only) way to settle this sort of question is to 'try it and see'. This approach is, unfortunately, a flawed one, since we are in effect relying on our accumulated ignorance and wrong view to make a proper judgment. Jon 8236 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 7:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > > 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: No problem. As a matter of fact, with regard to replying to posts, it probably isn't really necessary that everyone reply to every post directed to him/her, especially in a sequence of posts. Sometimes, just as one example, a third (or 4th) party adds a msg, making a reply by the original recipient unnecessary. ----------------------------------------------------------- > --- 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'. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that there be) no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of the event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until that object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for attention to return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter of *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing it or tearing the mind away. -------------------------------------------------- > > 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. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yep! --------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard. ------------------------------------------------------- > > 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). > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We should "let go" of all dhammas, kusala, akusala, whatever, neither pushing away nor grasping, but being mindful of them, without reaction, merely noting them, their nature, their inception, continuation, diminution, and cessation. -------------------------------------------------------------- > > 'Right effort' is the effort *of* kusala, rather than the effort *to have* > kusala. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: But it *is* effort. In one well along the way, applying mindfulness, focussed attention, and clear comprehension may frequently occur rather automatically, but, for most of us, most of the time, this requires the conscious application of volition and constant remembering. ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ================================= 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) 8237 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 7:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > (Still catching up) > > --- Howard wrote: > > > I would like to add just a drop of a (possibly clarifying) > > comment. > > Many of us on this list, including Cybele and me, and *possibly* > > including a > > few of the students of Khun Sujin, *do* engage in regular, formal > > meditation, > > sitting and/or walking, as well as maintaining a "general mindfulness" > > of > > mind and body in various positions and activities. However, it *does* > > seem > > that most of the followers of Khun Sujin on this list do *not* engage in > > > > formal meditation. Perhaps a few of them engage in no meditation at all. > > But > > most of her followers here, I think, *do* attempt to maintain a "general > > > > mindfulness" as described above. Because of this last, I think it may be > > not > > entirely accurate to say that they don't meditate at all. > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental state, > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any moment. But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the practice laid out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking about what the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom can arise at any time - or, it may not. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do with > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught. -------------------------------------------------------------- > So > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general > mindfulness. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your practice to be that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually lead to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort to exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or not, independent of "personal" effort? ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > =============================== 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) 8238 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 1:08am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hi from Robert E. Dear Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I can understand how any one property emphasized > improperly could create a > problem. The three pillars of Zen are considered to > be Prajna [wisdom], Sila > [morality] and Samadhi [concentration]. I don't think I've mentioned (to you) that I was a student of Rinzai Zen for about ten years before discovering the Theravada and running off to Thailand and Burma. Kapleau's 'Three Pillars of Zen' was my second Zen book, if memory serves--I was tremendously impressed by it at the time. I wonder if you're thinking of this book? By the way, I'm also very familiar with all the texts you mentioned in your introduction. Several were among my favorites. As I'm sure you know these are considered to be 'sections' of the path--1 and 2 in 'paññaa (Prajña), 3 - 6 in 'sila', and 7 and 8 in 'samaadhi'. So all three are present (and balanced, I think) in a moment of satipatthaana. > Too much > Prajna and you would probably > have someone who was intellectually wise but not > experientially wise. Too much > Samadhi and you would become attached to the trance > state perhaps, or use the > power of concentration to suppress faults. Too much > Sila and you have a moralist > with no real insight. Though I think I'm somewhat at odds with the group on this one, I think that there's a sort of conventional path at the level of concept. Insight is possible here only on a conceptual level (because concepts can't be objects of satipatthaana--only cittas, cetasikas, ruupas and nibbaana). On this level the three can certainly be out of whack as you've described, I think. In a moment of satipatthaana, however, all three are present and balanced, I think, whether on the mundane (five- or six-fold) or on the supramundane (eight-fold) path. It is at these levels that satipatthaana can occur and paññaa can be developed, in a sense slightly different from paññaa as a 'section' of the path--that of Right View of the Path. On this level there is no such thing as too much paññaa because for there to be satipatthaana, as I understand it, these must all arise simultaneously and spontaneously, in balance (and fall away instantly, of course--leaving only paññaa 'behind' as an 'accumulation'. > The three properties are supposed to support each > other, and should also be > developed in balance. Here I would stress that the idea that any of these can be developed presupposes a developer. The subjective experience of 'I'm developing these', besides its implicit 'I', can only give rise to conceptual development, I think. Though by no means useless (because it can condition investigation and so forth), development on this level can't produce profound insight. If I understand this correctly, the path factors (on the level of satipathaana) can all only arise (and subside) according to conditions, most importantly hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma. > But I can't see highlighting > samadhi as a fault in its own > right. I wouldn't fault samaadhi in its own right at all, sorry if I gave that impression. However it is completely neutral and can (and will) coordinate and concentrate and strengthen whatever it arises with, for good or ill. When it arises with the other path-factors it's among the very best of things. When it arises without them, it isn't and can (and will) contribute to any act imaginable. > Without the deep ability to concentrate, I > don't see how mindfulness is > possible. Concentration isn't really an ability--it's a mental factor that arises according to conditions and instantly falls away completely. Satipatthaana is exactly the same and always arises with sufficient samaadhi to perform its function. So, although satipatthaana always arises with samma-samaadhi, it is by no means dependent on it as a prerequisite or a precursor. There are many instances in the Dhammavinaya of laypeople with no jhaana background experiencing profound insight on hearing the Dhamma--this could not have occurred without the spontaneous arising of samma-samaadhi (and the other path factors). > And from what I understand of the jhanas, > they are dependent on > samadhi. Is that not correct? Definitely, as I understand it. There isn't much attention to attaining by way of the jhaanas on this list, partly because some members are convinced (by a commentary) that those born by this time in the saasana cannot attain jhaana. I don't know if this is true or not. But I do think there is more than ample evidence in the Dhammavinaya alone (not to mention the Abhidhamma) that the jhaanas are not the only way to path and fruition. Remember that the Buddha learned samaadhi from his teacher--it was commonplace among samanas in India before the Buddha saasana. This is speculation on my part, but since this was a common tool to the recluses of the day, why wouldn't the Buddha suggest they use it to take a look at the four noble truths rather than their customary objects? On the other hand, I am unaware of his ever teaching anyone that s/he had to master the jhaanas before experiencing satipatthaana. > So i sympathize with what you say, particularly if > samadhi is the exclusive 'hook' > of the practice, but don't quite understand the idea > that samadhi in itself is > more dangerous than an imbalance in the other two. I hope my comments above have addressed this. > Interested in hearing your comments on this, and I'm > glad you feel so nurtured by > the process on dsg. This really isn't the way I feel about it. Certainly I would see anything that nurtures 'I' as something to be carefully avoided (though I do welcome the encouragements, of course). Most of what I've experienced in the year that I've been here as been the gradual (occasionally sudden) demolition of a number of big ideas I held very dear for many, many years. This hasn't always been pleasant at the moment but looking back, there's no way I would (or could) return to the ruins of my old views. Hope this is a good thing(!). > Always great talking to you! A pleasure as always, Robert, mike > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > To tell you the truth, I would gladly trade the > three > > months in Rangoon for a week of correspondence on > this > > list. The one lasting benefit 'I' gained from the > > retreat was the conviction that Ven. Mahasi's way > is > > not the way--at least not for me. I was so > > tremendously impressed by his writing and > translations > > before going that I don't think I would have got > past > > it without this experience. > > > > I don't have the problems with samaadhi meditation > > that some in the group have, but I do think their > > warnings are very pertinent. The problem with > > samaadhi is that it can more easily be akusala > than > > kusala and it's VERY hard to tell the difference. > It > > has the function of consolidating some other > mental > > factors and sort of strengthening them, I think (I > > forget the technical details)--it really doesn't > care > > if they're kusala or akusala. So, since it sort > of > > 'strengthens', consolidates and so on, and since > most > > moments of most days are akusala, I think it's > much > > more likely to be strengthening akusala than > > kusala--especially self-view, conceit and liking > for > > calm itself. I still do it, anyway, because I > enjoy > > it. But I don't take it for the path anymore, > that's > > for sure. > > > > Pardon the rant, > > > > mike 8239 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 1:45am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > 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. Understood. The Atthasaalinii says "It has the characteristic of noting and of recognizing what has been previously noted." When I spectulated that it's 'largely latent', I meant in the sense of having the latent ability to recognize what is not being noted (cognized) at the moment--an infinitessimally small part of what it can recognize from having noted it in the past...(?) > > 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, Actually easier to grasp than any other explanation I'm aware of... > 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!). To be sure. mike 8240 From: dalthorp Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 9:43am Subject: Re: Clinging [Kenneth] Hi Kenneth, Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You are a good presence on the dsg. I have a few comments on your comments on my comments about Erik's comments. Hmmmm.... ---------------------- Kenneth: "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." ---------------------- This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition satipatthana. --------------------- Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?" --------------------- Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say, that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of inquiry. I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness. -------------------- Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point out is that, cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness." -------------------- Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. Sati can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. The notion that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link between deep concentration and satipatthana, and may even be convinced that sati cannot arise without that still, deep concentration that may arise from time to time on the cushion or even that the still, deep concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for sati to arise in everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think it's possible! Oh, the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, those times that satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a meditator to think that he's safe from this danger because he believes that it is indeed possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, but has the understanding advanced beyond a superficial intellectual level? Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can so easily confuse samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the mind may attempt to establish sati by trying to reproduce the conditions of the cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing sati to arise. This may go on for years and years without the meditator ever realizing that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. Not me." Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced" and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize because it is unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is kusala because all is so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? I'm not cautioning against being attached to the practice of mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing mindfulness with concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, becoming attached to the special conditions and special experiences of the cushion. --------------------- Kenneth: "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." --------------------- What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity itself but the attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that a particular activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by engaging in a particular activity one will make spiritual progress? If so, the activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing really wrong with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for developing kusala habits. But development of insight requires something different. It requires establishment of right view and right effort, but that's another topic. [There are a number of excellent posts in the dsg archives on cultivating right view and right effort.] --------------------- Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I really need this ritual in order to practise." --------------------- Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. Best wishes for your practice, and may you find peace. -------------------- Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative and imperative." -------------------- "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling someone to do something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact statement about a situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, the "imperative" interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When doing that, note that") would be that the Buddha was giving instructions for how to establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation ("When doing this, the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha was describing the consciousness of someone when sati is established. A simile--- Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of the lips turn up, the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from the mouth." Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip corners up, tilt your head back, and make a joyous noise come out your mouth." The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana Sutta. Dan 8241 From: dalthorp Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 9:56am Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan) Hi Erik, Robert already wrote a nice post to Bhante D. entitled "Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo" (no. 8189) addressing some of the issues in your question. Also, my post to Kenneth touches on some of the issues as well. Enjoy! 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. 8242 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 10:54am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Thanks Sarah, That actually clarifies a lot. I'm starting to get a better sense of some of these breakdowns and how they coordinate through hitting it at different angles this way. But as you stress, the direct apprehension of realities to the extent one is capable is where the classifications find their real expression in life. If we take what is happening in the moment, then the classifications are not as important. They will sort themselves out as they become useful in looking at real experiences. This is my thought anyway, after these exchanges. However, I'm happy to be getting a little better picture of where and how the Buddha breaks down these realities. Thanks again. Best, Robert E. ======================== --- Sarah wrote: > 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) = > > This should have just read as sense doorways (b/c body already comes under the > 5 sense doorways) 8243 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E. Dear Herman, Well, I would certainly agree that following the Buddha's intent and instructions will lead you in a good direction. However, I might hasten to add that there are a lot of different indications for how to do this. In one sutra he talks about breathing as a base for mindfulness, gradually adding the four foundations and moving through the 7 factors of awakening. In another he talks about being mindful in every possible position and circumstance of life. In another he talks about developing various supernatural powers and how to cultivate them for an advanced stage of the path. In another he talks about breaking down every reality in detail and the different categories that they fall into. In another he talks about the ways in which one should live and work, etc. Well, I guess we should do all of those things, but there is certainly a lot of room for variation in how one emphasizes all of these factors and organizes an actual life around them. One person may eat sparsely, spend hours reading sutras and do one hour of meditation in the morning and one in the evening. Another person may not meditate at all, and may try to stay aware of the distinctions in the Abhidhamma at all times. Another may spend time doing yoga to cultivate a good full lotus and then make sure they are sitting correctly before doing extensive noting of breathing. Another may spent time on practicing metta and good works, and also do some meditation. Another may go to a Buddhist temple every day and listen to lectures on the Buddha's teaching as a way of gaining understanding. This of course is not even considering the different Buddhist schools which have differen philosophies and ways of meditating or seeing realities, such as Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, and Dzogchen. One may think that these are not the direct methods of the Buddha, and others may think that they are advanced methods given to advanced students. No doubt that in the Buddhist history at this point, there have been many brilliant teachers in different Buddhist traditions who have given different forms of practice. Whether one thinks one or another is valid is up to each one of us, isn't it? So when I say 'whatever works for you' I mean whatever path seems right for you. You will find yourself on one path or another, one way or the other, so it is a question of whether your path is congenial for your temperament and, as you say, whether you can presume that it will eventually get you to your goal. For myself, I have no doubt that there are enlightened people in the history of Buddhism who practiced Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, with various emphasese within each one of these, since each of them have a number of different practices and possible stages of practice. So I think it's important that Christine, as with anyone else, make a choice that is right for her. Should one contemplate the distinctions of the Abhidhamma? Should one do sitting meditation on the breath? Should one go through the day breaking down countless momentary realities to see how they are really constituted? Should one read sutras and contemplate the teachings so as to understand the Buddha's view of reality better? Should one work systematically through the four foundations of mindfulness, looking at sensations for a time, then switching to emotions, then looking at mind, etc.? Should one go to a zen master and contemplate a series of koans under his direction? Should one focus on anatta in all experiences and try to see the basic emptiness and self-lessness of all arising experiences? I don't think there's a yes or no answer to how these questions should play into any one person's practice or non-practice of Buddhism. Do you have one answer as to what the Buddha presecribed every person to do? You also say that you do not have any idea what the goal is like. I hate to disagree on something so intimate, but if you had no idea what the goal was like, and that it was a worthwhile goal, you would not practice Buddhism. So you do have some idea. You follow the Buddha's instructions because they accord with your instinctive sense of where a human being can wind up: free from suffering, with a truly refined understanding of consciousness and what this world really is. I believe in this instinct. I believe we all have an instinct for what enlightenment is, or these teachings would go by as like air. We wouldn't even notice them. We must realize that there is arising within us some sort of understanding of what we are heading for, how we need to get there, and where we want to wind up. Best Regards, Robert E. =============================================== --- Herman wrote: > 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 8244 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:20am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > But is there any doubt that the Buddha himself and all his > > immediate adherents sat in full lotus or a variation and > practiced > > mindfulness meditation? > > So the safe bet would be to do likewise, no? > > As Fa Hui pointed out, this posture has always been in general > use. So it would surely not be safe to infer a special significance > from it's use by the Buddha at the time of his enlightenment. > > Of more relevance would be anything the Buddha might have > said in the discourses, or any mention in the ancient > commentaries, about a special significance. As far as this goes, > I don't believe there is any particular connection to be found. > > Some take the view that the best (or perhaps only) way to settle > this sort of question is to 'try it and see'. This approach is, > unfortunately, a flawed one, since we are in effect relying on our > accumulated ignorance and wrong view to make a proper > judgment. > > Jon Dear Jon, Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full lotus quite a bit, as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, but on the other hand, it is possible that it does. While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that the fact that he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to get into, it has to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a difficult posture if it had no significance? Many other meditative traditions, from yoga to the Taoists and Tibetans consider the cross-legged sitting position to allow the body's natural energies to align properly, and for energetic centers to be held in a particular relation when meditating. If the Buddha did not specifically emphasize such things, it may be that they do not matter to the path of understanding that is uniquely his. But it may also be, as some have suggested, that he took it for granted as a proper way of sitting for meditation or contemplation. I agree that we cannot decide in ignorance that this is the best way to sit, but should we then decide in equal ignorance that it is not? Best Regards, Robert E. ================================ 8245 From: rikpa21 Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:32am Subject: Re: Clinging [Kenneth] --- Dan D wrote: > This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for > satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while > sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a > snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and > hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and > observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition > satipatthana. Dan, it appears we agree completely on this point. > --------------------- > Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated > up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?" > --------------------- > > Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know > that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say, > that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't > do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my > words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he > serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- > dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of > inquiry. Thanks for mentioning this, Dan, because this may not always be obvious to those unfamiliar with my style, or yours. There is also a very long tradition, at least in the Tibetan debating system, of "challenger" (the role I've been playing with Sarah and Dan recently) to shake and rattle the "witness", much like a lawyer cross- examination a witness on the stand. This long and noble tradition is enshrined in Tibetan debate because it helps tease out key issues. It is also a great way to train in not taking debates "personally", since any discomfort that arises in the course of having views challenged and examined is an excellent opportunity for satipatthana, noting the arising of clinging to self in terms of how much of a "me" is there in the view under discussion. The Dhamma is much like cooking a soup. You need lots of heat and to stir constantly. :) Or, another analogy I like. The Dhamma is about turning ordinary carbon into the most refined diamond. There is only one way I know of doing that: heat and pressure. > I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with > anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that > glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing > Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and > always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest > assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed > out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness. And you have to admit, this has been some really good back-and-forth on essential points of Dhamma as of late. > Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as > something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. In this we appear to agree again, Dan. Agreeing with you AND Jonothan within the span of a week. This is nearly unprecedented! :) > Sati > can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible > objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an > opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the > diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. I agree. To use a concrete experience from my own life, I take "panic attacks". Anyone who's ever had the wonderful opportunity for satipatthana these present will know what I'm talking about. It was going into states of "panic" that helped really illustrate what the deeper nature of satipatthana is all about, in particular by seeing how it's possible to disengage the arising of bodily sensations presaging a panic attack from a sense of "self". The problem with a panic attack is not with the sensations that arise, but with identifying these sensations with a "self" that suffers them, which leads to a vicious feedback-loop that only serves as the conditions for increasing panic. Being subject to panic attacks at one point in my practice was one of the most incredible blessings I've ever had in terms of discovering how it's possible to neutralize panic using the understanding of impermanance, but especially, no-self, and applying the foundations of mindfulness to the bodily "trigger" sensations arising (which served as a condition for the arising of severe dukkha in the form of panic). There was a point where I'd even seek out special conditions for panic, by taking psychedelic drugs in a way sufficient to trigger a massive, several-hour series of panic-moments where the panic was deep enough to make me think I'd lose "my" mind at some points. The degree of panic in these moments was infinitely greater than the panic I felt peering over the edge of a bungee platform a few years ago, for example, so this was excellent training. In terms of daily life, training in seeing this panic (or any unpleasant sensation) as not-self made it possible to stroll a mile through what sure looked like the "Killing Fields" into a former Khmer Rouge stronghold recently. This was a place my Cambodian companion, who'd fought the KR in combat, was utterly terrified of going into with me--as the names may have changed, but the attitudes haven't. This was as a passport and cash-carrying American--for whom the KR have an unusual antipathy--walking side-by-side with the daughter of a former KR. There was only a moment of initial apprehension after hearing my friend say that he was too scared to come along, and that I should turn back (we had seen the former head of the KR cadres on the way to this village, who'd stopped his moto to "chat" with us, by the way, which I think provoked my friend's fear even more). It was having trained in confronting fear and panic with the tool of satipatthana that enabled the noting of the arising of sensations normally associated with fear without clinging to it, and in so doing, the sensation that normally triggers a "fear" response, like all impermanent things, ceased, and never resurfaced once afterward. That is an example of a real-world effect of satipatthana training (though I do not pretend to have mastered this by any means). There was no need for any false bravado. There was only the understanding that there is uncontrollable vipaka arising moment to moment; and that even if it were to cost me my life (or worse), that none of these things are "self". It was a very interesting test of understanding, and as concrete an example as I can think of for how this applies in daily life, even in a rather unusual case. (By-the- by, it was in this little village that it became clear that the woman I was with would become my wife, and turned out to be one of the most incredible moments of this short life!) > The notion > that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in > moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking > at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily > helpful can be dangerous. Agreed. However, the point I was making was that we have to diligently *train* the mind to get to the point of having sati amidst daily activities. This isn't something that just happens without serious training, at least not in my experience, and not in the experience of teachers I greatly admire. So while I agree that to believe mindfulness can only happen on the cushion is unhelpful, ultimately, until mindfulness is truly developed by this type of practice (the reason the Buddha and every teacher I've studied with has recommend this approach), to think it possible to dispense with this training is to pretend it's possible to run before having learned to walk. That has been the entire point of my line of inquiry in these posts. Because let's face it, there are plent of people who don't train the mind out there, and if sati simply arose spontaneously, without training, we'd have a lot of arahats walking around. But in practical terms, this is not the case. In practical terms, the fruits of the noble path will have no conditions to arise without diligent practice (even though the can't be forced or expecetd even a little bit, and ripen in their own sweet time independent of any wishes). We have to cultivate our little plot of land with urgency no matter what: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-093.html > Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the > fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong > attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced" > and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the > subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a > particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with > pleasant feeling. Any good teacher should be able to help the student see past this clinging with some gentle reminders. Proper training in meditation should include a very clear list of the dangers that can arise, I think, and in the case of meditation, the role of a qualified meditation instructor is indispensible. > But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations > cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the > attachment to the cushion? This gets into "near enemies"--lobha masquerading as kusala. I've had these battles many times (and still do, though I'm getting better and better at seeing them for what they are). Not just regarding pleasant sensations in meditation--which never proved a big problem for me since this body rarely "feels" somanassa at all, and domanassa is the predominant condition of experience--perhaps due to chemistry. There was mistaking serious lobha for kusala on more than one occasion. But that misunderstanding is always exposed once the source of the pleasant sensation engendering clinging disappears and there is only the aftermath of dukkha arising from, what else, lobha? Wisdom, as they say, arises from experience. And experience arises from making mistakes. So making mistakes isn't bad in & of itself. Not knowing how to profit from them is. I think that if practice is going well, if one is training under experienced teachers and places enough trust in their judgment to apply their instructions as diligently as possible, there will still be mistakes and learning, since the map is most definitely not the territory, and the territory will throw out surpises in the process of exploration. But any mistakes will not become fatal hindarnces, and be overcome far more readily and not become the sticking-points they might otherwise become. That is where I really think the role of kalyana- mitrata comes in, because having the guidance of someone who's not only studied the maps, but more important, actually covered that territory, is necessary, I think. And this is exactly why I am so grateful to my teachers for their tireless guidance. 8246 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:55am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Practise Hi Herman, Welcome back;-)) --- Herman wrote: I'm leaving the role of knees in the enlightenment process to others, but regardless of whether one sees a cross-legged position as important or not, I know from years of problematic-knee-experience that they're worth taking care of;-)) > > NZ was ixcellent (sic). Our knees are just fine. Glad to hear about yr ixcellent trip and intact knees. NZ sounds like a pretty good place to hang out these days (months? years?). I don't suppose you bumped into Rob K... As you'll have seen, we're all finding plenty to discuss/debate. Still no news from your nearest neighbour, Antony Brennan. What else? Erik's phenomenal typing speed may have reduced a little (probably because the rest of our combined brain cells and fingers cannot keep up with him;-) Anyway, glad to have you back and appreciating your discussion here with Rob E and others. Keep it up! Sarah 8247 From: KennethOng Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging [Kenneth] Dan, Many thousand thanks for your clarification. I agree with you that satipatthana is practise in everyday life, in fact if we could, every breath of our life. Mediation is good to calm the mind esp for pple like me who has a restless mind like a monkey. It is true that we should not attached to mediation also as it is also an attachment. Just like I am attached to emails in yahoo. It is kind of addiction to see email everyday (got to let go of it someday). Thanks for the explanation on imperative and declarative. It is true that Buddha usually like to use declarative in his instructions to his disciples as he encourages his disciples to think and reflect and not to be like computers just taking instructions or programming codes. With kindest regards Kenneth Ong P.S: Dan, many thousand thanks again for using names at the end of the email. dalthorp wrote: Hi Kenneth, Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You are a good presence on the dsg. I have a few comments on your comments on my comments about Erik's comments. Hmmmm.... ---------------------- Kenneth: "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." ---------------------- This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition satipatthana. --------------------- Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?" --------------------- Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say, that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of inquiry. I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness. -------------------- Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point out is that, cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness." -------------------- Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. Sati can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. The notion that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link between deep concentration and satipatthana, and may even be convinced that sati cannot arise without that still, deep concentration that may arise from time to time on the cushion or even that the still, deep concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for sati to arise in everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think it's possible! Oh, the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, those times that satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a meditator to think that he's safe from this danger because he believes that it is indeed possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, but has the understanding advanced beyond a superficial intellectual level? Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can so easily confuse samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the mind may attempt to establish sati by trying to reproduce the conditions of the cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing sati to arise. This may go on for years and years without the meditator ever realizing that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. Not me." Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced" and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize because it is unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is kusala because all is so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? I'm not cautioning against being attached to the practice of mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing mindfulness with concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, becoming attached to the special conditions and special experiences of the cushion. --------------------- Kenneth: "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." --------------------- What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity itself but the attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that a particular activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by engaging in a particular activity one will make spiritual progress? If so, the activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing really wrong with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for developing kusala habits. But development of insight requires something different. It requires establishment of right view and right effort, but that's another topic. [There are a number of excellent posts in the dsg archives on cultivating right view and right effort.] --------------------- Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I really need this ritual in order to practise." --------------------- Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. Best wishes for your practice, and may you find peace. -------------------- Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative and imperative." -------------------- "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling someone to do something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact statement about a situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, the "imperative" interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When doing that, note that") would be that the Buddha was giving instructions for how to establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation ("When doing this, the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha was describing the consciousness of someone when sati is established. A simile--- Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of the lips turn up, the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from the mouth." Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip corners up, tilt your head back, and make a joyous noise come out your mouth." The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana Sutta. Dan 8248 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 0:15pm Subject: Kenneth's intro Dear Kenneth, Thanks a lot for all the info you cared to share with us. I have a dear (Chinese) friend here in Hong Kong who also follows Pure Land practise. Now I know a little more about it. I have to say it sounds a little like a fantasy land to me, but don't we all have our fantasy lands? --- KennethOng 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). Well. it's good you see the attachment and it's so very, very common for us all;-) > 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. I'm glad to hear this and it's how it should be...it should make life easier rather than harder. >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. Like Mike said, not self and again the weaknesses are so common....no need to mind about them..better just to know and be aware. >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. Yes any mindfulnesses should help rather than hinder one's work. If one starts slowing down or changing one's work pattern, this doesn't seem right at all to me. However, if there is more understanding and awareness while following one's responsibilities, it cannot but help. Any wholesome states are always useful. I think you're already finding it useful to read and consider here and perhaps because of the emphasis some of us encourage in daily life, this will help. You mentioned in your subsequent post that you have a lot of fear of future lives and this is one reason for 'buying' your Pure Land 'insurance' now. I'd like to stress that we have no idea about even the next moment and there is no self to fix it or control it in anyway. The most useful thing is to develop awareness and understanding and all kinds of skilful states now which will 'fix' the future accordingly without having to think about it or cling to it or be afraid of it. >Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend > after family commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I have the opposite problem...I teach all day Saturday, I'm usually exhausted and have chores to do on Sundays and also like to hike and look in here. Why not just give me some of your spare time? I'm joking of course. We'd love to see plenty from you here at weekends;-)) > 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. Thanks Kenneth. I'm sure we'll all learn plenty from you as well, including your pleasant and polite manners and good reminders of right speech. > My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am > a Singaporean. I thought you must be either in Sing or Taiwan as we only have Ngs here and not Ongs;-) Let us know if you visit HK anytime. Btw, I think it was a good reminder you gave to everyone to put a name at the end of posts. If you also put a name at the start of your posts, as you did with this one (e.g Sarah, Dan or All) that would be helpful too. Thanks again Kenneth and I'm enjoying all your correspondence with others. Sarah 8249 From: Herman Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 0:49pm Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Herman, > I don't think there's a yes or no answer to how these questions should play into > any one person's practice or non-practice of Buddhism. Do you have one answer as > to what the Buddha presecribed every person to do? > Well put Robert. No , I don't have an answer to that. In the case of JC I would have said that the prescription was "to love" and thereby discover what love is. In the case of the Buddha I could generalise from my strictly limited knowledge and say that he advised to foster awareness, but I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable making that statement. I do think that the Buddha spent most of his life (after leaving the wife and kids :-) ) cross-legged, and that this would in itself be a suggestion as to how to proceed. I can see that the physical inactivity that comes with sitting with eyes closed would naturally lead to awareness of mentation (or just plain awareness). Having said all this I do not deny any one the approach they take. > You also say that you do not have any idea what the goal is like. I hate to > disagree on something so intimate, but if you had no idea what the goal was like, > and that it was a worthwhile goal, you would not practice Buddhism. So you do > have some idea. You follow the Buddha's instructions because they accord with > your instinctive sense of where a human being can wind up: free from suffering, > with a truly refined understanding of consciousness and what this world really is. I wonder whether we have some instinctive knowledge of the goal as you suggest, or whether we are subtly aware of the unease that comes with investing in belief systems that do not correlate with reality ie belief in a self (ego) and the wholeness and permanence of phenomena? And that the search for the path is a desire to eliminate the unease that is subtly felt? An escape from the undesirable rather than a search for the desirable? This could explain the multiplicity of paths, not just in Buddhism, but in all cultures and faiths. What is common is suffering and unease, what is uncertain or not agreed on is the way out. > > > I believe in this instinct. I believe we all have an instinct for what > enlightenment is, or these teachings would go by as like air. We wouldn't even > notice them. We must realize that there is arising within us some sort of > understanding of what we are heading for, how we need to get there, and where we > want to wind up. > > Best Regards, > Robert E. > All the best, Robert Herman 8250 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 1:30pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Dear Jon, > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full lotus quite a bit, > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, but on the > other hand, it is possible that it does. > > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that the fact that > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to get into, it has > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a difficult posture > if it had no significance? > > __________________ Dear Robert E. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post where I noted that some among the objects of samatha do require special conditions including a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet place, solitude... This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga. In particular this applies to anapanasati - breath. If that is the object one chooses then these conditions are necessary if one wants to succeed. However, we should know that anapanasati is singled out as being the most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a passage from the Visuddhimagga Viii 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is successful only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on giving it his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult, difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of Buddhas, paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial matter, nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." . Also one should understand the difference bettwen the development of vipassana and samatha (see dans post earlier today for some good points). For the one who is truly at home with samatha bhavana (calm meditation) then that has to be an object for insight as well other wise it will be taken a self. It is not considered a preferable object but rather that all objects should be known as they are for insight to develop . Hence Erik noted that his biggest insights have come while seeing panic as being anatta, while one who is a master of jhana would have to see those very pleasant objects in the same way - as conditioned phenomena- for it to be an object for the development of vipassana. All kusala is supportive, to some degree, of the path, so if we have the skill and wish to develop samatha that is good . But easy, as dan mentioned, to get confused about the difference between sati(of the eigtfold path) and samadhi and samatha and vipassana. One can have subtle desire for just a little more calmness, a little more clarity of mind. And if so one is not developing vipassana. This slight desire moves one out of the present moment - one doesn't want to see what is there at this very moment. If we are sittting crosslegged now and we feel we have to stand to have awareness, or read a Dhamma book, then that would show a misunderstanding. I feel the issue of positions becomes irrelevant to vippasana bhavana to the degree that there is understanding of the objects for sati (all paramatha dhammas). For sure some people are going to want to sit quietly more than others. But it should be by their accumulations, their nature, rather than because they think it is the condition for insight. Also it takes time for everyone to understand how to be aware: that is to be aware without craving for some experience. Seeing and colour are objects that the Buddha mentioned time and again and yet so few people seem to be interested in these objects. But why? Because of colours and seeing so many concepts are formed up in the following mind-door processes. If there is not awareness in association with wise attention (yoniso manisikara) after seeing then there will be ignorance or craving or dosa. One will believe (attasanna -self perception) that one sees people, friends, enemies, neutral ones, or computers, cars etc.. But seeing only experiences colours. Panna (insight) in conjunction with sati and samadhi and other factors can understand this and break the wheel of dependent origination (paticcasamupada) there and then. Not necessary to be watching the breath or sitting in the full lotus for this to happen robert 8251 From: Herman Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 4:04pm Subject: Re: Clinging [Kenneth] Dear Kenneth Dan et al, Life is full of distractions, and much human activity is purposely expended on creating more distractions. When the suttas were written there was no TV, radio, computers, Internet and tourism and marketing were not fashionable. I cannot but think that practise in daily life today has less fertile soil in which to be grounded than when the Buddha lived. A cursory glimpse of awareness here and there, in between hours of captivating but meaningless activity is how I would describe my situation. A layman today is not the layman the Buddha would have addressed. Extrapolating from the Buddha's sayings, from the Buddha's time and culture, whether it be declarative or imperative, is asking for irrelevant conclusions. Given the pace of urban life, I would have thought that the ability to pursue formal meditation, coupled with practise in daily life, would be like an invitation to an oasis. Why reject it? It seems strange to hear of the dangers of the cushion. I'd rather be attached to the fruits of concentration than to the Nintendo, Oracle financials or IIS security patches :-) This is not a reply to a specific point or person, just my two bits worth, thats all :-) Herman --- KennethOng wrote: > > Dan, > Many thousand thanks for your clarification. I agree with you that satipatthana is practise in everyday life, in fact if we could, every breath of our life. Mediation is good to calm the mind esp for pple like me who has a restless mind like a monkey. It is true that we should not attached to mediation also as it is also an attachment. Just like I am attached to emails in yahoo. It is kind of addiction to see email everyday (got to let go of it someday). Thanks for the explanation on imperative and declarative. It is true that Buddha usually like to use declarative in his instructions to his disciples as he encourages his disciples to think and reflect and not to be like computers just taking instructions or programming codes. > > > With kindest regards > > Kenneth Ong > > P.S: Dan, many thousand thanks again for using names at the end of the email. > > > > Dan D wrote: Hi Kenneth, > Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You are a good > presence on the dsg. > > I have a few comments on your comments on my comments about Erik's > comments. Hmmmm.... > > ---------------------- > Kenneth: "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." > ---------------------- > > This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for > satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while > sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a > snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and > hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and > observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition > satipatthana. > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated > up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?" > --------------------- > > Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know > that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say, > that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't > do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my > words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he > serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- > dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of > inquiry. > > I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with > anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that > glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing > Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and > always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest > assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed > out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness. > > -------------------- > Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point out is that, > cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness." > -------------------- > > Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as > something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. Sati > can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible > objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an > opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the > diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. The notion > that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in > moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking > at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily > helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link between deep > concentration and satipatthana, and may even be convinced that sati > cannot arise without that still, deep concentration that may arise > from time to time on the cushion or even that the still, deep > concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for sati to arise in > everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think it's possible! Oh, > the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, those times that > satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a meditator to think that > he's safe from this danger because he believes that it is indeed > possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, but has the > understanding advanced beyond a superficial intellectual level? Well, > how strong is the attachment to the cushion? > > Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can so easily confuse > samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the mind may attempt > to establish sati by trying to reproduce the conditions of the > cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing sati to arise. This > may go on for years and years without the meditator ever realizing > that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. Not me." Well, how > strong is the attachment to the cushion? > > Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the > fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong > attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced" > and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the > subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a > particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with > pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize because it is > unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is kusala because all is > so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations > cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the > attachment to the cushion? > > I'm not cautioning against being attached to the practice of > mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing mindfulness with > concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, becoming attached to > the special conditions and special experiences of the cushion. > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "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." > --------------------- > > What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity itself but the > attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that a particular > activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by engaging in a > particular activity one will make spiritual progress? If so, the > activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing really wrong > with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for developing kusala > habits. But development of insight requires something different. It > requires establishment of right view and right effort, but that's > another topic. [There are a number of excellent posts in the dsg > archives on cultivating right view and right effort.] > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I really need this > ritual in order to practise." > --------------------- > > Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. Best wishes for > your practice, and may you find peace. > > -------------------- > Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative > and imperative." > -------------------- > > "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling someone to do > something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact statement about a > situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, the "imperative" > interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When doing that, note > that") would be that the Buddha was giving instructions for how to > establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation ("When doing this, > the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha was describing > the consciousness of someone when sati is established. > > A simile--- > > Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of the lips turn up, > the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from the mouth." > > Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip corners up, tilt > your head back, and make a joyous noise come out your mouth." > > The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana Sutta. > > Dan > > 8252 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging [Kenneth] Dear Ken, Just wanted to say (again?) that it's really good to have you on this list. Remember that talk about bhaavanaa (cultivation) is one of the three kinds of kusala speech (along with silaa (morality) and daana (generosity) (sorry that I can't cite the source of this--anyone?). So I hope you won't 'let go' of these emails on general principle (that is, because of the idea that letting go is good in general)... mike --- KennethOng wrote: > > Dan, > Many thousand thanks for your clarification. I > agree with you that satipatthana is practise in > everyday life, in fact if we could, every breath of > our life. Mediation is good to calm the mind esp > for pple like me who has a restless mind like a > monkey. It is true that we should not attached to > mediation also as it is also an attachment. Just > like I am attached to emails in yahoo. It is kind > of addiction to see email everyday (got to let go of > it someday). Thanks for the explanation on > imperative and declarative. It is true that Buddha > usually like to use declarative in his instructions > to his disciples as he encourages his disciples to > think and reflect and not to be like computers just > taking instructions or programming codes. > > > With kindest regards > > Kenneth Ong > > P.S: Dan, many thousand thanks again for using > names at the end of the email. > > > > dalthorp wrote: Hi Kenneth, > Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You > are a good > presence on the dsg. > > I have a few comments on your comments on my > comments about Erik's > comments. Hmmmm.... > > ---------------------- > Kenneth: "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." > ---------------------- > > This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate > objects for > satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and > fall while > sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back > and forth at a > snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for > satipatthana, and > hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, > discussing it, and > observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can > help condition > satipatthana. > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic > kind of heated > up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental > formations?" > --------------------- > > Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being > direct. I know > that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of > anything that I say, > that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in > him, that he won't > do anything rash or harmful to himself or other > beings because of my > words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to > Erik, and he > serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! > Erik's a good cyber- > dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy > spirit of > inquiry. > > I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does > domanassa arise? As with > anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to > happen until that > glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when > discussing > Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never > intensely, and > always short-lived. The interaction is mostly > joyful. And Erik? Rest > assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as > Sarah has pointed > out. No need to be averse to our private > playfulness. > > -------------------- > Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point > out is that, > cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of > mindfullness." > -------------------- > > Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing > satipatthana as > something that happens on the cushion and not in > everyday life. Sati > can arise at any time, and a wide variety of > phenomena are possible > objects. When this is understood clearly, every > moment becomes an > opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to > Dhamma and the > diligence with which it is pursued increases > markedly. The notion > that satipatthana requires the special phenomena > that may arise in > moments of deep concentration while sitting > cross-legged or walking > at a snail's pace, or even that the special > phenomena are necessarily > helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link > between deep > concentration and satipatthana, and may even be > convinced that sati > cannot arise without that still, deep concentration > that may arise > from time to time on the cushion or even that the > still, deep > concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for > sati to arise in > everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think > it's possible! Oh, > the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, > those times that > satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a > meditator to think that > he's safe from this danger because he believes that > it is indeed > possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, > but has the > understanding advanced beyond a superficial > intellectual level? Well, > how strong is the attachment to the cushion? > > Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can > so easily confuse > samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the > mind may attempt > to establish sati by trying to reproduce the > conditions of the > cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing > sati to arise. This > may go on for years and years without the meditator > ever realizing > that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. > Not me." Well, how > strong is the attachment to the cushion? > > Another danger of the cushion is that the special > phenomena, the > fruits of concentration can readily become objects > of strong > attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite > "advanced" > and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there > craving for the > subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? > This is a > particularly difficult danger because lobha may be > associated with > pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize > because it is > unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is > kusala because all is > so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant > sensations > cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how > strong is the > attachment to the cushion? > > I'm not cautioning against being attached to the > practice of > mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing > mindfulness with > concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, > becoming attached to > the special conditions and special experiences of > the cushion. > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "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." > --------------------- > > What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity > itself but the > attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that > a particular > activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by > engaging in a > particular activity one will make spiritual > progress? If so, the > activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing > really wrong > with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for > developing kusala > habits. But development of insight requires > something different. It > requires establishment of right view and right > effort, but that's > another topic. [There are a number of excellent > posts in the dsg > archives on cultivating right view and right > effort.] > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I > really need this > ritual in order to practise." > --------------------- > > Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. > Best wishes for > your practice, and may you find peace. > > -------------------- > Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you > mean by declarative > and imperative." > -------------------- > > "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling > someone to do > something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact > statement about a > situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, > the "imperative" > interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When > doing that, note > that") would be that the Buddha was giving > instructions for how to > establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation > ("When doing this, > the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha > was describing > the consciousness of someone when sati is > established. > > A simile--- > > Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of > the lips turn up, > the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from > the mouth." > > Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip > corners up, tilt > your head back, and make a joyous noise come out > your mouth." > > The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana > Sutta. > > Dan > > 8253 From: dalthorp Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:30pm Subject: Back to hiatus I have a busy few weeks coming up. I will not be checking in with dsg until at least Oct. 10. I don't relish missing the interesting discussions unfolding! Dan 8254 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Back to hiatus Dan, Miss you already (sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear). I know you're busy but hope you don't underestimate the value of your contributions here. mike --- dalthorp wrote: > I have a busy few weeks coming up. I will not be > checking in with dsg > until at least Oct. 10. I don't relish missing the > interesting > discussions unfolding! > > Dan 8255 From: Anders Honore Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:53pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Anders - > > In a message dated 9/14/01 6:01:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > > ========================= > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I > have no idea of where to look. I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, the > Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across this, > and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think this is an > important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is > impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is unacceptable. I am not at my home computer, so I can't give you anymore specific info. I'll get back to you later this week. 8256 From: Howard Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 5:39pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Thanks, Anders. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/24/01 8:54:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Anders writes: > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? > From "SN 4" I > > have no idea of where to look. > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I > have read the > > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta > Nipata, the > > Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come > across this, > > and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think > this is an > > important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is > > impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > unacceptable. > > I am not at my home computer, so I can't give you anymore specific > info. I'll get back to you later this week. > > /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) 8257 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:10am Subject: conditionality Dear Friends, someone mentioned a text that the Buddha told the monks to see conditionality everywhere in all things, and he said that he uses this as a mantra. The text was in M. III, p. 19, but I am lost. I have a P.T.S. translation. Can someone help me to find the chapter and par.? I found it such a good reminder, just now. We get so overwhelmed when looking at the news or reading the newspaper, that we are forgetful of realities that are conditioned. Even sadness about the news is conditioned. Amara wrote before that we receive the news through eyes and ears, and also this is a good reminder. We forget that there is visible object through the eyes, sound through the ears, we rae carried away by the stories. Thinking about the news is also conditioned, and it is natural that we think about stories, we lead our daily life naturally, but it is helpful that sometimes there can be understanding of what is real in the ultimate sense. Nina. 8258 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 3:23am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Robert, I think this is a very fertile message, meaning that I think it is well composed and at the same time opens the door for a *lot* of really interesting questions. I see some possibilities in it that are very interesting, some important quesitons, and also some contradictions -- probably from my own confusion about the topics -- which I would love to have clarified. I will go through this more slowly and send you a detailed post in the next day or two. I just wanted to tell you for now that I think your basic points are very interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the fact that the breath is such a difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object of choice for almost every meditation system in every culture. I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, or Hindu meditation class or centre that didn't give breathing as the object of meditation! So the fact that it is supposed to be only for the most advanced students is extremely funny to me. It must be some kind of cosmic joke. I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so many systems is that it is the bridge between awareness, life, physicality and outer envirnonment, and so brings a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from this, systems that are interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and intensification find that the breath is a vehicle for opening up the psychophysical system, and I think that appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the person's vitality, capability and awareness all together. In any case, the only systems I have encountered that are not particularly interested in the breath are the ones that are confronting the mind and its objects more directly, and this seems to me to be more advanced, not less advanced than working with the breath. For instance, abhidhamma seems to me to be attempting the kind of specific breakdown of objective realities and their apprehension that is only really suited for a philosopher. Can someone who does not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at objects in the moment and at least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the moment, but even this requires a sharp intellect. In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and the immediate reality of contact, perception and thought are also directly confronted in a particular way. This is also in some ways an intellectual's anti-intellectual exercise. It attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts of realities as real, but at the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind has to be pretty sharp. But anyone can do breathing meditation on some level. It is more basic for most people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very interesting. Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more questions. I'll get back with a detailed inquiry soon! [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?] Best Regards, Robert E. ============================ --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Jon, > > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full > lotus quite a bit, > > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, > but on the > > other hand, it is possible that it does. > > > > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that > the fact that > > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to > get into, it has > > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a > difficult posture > > if it had no significance? > > > > __________________ > Dear Robert E. > I'm not sure if you read my earlier post where I noted that some > among the objects of samatha do require special conditions including > a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet place, solitude... > This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga. In particular this > applies to anapanasati - breath. If that is the object one chooses > then these conditions are necessary if one wants to succeed. > However, we should know that anapanasati is singled out as being the > most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a passage from the > Visuddhimagga Viii > 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is > successful > only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation > subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on > giving it > his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult, > difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of > Buddhas, > paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial > matter, > nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." . > > Also one should understand the difference bettwen the development of > vipassana and samatha (see dans post earlier today for some good > points). For the one who is truly at home with samatha bhavana (calm > meditation) then that has to be an object for insight as well other > wise it will be taken a self. It is not considered a preferable > object but rather that all objects should be known as they are for > insight to develop . Hence Erik noted that his biggest insights have > come while seeing panic as being anatta, while one who is a master of > jhana would have to see those very pleasant objects in the same way - > as conditioned phenomena- for it to be an object for the development > of vipassana. > All kusala is supportive, to some degree, of the path, so if we have > the skill and wish to develop samatha that is good . But easy, as dan > mentioned, to get confused about the difference between sati(of the > eigtfold path) and samadhi and samatha and vipassana. > > One can have subtle desire for just a little more calmness, a little > more clarity of mind. And if so one is not developing vipassana. > This slight desire moves one out of the present moment - one doesn't > want to see what is there at this very moment. If we are sittting > crosslegged now and we feel we have to stand to have awareness, or > read a Dhamma book, then that would show a misunderstanding. I feel > the issue of positions becomes irrelevant to vippasana bhavana to the > degree that there is understanding of the objects for sati (all > paramatha dhammas). For sure some people are going to want to sit > quietly more than others. But it should be by their accumulations, > their nature, rather than because they think it is the condition for > insight. > > Also it takes time for everyone to understand how to be aware: that > is to be aware without craving for some experience. Seeing and colour > are objects that the Buddha mentioned time and again and yet so few > people seem to be interested in these objects. But why? Because of > colours and seeing so many concepts are formed up in the following > mind-door processes. If there is not awareness in association with > wise attention (yoniso manisikara) after seeing then there will be > ignorance or craving or dosa. One will believe (attasanna -self > perception) that one sees people, friends, enemies, neutral ones, or > computers, cars etc.. But seeing only experiences colours. Panna > (insight) in conjunction with sati and samadhi and other factors can > understand this and break the wheel of dependent origination > (paticcasamupada) there and then. Not necessary to be watching the > breath or sitting in the full lotus for this to happen > > robert > 8259 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 5:04am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Robert, Glad to hear you say this, hope you don't mind my butting in. I think it's noteworthy that, at the beginning of the Anapanasati (Mindfulness of Breathing) sutta, the Buddha is in residence with a large number of monks, beginners and arahantas. The only 'practices' mentioned for the first three months of the rains retreat are teaching and instructing, being taught and being instructed--no meditation of any kind is mentioned. The Buddha is so pleased with this that he instructs them to extend the retreat for another month, still with only the mention of teaching and instruction. Throughout this time the new monks are said to have been making 'grand, successive distinctions'--impressive words coming from the Buddha. It isn't until this whole assembly has practiced to his great satisfaction for four months straight (making grand and successive distinctions the while) that he teaches them anapanasati. The sigificance of this that I think is often overlooked is the rather exalted mental states of his audience--achieved by having been taught and instructed (largely by arahantas). Personally I doubt my 'accumulations' are quite up to this standard... mike --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > I think this is a very fertile message, meaning that > I think it is well composed > and at the same time opens the door for a *lot* of > really interesting questions. > I see some possibilities in it that are very > interesting, some important > quesitons, and also some contradictions -- probably > from my own confusion about > the topics -- which I would love to have clarified. > > > I will go through this more slowly and send you a > detailed post in the next day or > two. I just wanted to tell you for now that I think > your basic points are very > interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the > fact that the breath is such a > difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object > of choice for almost every > meditation system in every culture. > > I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, > or Hindu meditation class or > centre that didn't give breathing as the object of > meditation! So the fact that > it is supposed to be only for the most advanced > students is extremely funny to me. > It must be some kind of cosmic joke. > > I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so > many systems is that it is the > bridge between awareness, life, physicality and > outer envirnonment, and so brings > a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from > this, systems that are > interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and > intensification find that the > breath is a vehicle for opening up the > psychophysical system, and I think that > appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the > person's vitality, capability > and awareness all together. > > In any case, the only systems I have encountered > that are not particularly > interested in the breath are the ones that are > confronting the mind and its > objects more directly, and this seems to me to be > more advanced, not less advanced > than working with the breath. For instance, > abhidhamma seems to me to be > attempting the kind of specific breakdown of > objective realities and their > apprehension that is only really suited for a > philosopher. Can someone who does > not have an intellectual bent really follow the > sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt > it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at > objects in the moment and at > least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the > moment, but even this requires > a sharp intellect. > > In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and > the immediate reality of > contact, perception and thought are also directly > confronted in a particular way. > This is also in some ways an intellectual's > anti-intellectual exercise. It > attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts > of realities as real, but at > the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind > has to be pretty sharp. > > But anyone can do breathing meditation on some > level. It is more basic for most > people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very > interesting. > > Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more > questions. I'll get back with a > detailed inquiry soon! > > [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?] > > Best Regards, > Robert E. > > ============================ > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > > --- Robert Epstein > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jon, > > > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did > sit in the full > > lotus quite a bit, > > > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have > any significance, > > but on the > > > other hand, it is possible that it does. > > > > > > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the > posture, I think that > > the fact that > > > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has > never been easy to > > get into, it has > > > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would > everyone use a > > difficult posture > > > if it had no significance? > > > > > > __________________ > > Dear Robert E. > > I'm not sure if you read my earlier post where I > noted that some > > among the objects of samatha do require special > conditions including > > a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet > place, solitude... > > This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga. > In particular this > > applies to anapanasati - breath. If that is the > object one chooses > > then these conditions are necessary if one wants > to succeed. > > However, we should know that anapanasati is > singled out as being the > > most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a > passage from the > > Visuddhimagga Viii > > 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter > what, is > > successful > > only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet > any meditation > > subject other than this one gets more evident as > he goes on > > giving it > > his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing > is difficult, > > difficult to develop, a field in which only the > minds of > > Buddhas, > > paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is > no trivial > > matter, > > nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." . > > > > Also one should understand the difference bettwen > the development of > > vipassana and samatha (see dans post earlier today > for some good > > points). For the one who is truly at home with > samatha bhavana (calm > > meditation) then that has to be an object for > insight as well other > > wise it will be taken a self. It is not considered > a preferable > > object but rather that all objects should be known > as they are for > > insight to develop . Hence Erik noted that his > biggest insights have > > come while seeing panic as being anatta, while one > who is a master of > > jhana would have to see those very pleasant > objects in the same way - > > as conditioned phenomena- for it to be an object > for the development > > of vipassana. > > All kusala is supportive, to some degree, of the > path, so if we have > > the skill and wish to develop samatha that is good > . But easy, as dan > > mentioned, to get confused about the difference > between sati(of the > > eigtfold path) and samadhi and samatha and > vipassana. > > > > One can have subtle desire for just a little more > calmness, a little > > more clarity of mind. And if so one is not > developing vipassana. > > This slight desire moves one out of the present > moment - one doesn't > > want to see what is there at this very moment. If > we are sittting > > crosslegged now and we feel we have to stand to > have awareness, or > > read a Dhamma book, then that would show a > misunderstanding. I feel > > the issue of positions becomes irrelevant to > vippasana bhavana to the > > degree that there is understanding of the objects > for sati (all > > paramatha dhammas). For sure some people are going > to want to sit > > quietly more than others. But it should be by > their accumulations, > > their nature, rather than because they think it is > the condition for > > insight. > > > > Also it takes time for everyone to understand how > to be aware: that > > is to be aware without craving for some > experience. Seeing and colour > > are objects that the Buddha mentioned time and > again and yet so few > > people seem to be interested in these objects. But > why? Because of > > colours and seeing so many concepts are formed up > in the following > > mind-door processes. If there is not awareness in > association with > > wise attention (yoniso manisikara) after seeing > then there will be > > ignorance or craving or dosa. One will believe > (attasanna -self > > perception) that one sees people, friends, > enemies, neutral ones, or > > computers, cars etc.. But seeing only experiences > colours. Panna > > (insight) in conjunction with sati and samadhi and > other factors can > > understand this and break the wheel of dependent > origination > > (paticcasamupada) there and then. Not necessary to > be watching the > > breath or sitting in the full lotus for this to > happen > > > > robert > > > > 8260 From: Jinavamsa Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 11:46am Subject: Re: conditionality hello Nina, I see no one has as yet replied to you. I do not find what is apparently the passage you are referring to. In any case, I can add a bit: M.iii.19 corresponds to MN #109, from within sect. 13 to within sect. 15. The sutta is divided overall into 18 sects., by way of contextualization. I don't know if that helps. Is the citation correct? with metta, jinavamsa ============= --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Friends, someone mentioned a text that the Buddha told the monks to see > conditionality everywhere in all things, and he said that he uses this as a > mantra. The text was in M. III, p. 19, but I am lost. I have a P.T.S. > translation. Can someone help me to find the chapter and par.? I found it > such a good reminder, just now. We get so overwhelmed when looking at the > news or reading the newspaper, that we are forgetful of realities that are > conditioned. Even sadness about the news is conditioned. Amara wrote before > that we receive the news through eyes and ears, and also this is a good > reminder. We forget that there is visible object through the eyes, sound > through the ears, we rae carried away by the stories. Thinking about the > news is also conditioned, and it is natural that we think about stories, we > lead our daily life naturally, but it is helpful that sometimes there can > be understanding of what is real in the ultimate sense. > Nina. 8261 From: rikpa21 Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 0:03pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- "m. nease" wrote: Mike, > It isn't until this whole assembly has practiced to > his great satisfaction for four months straight > (making grand and successive distinctions the while) > that he teaches them anapanasati. The sigificance of > this that I think is often overlooked is the rather > exalted mental states of his audience--achieved by > having been taught and instructed (largely by > arahantas). Personally I doubt my 'accumulations' are > quite up to this standard... That sounds awfully defeatist, Mike! Without a basic degree of confidence that there is a real shot at getting out of samsara, what is the condition for the type of effort needed pursue and develop the path to completion? How does this attitude serve as a condition for relinquishment, or where does the Buddha suggest that adopting this kind of attitude profits? How, given the incredible rarity of a human birth (let alone the rarity of the kamma to come into contact with the Dhamma), not to mention the incredibly heavy suffering of samsara, does thinking like this benefit? Also, where is the avoiding comparing of self and other in this line of thinking? Where is the pair of samvega and pasada in what was just said? http://here-and-now.org/wwwArticles/samvega.html Is there now enough training in the basics of the Dhamma that anapanasati is possible? This is, after all, a practice the Buddha was "content at heart with". I have never heard the Buddha so praise any other practise to this degree. Obviously, there is enough samvega to enter the homeless life. But is there enough samvega to inspire an even greater urgency to the degree that there is no place given to the belief that anapanasati is somehow "too difficult"--to cast that belief aside that compares self and other to the degree of actual discouragement? It is easy to pile up layer after layer of reasons not to engage this practice (which is again the very first of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness that no teacher I have studied with has ever suggested is optional). Reasons like "it is too hard". Or "I am not advanced enough" etc. Let me just ask one question: can liberation possibly come to one who thinks these kinds of thoughts? I'm not trying to bust your chops, but asking. 8262 From: Larry Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 0:46pm Subject: Re: conditionality Hi Nina, I was interested in this quotation too. Robert Kirkpatrick brought it up in message #8204 and from there I did an archive search but archive search doesn't seem to be working right now. As I remember the original reference by Ken ? from Australia also mentioned the mahatanhasankhaya sutta in MN. However the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of that sutta doesn,t have anything like the line quoted. You might try doing an archive search for (M III (PTS),p19) and see if you can track down this Ken guy. Larry --------------------------- re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." 8263 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ Dear Nina, Jina and Larry, I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing a search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it helps. this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following dsg.....;-)) Sarah --- Larry wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > I was interested in this quotation too. Robert Kirkpatrick brought it up > in message #8204 and from there I did an archive search but archive > search doesn't seem to be working right now. As I remember the original > reference by Ken ? from Australia also mentioned the mahatanhasankhaya > sutta in MN. However the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of that sutta > doesn,t have anything like the line quoted. You might try doing an > archive search for (M III (PTS),p19) and see if you can track down this > Ken guy. > > Larry > --------------------------- > re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in > all > things." > Ken wrote originally: Hello Sarah After a brief flurry of activity, I seem to have reverted to my lurking ways. This doesn't mean my interest in dsg has waned; to the contrary, in my enthusiasm for what I am learning here, I am still inclined to see the issues in black and white -- one side right, one side wrong etc. Unfortunately, we zealots are the last ones to understand the `party line' we are pushing. I wonder how many times I've seen the explanation that there is no self who controls, there is no self who is controlled, and that dhammas arise only when the conditions for their arising are present. In the post to which you refer, I claimed to understand this, but immediately embarked on a theory which proved only that I didn't. Each time I read your reply and other excellent explanations of satipatthana, I think I am on the right track again but, with amazing speed, I slip back into conventional ways thinking. I have just seen a reference to the Mahatanhasamkhaya-sutta. Apparently it begins with the story of Bhikkhu Sati who taught a wrong theory on the nature of consciousness, and mistakenly attributed it to the Buddha. The lecture he received began with; "To whomever, you stupid one, have you heard me expounding the doctrine in this manner? Haven't I, in many ways explained consciousness as arising out of conditions; that there is no arising of consciousness without conditions . . ." This would seem to be an example of how we worldlings not only fail to have right understanding at the level of satipatthana, but also get it wrong at the intellectual level. But to think that this conventional lesson actually forms part of the Dhamma would be a mistake, would it not? Even references to conventional wisdom are to be seen in terms of absolute realities. Another good quote, which I found in the same book was, "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. (!) Kind regards Ken "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." (M III (PTS),p19) :-) 8264 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Glad to hear you say this, hope you don't mind my > butting in. I think it's noteworthy that, at the > beginning of the Anapanasati (Mindfulness of > Breathing) sutta, the Buddha is in residence with a > large number of monks, beginners and arahantas. The > only 'practices' mentioned for the first three months > of the rains retreat are teaching and instructing, > being taught and being instructed--no meditation of > any kind is mentioned. The Buddha is so pleased with > this that he instructs them to extend the retreat for > another month, still with only the mention of teaching > and instruction. Throughout this time the new monks > are said to have been making 'grand, successive > distinctions'--impressive words coming from the > Buddha. > > It isn't until this whole assembly has practiced to > his great satisfaction for four months straight > (making grand and successive distinctions the while) > that he teaches them anapanasati. The sigificance of > this that I think is often overlooked is the rather > exalted mental states of his audience--achieved by > having been taught and instructed (largely by > arahantas). Personally I doubt my 'accumulations' are > quite up to this standard... > > mike Well, if you ever see an Arahanta advertising for a roomate, I would jump at it. This also reminds me of the Platform Sutra of Hui Neng in Chinese Ch'an Buddhism. After many of the lectures, the last sentence is something like: "After Hui Neng finished speaking, the entire assembly was enlightened". Well, I would have liked to have been there! Robert ======================== 8265 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 4:09pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Dear Robert E., I think there are many reasons why the breath is so popular. For one thing it is the basis from which all Buddhas attain enlightenment. For another it is highly praised by the Buddha.The breath is in many ways a neutral object, hence it can be said to be suitable for all personality types. However, as we see it is not recommended for all. Breath as an object of samatha is difficult. If it is being developed correctly the citta that knows breath is associated with panna(wisdom ) and alobha(detachment)- Sometimes we can know breath BUT with lobha (attachment).However, even if it is an object of attachment it may still have benefits (in a conventional way)- it can be good for health or help to reduce the amount of thinking one does (hence less worries). It can help concentration too. It doesn't interfere with one's views when it is used in this way. Even fanatical terrorists could profitably develop it (in the attachment way - not as true samatha) as a way to relax themselves and focus the mind. Whereas such objects as Dhammanusati or Buddhanusati (ones that don't need special posture and that the Buddha specifically recommended to laypeople) will have an impact on view- and hence may not seem so appealing. You wrote "Can someone who does > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt > it. "" Well I have some very good friends in Thailand who have been listening to T. A. Sujin's radio program for more than 20 years. They are very poor and completely illiterate. And the details in Thai are much more than we write here in English. I think the reasons one is interested in Abhidhamma go back over lifetimes and even aeons. I agree that only an intellectual would be interested in abhidhamma as an academic subject - but it is different once we see that Abhidhamma is about life here and now. I sometimes wonder why anyone wouldn't be interested in Abhidhamma. look fwd to your further comments. best wishes robert Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > > interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the fact that the breath is such a > difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object of choice for almost every > meditation system in every culture. > > I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, or Hindu meditation class or > centre that didn't give breathing as the object of meditation! So the fact that > it is supposed to be only for the most advanced students is extremely funny to me. > It must be some kind of cosmic joke. > > I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so many systems is that it is the > bridge between awareness, life, physicality and outer envirnonment, and so brings > a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from this, systems that are > interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and intensification find that the > breath is a vehicle for opening up the psychophysical system, and I think that > appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the person's vitality, capability > and awareness all together. > > In any case, the only systems I have encountered that are not particularly > interested in the breath are the ones that are confronting the mind and its > objects more directly, and this seems to me to be more advanced, not less advanced > than working with the breath. For instance, abhidhamma seems to me to be > attempting the kind of specific breakdown of objective realities and their > apprehension that is only really suited for a philosopher. Can someone who does > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt > it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at objects in the moment and at > least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the moment, but even this requires > a sharp intellect. > > In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and the immediate reality of > contact, perception and thought are also directly confronted in a particular way. > This is also in some ways an intellectual's anti-intellectual exercise. It > attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts of realities as real, but at > the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind has to be pretty sharp. > > But anyone can do breathing meditation on some level. It is more basic for most > people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very interesting. > > Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more questions. I'll get back with a > detailed inquiry soon! > > [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?] > > Best Regards, > Robert E. > > ============================ 8266 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ Nina, Jina, Larry, Sarah and others --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Nina, Jina and Larry, > > I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing > a > search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it > helps. > this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following > dsg.....;-)) > Sarah > > --------------------------- > Ken wrote originally: > Another good quote, which I found in the same book was, "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. (!) I have checked the book from which Ken was quoting ('What the Buddha Taught') and the citation he gives is as in the book (p. 66). In case this is a mistake, there is another citation to the same passage, namely 'S III, p. 103', a reference to the Samyutta Nikaya, PTS edition. It might be posible to track the passage down from that. Jon 8267 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > When I speak of instinct, I actually give it strong weight. > Chogyam > Trungpa, a Tibetan Rinpoche in the Kagyu/Nyingma lineages, said > something to the > affect that when the deluded mind takes over, enlightenment takes on the > characteristic of an underlying instinct. Although you may not agree > with the > premise, I think you would agree that the delusory mind is deluded, > however, those > of us trying to reach an more enlightened state have some sort of > 'instinct' that > such a thing exists. Otherwise, I don't think the scriptures and sutras > would > particularly excite us….. Instinct can be based on understanding, or it can be based on ignorance or wrong view. Is there a solid reason for presuming that our instinct is based on understanding? What weight should we give to the assurances of modern-day commentators, if nothing to the same effect is found in the texts or commentaries? If the suttas are of interest to us in this lifetime, there is a relatively simple and straightforward explanation for that, namely an interest in the suttas in previous existences. But this is not an indicator of the degree of wisdom that has been developed, or the lack of accumulated strong wrong view -- simply an indicator of a previous interest in the teachings. > …. We sense that what is spoken of is a reality. > Personally, I feel that if one does not consult that reality in whatever > way one > has present access to it, then the sutras alone will not carry one. > Each stage of > the path must be experienced, must it not, to take root in the > understanding, not > just read about? I am with you as regards the need to clearly distinguish between the study and understanding of the teachings as given in the suttas, on the one hand, and the understanding by direct experience that is the practice being described in the suttas, on the other hand. But I don’t see where the 'sense of reality' (aka instinct) fits in, in terms of anything found in the teachings. What is this other factor that you are referring to, and why isn't it mentioned in the teachings? > My sense that enlightenment is one's true nature comes from glimpses and > experiences I've had in meditation as well. If I had no experiential > sense of > this, I probably wouldn't even have a concept of it. I would think > there is also > a guiding set of experiences that you have cultivated through > understanding or > practice that makes the sutras 'real' to you. Is that not so? It is tempting to ascribe significance to experiences one has had, but this is I believe an unhelpful and potentially misleading practice to develop. > Certainly the scriptures are a guide to what is to be understood, > practiced and > experienced. But I feel that without cultivating the experiences, the > scriptures > cannot really be understood, except as general indications. As specific > as the > words may be, they indicate something that is to be understood, if not > practiced, > something to be realized. I understand that there has been quite a bit > of > discussion about not taking the Buddha's words as calls to 'actions'. > But I would > think that practice, whether in meditation or contemplation of reality, > would be a > focus on understanding, rather than an attempt to change behavior or > perception > through some sort of gross activity. Again, if I read you correctly (and I hope I am not putting words in your mouth here, Rob), what you are saying implies that a material aspect of the development of the path is not to be found in the teachings as they come to us, but has been left unsaid. I think we should be very careful about developing an understanding of the teachings that requires or encourages any such interpretation. Jon 8268 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle, > understanding does condition the degree of kusala of > the parami being developed (or rather developing), so > paññaa seems to be unique among the paramis in this > regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of pre-immminent > parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma? > (Apologies if someone has already made this clear). I think Rob K came in on this, but I can let you have a specific reference. In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka Atthakatha (published as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Brahmajala Sutta) it is explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the practice of the other paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all the paramis". It is also described as being to the other paramis as life is to the bodily organism. I think that gives it a certain pre-eminence. Another passage from the same section is of relevance to one of the other current threads on our list. In dealing with the role of wisdom in the perfection of energy parami, it says: "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the purpose desired, since it is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way." Note that energy is better not aroused at all than wrongly aroused. Strong words indeed. Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one that we probably associate with wisdom, is this: "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the wrongs of others, not the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the wrongs of others only provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his patience into play and make it grow even stronger." It might be interesting to consider the connection being made here. > > So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of > > panna being developed > > first or the paramis being developed first. If we > > see the importance of > > developing kusala we will develop all kinds of > > kusala--including panna and > > the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the > > occasion arises. > > Likewise, if the importance of developing > understanding specifically is seen, this knowledge > will condition the development of more paññaa > specifically, I should think. That is, this seems to > me to encourage a particular emphasis on understanding > in the development of the paramis. Yes, I believe that's what is found in the teachings. Thanks for your useful comments, Mike. Jon 8269 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:33pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Hi Erik, --- rikpa21 wrote: > That sounds awfully defeatist, Mike! Really! I honestly hadn't thought of it that way--I suppose it could sound that way. All I really meant, though, was that it suggests to me that this was regarded by the Buddha as a rather advanced practice. Of course I could be mistaken, I am inferring this certainly. > Without a basic degree of confidence that there is a > real shot at > getting out of samsara, what is the condition for > the type of effort > needed pursue and develop the path to completion? > How does this > attitude serve as a condition for relinquishment, or > where does the > Buddha suggest that adopting this kind of attitude > profits? Sorry if I gave the impression that I don't the end of dukkha isn't attainable. I have great confidence that it is attainable, by the complete understanding of the four noble truths (exclusively, I think). > How, given the incredible rarity of a human birth > (let alone the > rarity of the kamma to come into contact with the > Dhamma), not to > mention the incredibly heavy suffering of samsara, > does thinking like > this benefit? Also, where is the avoiding comparing > of self and other > in this line of thinking? Where is the pair of > samvega and pasada in > what was just said? I'll have to wait a bit to answer this in detail. Certainly samvega conditions a sense of urgency--just not necessarily to practice anapanasati (for me anyway). > http://here-and-now.org/wwwArticles/samvega.html > > Is there now enough training in the basics of the > Dhamma that > anapanasati is possible? This is, after all, a > practice the Buddha > was "content at heart with". I have never heard the > Buddha so praise > any other practise to this degree. Obviously, there > is enough samvega > to enter the homeless life. But is there enough > samvega to inspire an > even greater urgency to the degree that there is no > place given to > the belief that anapanasati is somehow "too > difficult"--to cast that > belief aside that compares self and other to the > degree of actual > discouragement? There are so many practices and avenues described and encouraged in the tipitaka. Just not sure that this particular one is suitable for everyone, for the reasons we've so often discussed here. Of course, I'm also not certain that it isn't. > It is easy to pile up layer after layer of reasons > not to engage this > practice (which is again the very first of the Four > Foundations of > Mindfulness that no teacher I have studied with has > ever suggested is > optional). Reasons like "it is too hard". Or "I am > not advanced > enough" etc. Let me just ask one question: can > liberation possibly > come to one who thinks these kinds of thoughts? I'm > not trying to > bust your chops, but asking. Only if these thoughts are correct, I think. Much depends on our understanding of mindfulness and the foundations of mindfulness, to be sure. Thanks for your concern for my welfare. You may bust my chops anytime. mike 8270 From: Jinavamsa Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 1:05am Subject: Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ hello Nina, Larry, Sarah, Ken, and all, I was looking for the passage in M.iii.19. I notice that the sutta in question, Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, however, is not at all there but at M.i.256-271. That should make it easier to find the passage in question. The Wisdom Publ. (Nyanamoli/Bodhi tr.) version has "Misguided man, ..." not "you stupid one" , btw, .... :>) jinavamsa ====================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Nina, Jina and Larry, > > I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing a > search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it helps. > this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following dsg.....;-)) > Sarah > > --- <> wrote: > > > Hi Nina, > > > > I was interested in this quotation too. Robert Kirkpatrick brought it up > > in message #8204 and from there I did an archive search but archive > > search doesn't seem to be working right now. As I remember the original > > reference by Ken ? from Australia also mentioned the mahatanhasankhaya > > sutta in MN. However the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of that sutta > > doesn,t have anything like the line quoted. You might try doing an > > archive search for (M III (PTS),p19) and see if you can track down this > > Ken guy. > > > > Larry > > --------------------------- > > re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in > > all > > things." > > > > Ken wrote originally: > > Hello Sarah > > After a brief flurry of activity, I seem to have reverted to my > lurking ways. This doesn't mean my interest in dsg has waned; to > the contrary, in my enthusiasm for what I am learning here, I am > still inclined to see the issues in black and white -- one side right, > one side wrong etc. > > Unfortunately, we zealots are the last ones to understand the > `party line' we are pushing. I wonder how many times > I've seen the > explanation that there is no self who controls, there is no self who > is controlled, and that dhammas arise only when the conditions for > their arising are present. In the post to which you refer, I claimed > to understand this, but immediately embarked on a theory which > proved only that I didn't. > > Each time I read your reply and other excellent explanations of > satipatthana, I think I am on the right track again but, with amazing > speed, I slip back into conventional ways thinking. > > I have just seen a reference to the Mahatanhasamkhaya-sutta. > Apparently it begins with the story of Bhikkhu Sati who taught a > wrong theory on the nature of consciousness, and mistakenly > attributed it to the Buddha. The lecture he received began with; > > "To whomever, you stupid one, have you heard me expounding the > doctrine in this manner? Haven't I, in many ways explained > consciousness as arising out of conditions; that there is no arising > of consciousness without conditions . . ." > > This would seem to be an example of how we worldlings not only > fail to have right understanding at the level of satipatthana, but > also get it wrong at the intellectual level. But to think that this > conventional lesson actually forms part of the Dhamma would be a > mistake, would it not? Even references to conventional wisdom are > to be seen in terms of absolute realities. > > Another good quote, which I found in the same book was, "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. (!) > > Kind regards > Ken > > "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere > in all things." (M III (PTS),p19) :-) 8271 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 1:05am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma op 23-09-2001 15:25 schreef Jonothan Abbott op Jonothan Abbott: > > 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? > > --- 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: >> >> > 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 someone's 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), viparinama-dukkha (dukkha because of change) and >> sankhåra-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 satipatthåna 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 årammana, 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 thinks. We >> can >> know when the citta knows a concept and when an ultimate reality, >> paramattha >> dhamma. When a paramattha dhamma is the object of citta, it must have >> the >> characteristic of arising and falling away, it has a true >> characteristic. >> When the object is not a paramattha dhamma with its true characteristic, >> the >> object is a concept. If we understand this, sati can be aware of the >> characteristics of paramattha dhammas, because satipaììhåna must know >> paramattha dhammas. The study can support correct understanding of the >> way >> of development of paññå. Everything we learn from the beginning is >> accumulated as the khandha of formations, sankhårakkhandha, and this is >> a >> condition for the growth of pañña.> >> >> End quote. Nina: Dear Jon and all, The teaching according to the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma is different, but each one of these methods points to the same goal: the development of satipatthana which leads to the eradication of defilements. Satipatthana can only be taught by a Buddha and thus it is always implied. Satipatthana is the one way of practice leading to the goal. But by these three methods we are reminded of the goal under different aspects. Since we are by nature forgetful, we should be grateful to be reminded by way of different aspects of the teachings. The monk has to observe the rules of Patimokkha, he has to have Patimokkha samvara sila, but also indriya samvara sila, the guarding of the six doors. There are different degrees of guarding the six doors, but the highest is satipatthana. By mindfulness of nama and rupa the six doors are guarded, there can be higher sila, adhisila. Someone may be inclined to rude speech, or to hurt an insect, but sati can arise and then he will not utter bad speech or hurt a living being. Vinaya should not be separated from satipatthana. And, as A. Sujin says, also layfollowers can apply rules of the Vinaya in their own situation. In the Discourses the Buddha spoke about the dukkha in our life: the loss of family and friends, a grandmother who went around to the corners of the streets, exclaiming, where is my granddaughter. When people were ready for it he would explain dukkha in change, how things are susceptible to change, and if their panna was developed enough he would explain that the five khandhas that are impermanent are dukkha. As Robert said in his post about the three methods, also when reading suttas you have to know a lot about khandhas, elements, ayatanas (sensefields). The Buddha gave a gradual teaching to people, about the danger of akusala, the benefit of kusala, and if they were ready for it, he taught the four noble Truths, and then people could attain enlightenment. We study the suttas, but the study should have as purpose the understanding of the characteristics of realities appearing now: nama and rupa, the khandhas, the elements, the ayatanas. The study should not stay on the level of theoretical knowledge. As to the Abhidhamma method, as Robert said, Abhidhamma is synonymous with understanding life, with vipassana. Seeing, hearing, attachment, aversion, feeling, they are realities of life and they are elucidated in detail in the Abhidhamma. With what purpose? To understand this moment, because in that way the panna develops that can eventually erdicate wrong view and the other defilements. Thus, the three parts of the teachings are one, all pointing to the same goal. The practice is one: satipatthana, understanding this very moment. Someone was wondering who meditates and who does not. Meditation is a word that can create confusion, shall we use the word bhavana, mental development? Samatha is bhavana but also vipassana is bhavana, and for vipassana, this can be developed no matter what one is doing. I am so glad the Buddha speaks in the Vinaya about cleaning the dwellings, freeing them from dust, washing the robes. The monks are supposed to do such chores with mindfulness. I am cleaning, cooking, ironing, and I should not be forgetful either, but I am most of the time forgetful. The word kammatthana is used in connection with bhavana, translated as meditation subject. In the Commentary to the Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes, Ch VII, § 5-8, elements have been explained in short and in detail as ayatanas, as khandhas and other dhammas. It is repeated that with these kammatthanas one can become an arahat. This means, they are not objects of mere concentration, they are objects of understanding. Understanding of the nama or rupa now. Otherwise arahatship could never be attained. Someone was looking for the text: all dhammas are anatta, this is in Dhammapada, vs. 279. Nibbana is included in all dhammas. Best wishes, Nina. 8272 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:26am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > > Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle, > > understanding does condition the degree of kusala > of > > the parami being developed (or rather developing), > so > > paññaa seems to be unique among the paramis in > this > > regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of > pre-immminent > > parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma? > > (Apologies if someone has already made this > clear). > > I think Rob K came in on this, but I can let you > have a specific > reference. > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka > Atthakatha (published > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > Brahmajala Sutta) it is > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the > practice of the other > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all > the paramis". It is > also described as being to the other paramis as life > is to the bodily > organism. I think that gives it a certain > pre-eminence. Definitely (and thanks for correcting my 'pre-immminence'). > Another passage from the same section is of > relevance to one of the other > current threads on our list. In dealing with the > role of wisdom in the > perfection of energy parami, it says: > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the > purpose desired, since it > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse > energy at all than to > arouse it in the wrong way." > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than > wrongly aroused. > Strong words indeed. Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be true of the other paramis, too. Without understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can be dangerous I think. > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one > that we probably > associate with wisdom, is this: > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the > wrongs of others, not > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the > wrongs of others only > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his > patience into play > and make it grow even stronger." > > It might be interesting to consider the connection > being made here. Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening patience. Thanks, Jon, mike 8273 From: Lim Tai Eng. Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 7:47am Subject: Loving Kindness Dear All We hope you like the attachment. A good daily morning "prayer" for all of us. It does convey a beautiful universal message. Breathing in, I know I am breathing in, Breathing out, I know I am breathing out, Breathing in, I relax myself, Breathing out, I smile. Slowly, step by step, we will take this journey INWARDS. Learning to Touch Peace in every step that we take. Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu. With Metta LTE 8274 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ Jon, Nina, et al., --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > In case this is a mistake, there is another citation > to the same passage, > namely 'S III, p. 103', a reference to the Samyutta > Nikaya, PTS edition. > It might be posible to track the passage down from > that. I'm afraid it isn't here either. I haven't been able to locate this phrase anyhere, so far. I'll keep you posted. mike 8275 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 0:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Thanks, Robert, I think this is interesting. Thanks for your message on the breath, which does clarify things to some extent. I am very attracted to working with breath myself, although as I've emphasized, I haven't been able to meditate much in this phase. Could you give a brief rundown on Dhammanusati and Buddhanusati, or URLs to look at? I have some views I'd like to interfere with. :-) Best, Robert E. ======================== --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > Dear Robert E., > I think there are many reasons why the breath is so popular. For one > thing it is the basis from which all Buddhas attain enlightenment. > For another it is highly praised by the Buddha.The breath is in many > ways a neutral object, hence it can be said to be suitable for all > personality types. However, as we see it is not recommended for all. > > Breath as an object of samatha is difficult. If it is being > developed correctly the citta that knows breath is associated with > panna(wisdom ) and alobha(detachment)- Sometimes we can know breath > BUT with lobha (attachment).However, even if it is an object of > attachment it may still have benefits (in a conventional way)- it can > be good for health or help to reduce the amount of thinking one does > (hence less worries). It can help concentration too. It doesn't > interfere with one's views when it is used in this way. Even > fanatical terrorists could profitably develop it (in the attachment > way - not as true samatha) as a way to relax themselves and focus the > mind. Whereas such objects as Dhammanusati or Buddhanusati (ones that > don't need special posture and that the Buddha specifically > recommended to laypeople) will have an impact on view- and hence may > not seem so appealing. > You wrote "Can someone who does > > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the > abhidhamma? I doubt > > it. "" > Well I have some very good friends in Thailand who have been > listening to T. A. Sujin's radio program for more than 20 years. They > are very poor and completely illiterate. And the details in Thai are > much more than we write here in English. I think the reasons one is > interested in Abhidhamma go back over lifetimes and even aeons. I > agree that only an intellectual would be interested in abhidhamma as > an academic subject - but it is different once we see that > Abhidhamma is about life here and now. I sometimes wonder why anyone > wouldn't be interested in Abhidhamma. > look fwd to your further comments. > best wishes > robert > > > Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the fact that the > breath is such a > > difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object of choice for > almost every > > meditation system in every culture. > > > > I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, or Hindu > meditation class or > > centre that didn't give breathing as the object of meditation! So > the fact that > > it is supposed to be only for the most advanced students is > extremely funny to me. > > It must be some kind of cosmic joke. > > > > I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so many systems is > that it is the > > bridge between awareness, life, physicality and outer envirnonment, > and so brings > > a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from this, systems > that are > > interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and intensification > find that the > > breath is a vehicle for opening up the psychophysical system, and I > think that > > appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the person's > vitality, capability > > and awareness all together. > > > > In any case, the only systems I have encountered that are not > particularly > > interested in the breath are the ones that are confronting the mind > and its > > objects more directly, and this seems to me to be more advanced, > not less advanced > > than working with the breath. For instance, abhidhamma seems to me > to be > > attempting the kind of specific breakdown of objective realities > and their > > apprehension that is only really suited for a philosopher. Can > someone who does > > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the > abhidhamma? I doubt > > it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at objects in the > moment and at > > least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the moment, but > even this requires > > a sharp intellect. > > > > In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and the immediate > reality of > > contact, perception and thought are also directly confronted in a > particular way. > > This is also in some ways an intellectual's anti-intellectual > exercise. It > > attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts of realities as > real, but at > > the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind has to be > pretty sharp. > > > > But anyone can do breathing meditation on some level. It is more > basic for most > > people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very interesting. > > > > Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more questions. I'll get > back with a > > detailed inquiry soon! > > > > [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?] > > > > Best Regards, > > Robert E. > > > > ============================ > 8276 From: Larry Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 0:24pm Subject: Re: conditionality M III (PTS), p.19 is correct. I think it refers to the PTS english script pali edition. In the Wisdom edition it is Mahapunnama Sutta 109.14. There the line is translated, "Now bhikkhus, you have been trained by me through interrogation on various occasions in regard to various things." The footnote says, "The readings of this sentence are highly divergent in different editions..." My guess is the quotation from "What The Buddha Taught" is Walpola Rahula's translation. Larry ------------------ re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." p.s. "conditionality" here seems to refer to dependent arising rather than compoundedness (sankhata) though for me sankhata is more experientially accessible. L. 8277 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 0:31pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Jon, A few possible points for your consideration: If the Sutras contained all that we need to know, why the commentaries, and why the teachers? I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but if Ajahn Chah or K. Sujin give teachings on how to work with the sutras and their application, then we can say that additional interpretations are actually necessary to put the sutras into practice. In other words, our understanding is not adequately fulfilled in many cases by the Buddha's words alone, or even by the Buddha's words and the traditional commentaries alone. But there is a growing, living tradition of understandings and insights at any given time, and we avail ourselves of these rivulets of wisdom that come off the main stream, do we not? Likewise, I may be more or less developed in my understanding, but I have to consult and develop my own sense of wisdom, as laughable as that may start out, in order to make the choices that I make from moment to moment. Is there anything inherently more desireable in considering oneself to be completely unqualified to discern the truth, than to promote one's own understanding through cultivation and referring back to it to see how it's coming along? I may have a very different view of things, but I don't see those on the path as being incapable of discerning anything apart from the sutras. I see the sutras as something to be incorporated and assimilated into one's own storehouse of wisdom. As I understand it [in the vaguest possible way] Abhidhamma teaches that panna is passed on and accumulated in successions of continuing moments, even though they arise and fall instantaneously one after the other. If one is growing an ability to see more and understand more of the true nature of things as one progresses, I would think that one's ability to discern what is true and false to increase as well. We will never reach spiritual maturity if we see ourselves as nothing and the Buddha as everything. I prefer to see us as potential Buddhas in training. Otherwise, by choosing a kind of passivity with respect to our own understanding, we may bypass many moments of panna that correspond to a kind of interest or investigation or creative moment that would otherwise be put forth. So while we may defer to the teachings themselves, I think we should engage with them actively and milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves, rather than take them as already whole and complete. To me, a sutra is a living document and also a blueprint, not fully actualized until it is ingested by a human being and turned into their way of seeing and understanding. I think it is equally dangerous as ignoring the sutras to assume we know what they mean by adopting the meanings that occur to us simply by reading [and even re-reading and re-reading] without challenging our view of that meaning over time and going through our own process of discovery. Anyway, I may prove to be off base, but that is the way it appears to me. Hope I'm not coming on too strong, considering I may not know what I'm talking about. Best Regards, Robert E. ========================= --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > When I speak of instinct, I actually give it strong weight. > > > Chogyam > > Trungpa, a Tibetan Rinpoche in the Kagyu/Nyingma lineages, said > > something to the > > affect that when the deluded mind takes over, enlightenment takes on the > > characteristic of an underlying instinct. Although you may not agree > > with the > > premise, I think you would agree that the delusory mind is deluded, > > however, those > > of us trying to reach an more enlightened state have some sort of > > 'instinct' that > > such a thing exists. Otherwise, I don't think the scriptures and sutras > > would > > particularly excite us….. > > Instinct can be based on understanding, or it can be based on ignorance or > wrong view. Is there a solid reason for presuming that our instinct is > based on understanding? What weight should we give to the assurances of > modern-day commentators, if nothing to the same effect is found in the > texts or commentaries? > > If the suttas are of interest to us in this lifetime, there is a > relatively simple and straightforward explanation for that, namely an > interest in the suttas in previous existences. But this is not an > indicator of the degree of wisdom that has been developed, or the lack of > accumulated strong wrong view -- simply an indicator of a previous > interest in the teachings. > > > …. We sense that what is spoken of is a reality. > > Personally, I feel that if one does not consult that reality in whatever > > way one > > has present access to it, then the sutras alone will not carry one. > > Each stage of > > the path must be experienced, must it not, to take root in the > > understanding, not > > just read about? > > I am with you as regards the need to clearly distinguish between the study > and understanding of the teachings as given in the suttas, on the one > hand, and the understanding by direct experience that is the practice > being described in the suttas, on the other hand. But I don’t see where > the 'sense of reality' (aka instinct) fits in, in terms of anything found > in the teachings. What is this other factor that you are referring to, > and why isn't it mentioned in the teachings? > > > My sense that enlightenment is one's true nature comes from glimpses and > > experiences I've had in meditation as well. If I had no experiential > > sense of > > this, I probably wouldn't even have a concept of it. I would think > > there is also > > a guiding set of experiences that you have cultivated through > > understanding or > > practice that makes the sutras 'real' to you. Is that not so? > > It is tempting to ascribe significance to experiences one has had, but > this is I believe an unhelpful and potentially misleading practice to > develop. > > > Certainly the scriptures are a guide to what is to be understood, > > practiced and > > experienced. But I feel that without cultivating the experiences, the > > scriptures > > cannot really be understood, except as general indications. As specific > > as the > > words may be, they indicate something that is to be understood, if not > > practiced, > > something to be realized. I understand that there has been quite a bit > > of > > discussion about not taking the Buddha's words as calls to 'actions'. > > But I would > > think that practice, whether in meditation or contemplation of reality, > > would be a > > focus on understanding, rather than an attempt to change behavior or > > perception > > through some sort of gross activity. > > Again, if I read you correctly (and I hope I am not putting words in your > mouth here, Rob), what you are saying implies that a material aspect of > the development of the path is not to be found in the teachings as they > come to us, but has been left unsaid. I think we should be very careful > about developing an understanding of the teachings that requires or > encourages any such interpretation. > > Jon 8278 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 2:01pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality Larry, Conratulations! One obviously needs quite a bit of patience and knowledge to follow W.Rahula’s refs! --- Larry wrote: > > M III (PTS), p.19 is correct. I think it refers to the PTS english > script pali edition. In the Wisdom edition it is Mahapunnama Sutta > 109.14. There the line is translated, "Now bhikkhus, you have been > trained by me through interrogation on various occasions in regard to > various things." > > The footnote says, "The readings of this sentence are highly divergent > in different editions..." My guess is the quotation from "What The > Buddha Taught" is Walpola Rahula's translation. OK I’m with you or rather with B.bodhi’s translation. In the same footnote (for those who don’t have this translation) he goes on to say that Nanamoli’s translation (based on PTS Majjhima text) reads: ‘Now, bhikkhus, you hve been trained by me in dependent (conditionality) in various instances.’ He mentions the Pali, pa.ticca viniitaa, which I would expect to mean ‘trained to look for causality/conditionality’. I think we need to read the line in context of the sutta in which the Buddha admonishes a monk who seems to appreciate the 5 khandhas are not self but still wonders what self will receive the results of these non-self khandhas: ‘It is possible, bhikkhus, that some misguided man here, obtuse and ignorant, with his mind dominated by craving, might think that he can outstrip the Teacher’s Dispensation thus: ‘So, it seems, material form is not self...consciousness is not self. What self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?’ Now bhikkhus, you have been trained by me.......’ In summary, B.Bodhi’s translation doesn’t say much to me, whereas the emphasis on conditionality in Nanamoli’s and Rahula’s would seem right. I’d be interested to see the full Pali for the original phrase quoted and better still to have any further explanation/translation from one of our many Pali scholars here. (Larry, you must be one yourself to have tracked it down I think;-)) > re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in > all things." > > p.s. "conditionality" here seems to refer to dependent arising rather > than compoundedness (sankhata) though for me sankhata is more > experientially accessible. > Just seen this interesting note of yours, Larry. I’m wondering what the difference would be here. As I understand it, sankhata refers any reality that is formed or conditioned (ie all realities except nibbana) and pa.ticca refers to conditionality and dependent nature of the same realities (i.e. no self to be found anywhere as stressed in the sutta). Thanks very much, Larry and again I’m impressed and delighted to read your recent contributions. I’d like to hear anymore about your studies and dhamma interest too;-) Sarah 8279 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:19pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Robert E., If you are attracted to the breath it may be that you had practice in past lives with this object (or it could be just some mundane desire). Anyway it is useful to know the difficulties one may face and how one might confuse miccha-samadhi(wrong concentration) with samma-samadhi (right concentration). In ancient times teachers of samatha were aware of all 40 objects. In the sammohavinodani (1153) p310 of vol 1 translation It explains the case of a monk who is trying to develop the meditation on parts of the body. In this example the monk gets colour appearing. The teacher realises that this monk must have developed meditation on kasina in past lives and so directs him to leave the body meditation and go onto kasina. If a teacher only knows anapanasati he might not be able to do this.. Thus I think we have to study carefully for ourselves at this time; and in that way be in a better position to judge what suits us. Now about Buddhanusati and Dhammusati and sanghanusati.. A comprehensive description of these ways of samatha is given in chapter VII of the Visuddhimagga. How do we develop Buddhanusati? There are so many ways. Basically whenever we reflect with kusala citta(wholesome mind ) about the merits of the Buddha and what he discovered we are doing this. In section VII 10-22 it gives as one example the dependent origination and how the Buddha understood it and so brought it to an end "Mentality-materiality is a condition for the sixfold base in sensual becoming.....the six kinds of contact in sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of feeling in sensual becoming...Now the Blessed one knew, saw and understood this and penetrated it in all aspects.." So there are inumerable ways one can reflect with understanding and detachment in this way. In a sense while reflecting we are also teaching ourself and making conditions for future reflection. It can't reach the deep stages of concentration that breath can (because it relies on reflection) but can be done at any time in any posture. The deeper ones understanding of the Dhamma the easier, deeper, and more diverse this type of samatha is. For myself when/if I reflect: "the six kinds of contact in sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of feeling in sensual becoming" it reminds me almost automatically of the feelings that are arising now. Am I taking these feelings now as "my" feelings - if so then the nature of micchaditthi (self view) is apparent. If they are perceived as "not mine", as only phenomena, that is well and good but I know that understanding is not yet enough to properly penetrate their nature. I add this to show how samatha and satipatthana(at some level) can alternate and support each other. Personally I don't think too much about having one or the other, this is just the way it works for me. robert Thanks, Robert, I think this is interesting. Thanks for your message on the breath, which does clarify things to some extent. I am very attracted to working with breath myself, although as I've emphasized, I haven't been able to meditate much in this phase. Could you give a brief rundown on Dhammanusati and Buddhanusati, or URLs to look at? I have some views I'd like to interfere with. :-) Best, Robert E. ======================== --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > Dear Robert E., > I think there are many reasons why the breath is so popular. For one > thing it is the basis from which all Buddhas attain enlightenment. > For another it is highly praised by the Buddha.The breath is in many > ways a neutral object, hence it can be said to be suitable for all > personality types. However, as we see it is not recommended for all. > > Breath as an object of samatha is difficult. If it is being > developed correctly the citta that knows breath is associated with > panna(wisdom ) and alobha(detachment)- Sometimes we can know breath > BUT with lobha (attachment).However, even if it is an object of > attachment it may still have benefits (in a conventional way)- it can > be good for health or help to reduce the amount of thinking one does > (hence less worries). It can help concentration too. It doesn't > interfere with one's views when it is used in this way. Even > fanatical terrorists could profitably develop it (in the attachment > way - not as true samatha) as a way to relax themselves and focus the > mind. Whereas such objects as Dhammanusati or Buddhanusati (ones that > don't need special posture and that the Buddha specifically > recommended to laypeople) will have an impact on view- and hence may > not seem so appealing. > You wrote "Can someone who does > > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the > abhidhamma? I doubt > > it. "" > Well I have some very good friends in Thailand who have been > listening to T. A. Sujin's radio program for more than 20 years. They > are very poor and completely illiterate. And the details in Thai are > much more than we write here in English. I think the reasons one is > interested in Abhidhamma go back over lifetimes and even aeons. I > agree that only an intellectual would be interested in abhidhamma as > an academic subject - but it is different once we see that > Abhidhamma is about life here and now. I sometimes wonder why anyone > wouldn't be interested in Abhidhamma. > look fwd to your further comments. > best wishes > robert > 8280 From: Robert Eddison Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:26pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Anders: SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." Howard: Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I have no idea of where to look. Anders: I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. Howard: I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is unacceptable. Robert: There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being referred to. When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and the latter is not impermanent). As the Samyutta Commentary states: 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels are impermanent. 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not self. (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the three already mentioned together with the supramundane level (lokuttarabhuumi)] Best wishes, Robert Eddison P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a backlog of letters. 8281 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 5:02pm Subject: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Mike & Howard, Sorry to butt in here a bit late .. --- "m. nease" 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. ---------------------------------------------------- > Mike > 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. ------------------------------------------------- Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to com notes on AN1 10): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) .............................................. Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The commentary to this text explains the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life continuum (bhavanga), which is ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by defilements. The defilements arise only in the active thought process, not in the subliminal flow of consciousness’. .............................................. Nyanaponika’s footnote was his ‘summary’ of the ancient commentary to AN (not published in English I think). The Pali for the ‘essential’ phrase in the commentary is: ‘navame pabhassaranti pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti bhava"ngacitta.m.’ Jim indicated the meaning: "In the ninth : 'luminous' is clear, pure. 'mind' is bhava"ngacitta.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In post no 7296 (to Anders) I give many more of Nina’s translation notes and K.Sujin’s discussion on this point which may be of more interest now. ------------------------------------------------- > Howard > > (BTW, I'm not sure > > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the > > suttas.) > -------------------------------------------------- >Mike > I'm not sure either, not at all sure. ------------------------------------------------------ I also think most (all) the refs to bhavanga cittas are in the abhidhamma and commentaries such as the Vism. Do Questions of K. Milinda qualify? I came across this reference sometime ago, but it’s taken me a while to re-trace it: Qs of K.Milinda, 1V,8,36, Max Muller’s transl: ‘Ven Nagasena, when a man dreams a dream, is he awake or asleep?’ ‘Neither the one, O king, nor yet the other. But when his sleep has become light, and he is not yet fully conscious, in that interval it is that dreams are dreamt. When a man is in deep sleep, O king, his mind has returned home (has entered again into Bhavanga), and a mind thus shut in does not act, and a mind hindered in its action knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not has no dreams. It is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. Just, O king, as in the darkness and gloom, where no light is, no shadow will fall even on the most burnished mirror, so when a man is in deep sleep his mind has returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not act, and a mind inactive knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not does not dream. For it is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. As the miror, O king, are you to regard the body, as the darkness sleep, as the light the mind.’ This reminds me that Khun Sujin told me once that the arahat does not dream because there are no kilesa (defilements) which makes sense, I think. In the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (111, 8) we read that: ‘Bhavanga cittas arise and pass away every moment during life whenever there is no active cognitive process taking place. This type of consciousness is most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but it also occurs momentarily during waking life countless times between occasions of active cognition.’ I don’t begin to pretend to understand anything about bhavanga cittas except just a little in theory. Sarah 8282 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 5:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, We seem to have come to a useful and pleasant conclusion to the sabhava thread and I'd like to thank you very much for your careful consideration and helpful feedback. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks Sarah, > That actually clarifies a lot. I'm starting to get a better sense of some of > these breakdowns and how they coordinate through hitting it at different > angles > this way. But as you stress, the direct apprehension of realities to the > extent > one is capable is where the classifications find their real expression in > life. > If we take what is happening in the moment, then the classifications are not > as > important. Yes, you've really appreciated what I've been (often clumsily) trying to express very well. >They will sort themselves out as they become useful in looking at > real > experiences. This is my thought anyway, after these exchanges. However, I'm > happy to be getting a little better picture of where and how the Buddha > breaks > down these realities. Yes, perhaps we can say that we may look at different maps to drive to our destination. Some are simple and some are very detailed. Different maps give us different indications or landmarks which help us find the way. We need to have a look at some of the maps before we start off, but as we start travelling we will need to look again and perhaps check the more detailed maps as we move along. However, we don't have to remember all the details of all the maps and it may be that different maps make more 'sense' to different people. However, with no maps and no directions, it's not possible to find the way. > > Thanks again. Likewise, Sarah 8283 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 5:41pm Subject: Welcome & (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Rob Ed, (Rob K, Rob Ep) Thank you very much indeed for your extremely helpful comments below, which I look forward to reading more carefully later. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that I'm really delighted that you've joined us here and really look forward to more of your very 'enlightened' contributions;-) I hope you're fully recovered now and when you've 'caught up' , I think we'd all be very interested to hear anything you wish to share about how your serious interest in the Tipitaka and Pali developed (or anything else mundane such as where you live and so on). We now have 3 Roberts and 2 Robert Es and not a Bob between you!! What to do? I think you'll have to be Rob, Rob E and Rob Ed, unless anyone has any other ideas;-)) Or maybe Rob K, Rob Ep and Rob Ed would confuse newcomers less .. Welcome again, Sarah --- Robert Eddison wrote: > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being > referred to. > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and > the latter is not impermanent). > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels > are impermanent. > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not > self. > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > (lokuttarabhuumi)] 8284 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Sarah, Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely mistaken, on all counts. Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence which was subsequently covered by defilements (but continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. I admit that Jim's translation might be read this way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga at the moment to be covered, as I understand it. I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, even theoretically. But it does remind me of something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like the purest water? If I understand this correctly, citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those who know. Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my inane comments, Howard. I should have backtracked more before posting my response. Even when we disagree I value your correspondence very highly. Thanks again, Sarah. mike --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Mike & Howard, > > Sorry to butt in here a bit late .. > > --- "m. nease" 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. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Mike > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------- > Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts > of mine, (referring to com > notes on AN1 10): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it > is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, > and it is freed from > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > .............................................. > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The > commentary to this text explains > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life > continuum (bhavanga), which is > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by > defilements. The > defilements arise only in the active thought > process, not in the subliminal > flow of consciousness’. > .............................................. > Nyanaponika’s footnote was his ‘summary’ of the > ancient commentary to AN (not > published in English I think). > > The Pali for the ‘essential’ phrase in the > commentary is: ‘navame pabhassaranti > pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti > bhava"ngacitta.m.’ > > Jim indicated the meaning: "In the ninth : > 'luminous' is clear, pure. > 'mind' is bhava"ngacitta.” > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In post no 7296 (to Anders) I give many more of > Nina’s translation notes and > K.Sujin’s discussion on this point which may be of > more interest now. > ------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard > > > (BTW, I'm not sure > > > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in > the > > > suttas.) > > -------------------------------------------------- > >Mike > > I'm not sure either, not at all sure. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > I also think most (all) the refs to bhavanga cittas > are in the abhidhamma and > commentaries such as the Vism. > > Do Questions of K. Milinda qualify? I came across > this reference sometime ago, > but it’s taken me a while to re-trace it: > > Qs of K.Milinda, 1V,8,36, Max Muller’s transl: > > ‘Ven Nagasena, when a man dreams a dream, is he > awake or asleep?’ > ‘Neither the one, O king, nor yet the other. But > when his sleep has become > light, and he is not yet fully conscious, in that > interval it is that dreams > are dreamt. When a man is in deep sleep, O king, > his mind has returned home > (has entered again into Bhavanga), and a mind thus > shut in does not act, and a > mind hindered in its action knows not the evil and > the good, and he who knows > not has no dreams. It is when the mind is active > that dreams are dreamt. Just, > O king, as in the darkness and gloom, where no light > is, no shadow will fall > even on the most burnished mirror, so when a man is > in deep sleep his mind has > returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not > act, and a mind inactive > knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows > not does not dream. For it > is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. > As the miror, O king, are > you to regard the body, as the darkness sleep, as > the light the mind.’ > > This reminds me that Khun Sujin told me once that > the arahat does not dream > because there are no kilesa (defilements) which > makes sense, I think. > > In the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (111, 8) we read that: > > ‘Bhavanga cittas arise and pass away every moment > during life whenever there > is no active cognitive process taking place. This > type of consciousness is > most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but it > also occurs momentarily during > waking life countless times between occasions of > active cognition.’ > > I don’t begin to pretend to understand anything > about bhavanga cittas except > just a little in theory. > > Sarah 8285 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:36pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment Rob E Thanks for your carefully thought-out comments. I will do my best to respond in kind. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your > description that > you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of > pre-existing > or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition > involved > in whether a kusala or akusala moments. I suppose it depends on what you mean by volition. If you mean the intention, say, to have kusala at a subsequent moment, then I would say that experience tells us that such intention may or may not bring the desired outcome. The arising of kusala is conditioned by many factors but principally, I believe, by one's accumulated tendencies for the various forms of wholesome conduct (and also by the 'suitability' of the occasion). For example, no matter how much we may resolve to respond better next time in a particular situation, if we lack the understanding and the particular accumulated tendencies to do so, it will not happen. The intention to have kusala is in essence a kind of mental activity, similar to thinking and not necessarily different in nature from other kinds of intention, for example, to get something to eat or drink. It may *seem* more lofty, but perhaps that's because we are not able to discriminate kusala from akusala moments to any significant degree, other than by inference. > However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of > the kusala > and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an > effect on > cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent > or effort > to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just > the outcome > of arising conditions and causes? Rob, I'm afraid you've lost me here, but let me say that if the aim is the cultivation of more moments of kusala mind-states (which means the development of samatha rather than satipatthana/vipassana), then understanding directly the kusala or akusala nature of the presently arising mind-states is how that can be achieved in time. There is, however, a higher aim which is the development of the understanding of the true nature of realities, and this is the teaching that is unique to a Buddha. Under this form of development (bhavana), it is all realities, not just mind-states, that are to be known and understood as they are and, accordingly, there is no selecting of the reality that is to be the object of attention or awareness -- the object may be a rupa, or one of the moments of experience through a sense-door; but one is not concerned *in particular* with understanding the nature of the present mind-state. This of course does not mean one has any less interest in developing more kusala; rather it means that the path can be developed regardless of the nature of the present mind-state or one's awareness of it. > I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely > passive to this > process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting > conditions of the > kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices > the > arisings. I hope what I have said above answers this last part; but if not, please let me know. I do not myself think in terms of 'active' or 'passive', but perhaps by some terms of reference these descriptions could be appropriate. Thanks again for the chance to discuss these important aspects. Jon > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path. > > > Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time, > > naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort > is > > 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the > > wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila. > > > > Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of > greatest > > benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala. > > > > We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise > in > > our lives, just as we should also know more about the > non-kusala/akusala > > moments, too. 8286 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:39pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Practise Herman Great to have you back, and in one piece, too. Glad to hear you had a good time. --- Herman wrote: > Hi all, > > I am not selective in the suttas I read, and most of them desribe the > Buddha in a sitting meditation position, prior to him speaking. > > The introductions to the suttas I have read, and these introductions > are as much a part of the suttas as what others may consider > the "meat" of the suttas, leave no doubt in this little mind that the > method of the Buddha was seated meditation. The Buddha's method of what? Of sitting, yes (sorry, Herman, couldn't resist that one!). I do have a comment to make, though. > There has been discussion previously as to whether or not seated > meditation is explicitly prescribed in the suttas. > > Is it possible that seated meditation is so implicit in everything > the Buddha did, that it was considered labouring an obvious point to > have mentioned it the discursive sections of the Tipitaka?? If it was implicit in everything he said or did (in much the same way as the suttas are to be read as referring to the realities of the present moment), then one might expect to find this brought out in the commentaries and other ancient texts, wouldn't you think? Just a thought. Jon 8287 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Well, if you ever see an Arahanta advertising for a > roomate, I would jump at it. Hey--get in line. > This also reminds me of the Platform Sutra of Hui > Neng in Chinese Ch'an Buddhism. > After many of the lectures, the last sentence is > something like: "After Hui Neng > finished speaking, the entire assembly was > enlightened". Well, I would have liked > to have been there! This was a favorite of mine, too. Well, I'm even less competent to comment on Mahayana texts than on Theravada texts. So I think I'll leave this one alone. Best wishes, mike 8288 From: Ken Howard Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 9:50pm Subject: Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ Dear Sarah > > > I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing a > search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it helps. > this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following dsg.....;-)) > Sometimes, as now, I'm a day or two behind, but I read every message in full. What a day to miss though! I was dsg's most wanted! Get Ken! Or, as Larry put it, "track down this Ken guy." Just as I was about to surface with the vital information, I saw that Jon had beaten me to it. He revealed the `second reference' hidden in Walpola Rahula's footnotes. I was encouraged to see that Nina shared my liking for the quote in question and I also enjoyed your conversation with Larry about the alternative translations. The Wisdom rendition lacked a certain something, so it was nice to know that Rahula's version was acceptable. Although I was joking when I said I used it as a mantra, I do bring it to mind several times a day; it's suitable for all occasions. I'm glad you have raised the subject of whether I am `following dsg.' If you knew how big a part of my daily routine it was, you'd probably tell me to `get a life.' I would like be to more of a contributor by nature, but as things are, I'm all too content to follow the discussions from the sidelines. Kind regards Ken Howard "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." (M III (PTS), p. 19; S III, p. 103) 8289 From: Howard Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 6:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Mike (and Sarah) - In a message dated 9/26/01 8:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely > mistaken, on all counts. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I second your thanks for Sarah's post. ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent > defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga > at the moment to be covered, as I understand it. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You being worried about my use of the term 'originally' is not unjustified. There may very well have been a Mahayana influence in my using it. ------------------------------------------------------- > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those > who know. > > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my > inane comments, Howard. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not in the slightest - and I don't accept your negative characterization of your comments. ------------------------------------------------------- I should have backtracked > more before posting my response. Even when we > disagree I value your correspondence very highly. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Mike. Likewise. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks again, Sarah. > > 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) 8290 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 1:01am Subject: Ken's Mantra, conditionality Dear Jina, thank you very much for your kind help, I found the text: You, monks, have been trained by me (to look for conditions, paticca-vinita) now here, now there, in these things and in those.(M.N. no. 109, 19) I find that the translation used by Ken has more impact, it is more direct. I do not have the Pali. Many thanks, Nina. 8291 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 6:40am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS -- Welcome Robert ED., Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. best wishes robert - Robert Eddison wrote: > Anders: > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > Howard: > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I have no > idea of where to look. > > Anders: > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > Howard: > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > unacceptable. > > Robert: > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being > referred to. > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and > the latter is not impermanent). > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels > are impermanent. > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not > self. > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > Best wishes, > > Robert Eddison > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a backlog of letters. 8292 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi all, All the Roberts are very good in their presentation and debating of views. Maybe I should consider naming my son as Robert. Three cheers for the three Roberts :) Warmest regards Kenneth Ong robertkirkpatrick wrote: -- Welcome Robert ED., Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. best wishes robert - Robert Eddison wrote: > Anders: > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > Howard: > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I have no > idea of where to look. > > Anders: > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > Howard: > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > unacceptable. > > Robert: > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being > referred to. > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and > the latter is not impermanent). > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels > are impermanent. > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not > self. > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > Best wishes, > > Robert Eddison > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a backlog of letters. 8293 From: m. nease Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hear, hear! mn --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi all, > All the Roberts are very good in their presentation > and debating of views. Maybe I should consider > naming my son as Robert. > Three cheers for the three Roberts :) > Warmest regards > Kenneth Ong > robertkirkpatrick wrote: -- > > Welcome Robert ED., > Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. > best wishes > robert > - Robert Eddison wrote: > > Anders: > > > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > > > Howard: > > > > Could you please be more detailed in this > reference? From "SN 4" I > have no > > idea of where to look. > > > > Anders: > > > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > > > Howard: > > > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, > and I have read > the > > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta > Nikaya, the Sutta > Nipata, > > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very > surprising to come > across > > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a > clearer signpost. I > think > > this is an important matter. It would imply one of > two things: (1) > Nibbana > > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of > which the first is > > unacceptable. > > > > Robert: > > > > There are a small number of texts in which > impermanence is > predicated of > > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is > always some term > or > > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of > dhamma. For example, > the > > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* > dhammas are > impermanent" > > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of > the Abhidhamma > Pi.taka > > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa > aniccaa), but the > context > > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and > sense objects that > are being > > referred to. > > > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such > limiting terms or > phrases > > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is > predicated of them. > The > > reason for this according to the Commentaries is > that "dhammas" in > such > > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the > unconditioned > dhamma (and > > the latter is not impermanent). > > > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe > tebhuumakasan.khaaraa > aniccaa. > > > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all > formations on the > three levels > > are impermanent. > > > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe > catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on > the four levels > are not > > self. > > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), > the refined > material > > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). > "Four levels" > means the > > three already mentioned together with the > supramundane level > > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Robert Eddison > > > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the > e-mails sent to me by > > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was > sick for about a > > fortnight and am just beginning to read and > prepare replies to a > backlog of letters. > 8294 From: Larry Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 11:56am Subject: Re: conditionality Hello Sarah, I can't comment on the pali, unfortunately, but I agree this is an "answer" that should be considered in the context of the question: "What self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?" Whatever "conditionality" may mean, I think the general idea is that actions don't affect or effect a self but rather action conditions or perpetuates action and this is, in itself, suffering. Or something like that ;) This brings to mind the dualism of conditioned and unconditioned, another imponderable which may possibly be resolved "in the moment" a la mahayana. I guess it depends on whether you think the unconditioned... [sorry, I couldn't finish this sentence]. Getting in way over my head. Nice to meet you, and you too Ken. Larry 8295 From: Binh A Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:28pm Subject: Question on Arahant G'day all, I have received a message from a Dhamma friend asking about the definition of Arahatship (as attached below, slightly edited). I hope you could assist in answering his enquiry . Metta, Binh PS. I also posted this message to the <> list. ************************************ [...] During my studies I came up with a question that I am not able to resolve myself and hope you could help me or ask someone nearby that could help. One of my field of interests in Buddhism, besides practice of course, is the distinction Mahayana-Hinayana, how it came about and the issues around it. Today, while I was reading through the third volume of Anguttara I came across a passage at Pa.thamahita Sutta, A.iii.12 (I inserted the Pali passage in Vri font). PTS translation runs like: 'Herein, monks, a monk is accomplished in virtue himself, but does not strive to perfect virtue in another'... (the same is repeated for concentration, wisdom, release (vimutti) and vision and knowledge of release). Now, I find that this passage, and many similar I found in Samyutta and Anguttara is a strong support that the Canon Pali emphasizes to search for liberation and all the rest for oneself and the others, placing itself above the later criticism of Mahayana proponents that accused Hinayana folowers as of searching for liberation only for themselves. The other passages I found make it clear that one should strive for the good of the both. Now, this particular passage in particular different from the others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those factors, including release, while, at the same time does not strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in release) and at the same time not strive for the release of others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that there was a kind of Arahant. (...) Could it be possible to interpret 'sampanno' in another way so that the meaning would be different. Or is that that the Buddha really makes a criticism of the Arahant? Would there be two kinds of Arahant, one the was accomplished only for himself and another *more complete*? -------------- Paµhamahitasutta½ (A.iii.12) 17. "Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±ya. Katamehi pañcahi? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu attan± s²lasampanno hoti, no para½ s²lasampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± sam±dhisampanno hoti, no para½ sam±dhisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± paññ±sampanno hoti, no para½ paññ±sampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttisampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampad±ya sam±dapeti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi aªgehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±y±"ti. Sattama½. ******************************************* 8296 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Howard Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective on a couple of the areas where we differ. --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > 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'. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that > there be) > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of > the > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until > that > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for > attention to > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter > of > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing > it > or tearing the mind away. I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the object is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') the akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to return to the chosen object. I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana in passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking is in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you see the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or is it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana? Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of applying attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, Howard? > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > 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. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yep! > --------------------------------------------------- > > > 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. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard. I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to have effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta chain. I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but the Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So while 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable thought you have put into these matters, Howard. Jon > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > 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). > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > We should "let go" of all dhammas, kusala, akusala, whatever, > neither > pushing away nor grasping, but being mindful of them, without reaction, > merely noting them, their nature, their inception, continuation, > diminution, > and cessation. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > 'Right effort' is the effort *of* kusala, rather than the effort *to > have* > > kusala. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > But it *is* effort. In one well along the way, applying > mindfulness, > focussed attention, and clear comprehension may frequently occur rather > automatically, but, for most of us, most of the time, this requires the > conscious application of volition and constant remembering. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 8297 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > 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. > > Understood. The Atthasaalinii says "It has the > characteristic of noting and of recognizing what has > been previously noted." When I spectulated that it's > 'largely latent', I meant in the sense of having the > latent ability to recognize what is not being noted > (cognized) at the moment--an infinitessimally small > part of what it can recognize from having noted it in > the past...(?) I get your point. A lot of unrealised potential there! Thanks, Mike. Jon > > > 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, > > Actually easier to grasp than any other explanation > I'm aware of... > > > 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!). > > To be sure. > > mike > 8298 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 1:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Question on Arahant Hi Binh, "Now, this particular passage in particular different from the others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those factors, including release, while, at the same time does not strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in release) and at the same time not strive for the release of others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that there was a kind of Arahant." I could only answer this paragrah only These are my humble opinions. Mahayana principle is to follow the Bodhisattva path to Buddha accomplishment of enlightment. The most difficult part for Theravadas is the difference of Mahayana view of enlightment between Arahat and Buddha. The enlightment of Arahant in Mahayana views is not the same as Buddha's enlightment because to attain Arahat enlightment, it is to let go of a self. In Mahayana teachings, Arahat still attached to an idea of a non self as a self is condition by a non self. In order to reach Buddha enlightment there is a need to let go of a non self which is much harder than letting go of a self. That is, I think partly the reasons why there are ten stages of a Bodhisattvas. Furthermore, in Mahayana view, to accomplish the Buddha's enlightment, there is a need to accomplished their vows they made when they are Bodhisattvas. Most of the vows are of compassionate grounds. Only when the vows are accomplished, and they reach emptiness, then would a Bodhisttva become a Buddha. This means we need to liberate ourselves before we need to liberate others. But the problem with most Mahayanist now are that they forget that in order to be Bodhisattva, there is a need to liberate oneself first. Please excuse my bluntness, if we do not know how to swim, how do we teach pple to swim. To be frank and honest and not against anyone here, Mahayanist practises only the spirit of Bodhisattva not the actual Bodhisattva first. Why? Because in the first place in order to be Bodhisattva we first got to let go of our self ego . A Bodhisattva has a mind that is not dwell anywhere or anything. In Mahayana word, it is emptiness. I am also practise Mahayanist path, but my humble conclusions is that most of us are following the spirit and not the actual Bodhisattva path. This is not a self defeating thought because unless we are able to cross the wheel of cycle of life, then we could really help beings on their liberation. In addition, in order to show boundless compassion towards others, we must first learn to shed our attachment to a self. Or not our compassion will still be cling on to a self. But please do not misunderstood that compassion is not impt practise, it is definitely impt even if we still have many self ego views as it help us to lessen the attach to a self. Furthermore, it is a misconception of present day Mahayanists that Thervadas only liberate themselves. Buddhas ten highly accomplished human disciples are all thervadas practitioners. They teach Buddhism to other monks, to other layman who ask them, who other pple who happen to chance on them. We could see in the Pali Cannon that there are many stories about these Nobles ones conversations with layman and others. The first council of Buddha teachings (which mostly comprises of Thervadas) is convene partly due to have a proper recollection of Buddha teachings so that future generations like us able to benefit it. Please forgive me if I am too direct and hurt anyone feeling here. With kindest regards Kenneth Ong Binh A wrote: G'day all, I have received a message from a Dhamma friend asking about the definition of Arahatship (as attached below, slightly edited). I hope you could assist in answering his enquiry . Metta, Binh [...] During my studies I came up with a question that I am not able to resolve myself and hope you could help me or ask someone nearby that could help. One of my field of interests in Buddhism, besides practice of course, is the distinction Mahayana-Hinayana, how it came about and the issues around it. Today, while I was reading through the third volume of Anguttara I came across a passage at Pa.thamahita Sutta, A.iii.12 (I inserted the Pali passage in Vri font). PTS translation runs like: 'Herein, monks, a monk is accomplished in virtue himself, but does not strive to perfect virtue in another'... (the same is repeated for concentration, wisdom, release (vimutti) and vision and knowledge of release). Now, I find that this passage, and many similar I found in Samyutta and Anguttara is a strong support that the Canon Pali emphasizes to search for liberation and all the rest for oneself and the others, placing itself above the later criticism of Mahayana proponents that accused Hinayana folowers as of searching for liberation only for themselves. The other passages I found make it clear that one should strive for the good of the both. Now, this particular passage in particular different from the others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those factors, including release, while, at the same time does not strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in release) and at the same time not strive for the release of others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that there was a kind of Arahant. (...) Could it be possible to interpret 'sampanno' in another way so that the meaning would be different. Or is that that the Buddha really makes a criticism of the Arahant? Would there be two kinds of Arahant, one the was accomplished only for himself and another *more complete*? -------------- Paµhamahitasutta½ (A.iii.12) 17. "Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±ya. Katamehi pañcahi? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu attan± s²lasampanno hoti, no para½ s²lasampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± sam±dhisampanno hoti, no para½ sam±dhisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± paññ±sampanno hoti, no para½ paññ±sampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttisampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampad±ya sam±dapeti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi aªgehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±y±"ti. Sattama½. ******************************************* 8299 From: Howard Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/27/01 9:41:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > > Howard > > Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective on a > couple of the areas where we differ. > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > 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'. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that > > there be) > > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of > > the > > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until > > that > > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for > > attention to > > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter > > of > > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing > > it > > or tearing the mind away. > > I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular > object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the object > is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') the > akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to > return to the chosen object. > > I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana in > passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking is > in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you see > the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or is > it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana? > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: My statement here pertained to an early stage of meditation, in which concentration is still weak, a stage in which one uses a primary object, say the breath, as kind of an anchor for the meditation. In that stage, focus is on the "anchor". When other objects arise, one sees them clearly (and this is to be done for kusala as well as akusala), but observes them "lightly", without clinging or aversion, letting the objects come and go, duely noting their nature in the process, and then returning to the anchor. At a later stage of meditation, when concentration has become stronger and more stable, one "opens" up the field of awareness. At that point, the principle of non-clinging and non-aversion remains the same, but there is no returning to a primary meditation object or anchor - there is simply the awareness of the next object of discernment in the now-broad field of awareness. It is this later stage it is most aptly called a setting up of mindfulness. ---------------------------------------------------- > Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of applying > attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of > control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, Howard? > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > 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. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Yep! > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > 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. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard. > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to have > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta chain. > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but the > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So while > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: In the actual practice of meditation, until a certain stage, intentional effort is exercised. C'han/Zen, for example, doesn't *speak* that way. I speaks the way *you* do. But the actual *practice* of C'han/Zen meditation, of all varieties, just as the actually practiced meditation in the various schools of Theravada, involves intentional effort at the early stages. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable > thought you have put into these matters, Howard. > > Jon > =============================== 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) 8300 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 1:51am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Jon and Howard, This pinpoints a question I've had in a vague sort of way for some time: --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > 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. > > Howard: > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms > > large in this regard. > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by > the intention to have > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, > effort, kusala citta chain. > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally > conceived of, but the > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions > for things. So while > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of > kusala, in the sense > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala > moment, it is not > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala > moment. If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying that right effort is a co-arising factor but not a precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which concurs with my understanding. What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with every citta, with the function of 'willing' only in kusala and akusala moments. We all know (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that it's impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a moment of right effort, as well as a present factor? I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right effort will occur when the conditions for it are present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it (for example a moment of akusala followed by a moment of understanding of the previous moment--here no kusala cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately). If so, then kusala intention-kusala effort-kusala vitakka(?) might arise sequentially, but without each being dependent on the previous. Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'? Thanks in advance, mike 8301 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: [mike]: > > When I spectulated that > it[saññaa]'s > > 'largely latent', I meant in the sense of having > the > > latent ability to recognize what is not being > noted > > (cognized) at the moment--an infinitessimally > small > > part of what it can recognize from having noted it > in > > the past...(?) > > I get your point. A lot of unrealised potential > there! So is 'latency' a characteristic shared in common with, e.g., paññaa (since it only understands one object at a time, of all the objects it could understand), and with anusaya? Where does it fit into abhidhamma? (I found it in Pali as 'apaakatataa' or 'paticchannataa', but don't think I've run across either of these before). mike 8302 From: Howard Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 10:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi again, Jon - I'd like to add just a couple points to my post copied below. One thing is that the Buddha taught anapanasati as a method of implementing satipatthana (please see the Anapanasati Sutta). The breath is the "anchor" there. The other point is with regard to intentional effort during meditation. When sitting for meditation on the breath, why is it that it is the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, for example, sounds? The answer is that one intentionally directs attention to the breath. If one did not, then, most likely, one would not be attending to it. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/27/01 1:29:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Howard writes: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/27/01 9:41:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > > > Howard > > > > Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective on a > > couple of the areas where we differ. > > > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > > > 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'. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that > > > there be) > > > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of > > > the > > > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until > > > that > > > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for > > > attention to > > > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter > > > of > > > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing > > > it > > > or tearing the mind away. > > > > I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular > > object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the object > > is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') the > > akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to > > return to the chosen object. > > > > I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana in > > passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking is > > in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you see > > the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or is > > it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > My statement here pertained to an early stage of meditation, in which > concentration is still weak, a stage in which one uses a primary object, > say > the breath, as kind of an anchor for the meditation. In that stage, focus > is > on the "anchor". When other objects arise, one sees them clearly (and this > is > to be done for kusala as well as akusala), but observes them "lightly", > without clinging or aversion, letting the objects come and go, duely noting > their nature in the process, and then returning to the anchor. > At a later stage of meditation, when concentration has become > stronger > and more stable, one "opens" up the field of awareness. At that point, the > principle of non-clinging and non-aversion remains the same, but there is > no > returning to a primary meditation object or anchor - there is simply the > awareness of the next object of discernment in the now-broad field of > awareness. It is this later stage it is most aptly called a setting up of > mindfulness. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of applying > > attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of > > control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, Howard? > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Yep! > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard. > > > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to have > > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta chain. > > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but the > > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So while > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > In the actual practice of meditation, until a certain stage, > intentional effort is exercised. C'han/Zen, for example, doesn't *speak* > that > way. I speaks the way *you* do. But the actual *practice* of C'han/Zen > meditation, of all varieties, just as the actually practiced meditation in > the various schools of Theravada, involves intentional effort at the early > stages. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable > > thought you have put into these matters, Howard. > > > > Jon > > > =============================== > 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) 8303 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Howard, Hope you don't mind my butting in again. --- Howard wrote: > The other point is with regard to intentional > effort during > meditation. When sitting for meditation on the > breath, why is it that it is > the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, > for example, sounds? The > answer is that one intentionally directs attention > to the breath. I know this is the way it 'feels', to me, anyway (I've done thousands of hours of this, by the way), but I think it's much more accurate to say that the hearing of the words of the Buddha and the recollection and understanding of them in a particular way (among other things) conditions attention to the breath. No one attending or directing. > If one did > not, then, most likely, one would not be attending > to it. If this hearing, recollection and understanding had not occurred, the subsequent attention would also not occur. I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way fit to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing notes. In this context, I think the distinction between conventional and technical(?) speech is important. mike 8304 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 5:13am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS -- On behalf of all us Roberts, Thanks very much Kenneth robert K. - KennethOng wrote: > > Hi all, > All the Roberts are very good in their presentation and debating of views. Maybe I should consider naming my son as Robert. > Three cheers for the three Roberts :) > Warmest regards > Kenneth Ong > robertkirkpatrick wrote: -- > > Welcome Robert ED., > Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. > best wishes > robert > - Robert Eddison wrote: > > Anders: > > > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > > > Howard: > > > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I > have no > > idea of where to look. > > > > Anders: > > > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > > > Howard: > > > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read > the > > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta > Nipata, > > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come > across > > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I > think > > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) > Nibbana > > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > > unacceptable. > > > > Robert: > > > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is > predicated of > > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term > or > > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, > the > > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are > impermanent" > > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma > Pi.taka > > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the > context > > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that > are being > > referred to. > > > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or > phrases > > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. > The > > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in > such > > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned > dhamma (and > > the latter is not impermanent). > > > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa > aniccaa. > > > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the > three levels > > are impermanent. > > > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels > are not > > self. > > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined > material > > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" > means the > > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Robert Eddison > > > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by > > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a > > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a > backlog of letters. > 8305 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 10:03am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Question on Arahant Dear Binh, Further to my earlier email, the distinction with Mahayana and Thervada is that both has different emphasis. The Mahayana is more interested in bigger goals whereas in Thervada, the emphasis was liberation of self first. But by all means, such liberation of a self first should not be construed as selfish which proponent of Mahayanists claim is because, as I said earlier, we got to learn how to swim before we teach others. Hence Buddha was enlighted before he teach others about the Middle path. This misconceptions of Thervada is selfish mainly lies on the problem with the way it was put in the Sutra. In many Mahayana sutras, Buddha always emphasis on Bodhisattva path as they are the true sons of Buddha. They are the ones who labour long and hard for the benefits for all beings, hence resulting a mistaken view that therevada is selfish. From another perspective, the sutras has actually exhorting those Noble ones (Thervadas) to reach for bigger goals (i.e. vows esp compassion vows). In addition, mostly the emphasis of Mahayana sutras, its targetted audience are those accomplished ones. There may be layman and laywoman but all these have already certain level of accomplishment. In one Mahayana Sutra, Buddha would have to wait for those not ready to listen to leave the assembly before he speaks. This also indicated that Buddha knows that he could only help those whose mind is ripe for certain level of teachings. Hence he could convince a blood thirsty butcher to become a monk. The butcher mind is just happen to be ripe at that time for this certain teachings. I hope this should not view as putting down Thervada, this is to explain the Mahayana mindset. In Mahayana, Arahats are considered from the smaller vehicle. But Mahayanist got to firstly understand that to be a Bodhisattvas, we need to be an Arahat first. (there are shortcuts but this are very rare or very difficult to believe and to accept). In one Mahayana sutra, it was stated clearly that both Thervada and Mahayana are of the same vehicle. the separation of the vehicle is because due to the different accomplishment of beings. That is why Buddha teaches the Thervada before the Mahayana, this is to slowly prepare the beings for more bigger goals (to be a Buddha). To reach Buddhahood is different from reaching Arahat, we could get the hint from the Jakata stories where Buddha was accomplishing a lot of great deeds as a Bodhisattvas. To me, we cannot totally brush off the Mahayana path because there is evidence of this path or not there would not be so many sutras about it also. The Mahayanist concept of enlightment is different from Thervada as Mahayanist view enlightment of an Arahat is not the final liberation but a stepping stone to the bigger goal, to be a Bodhisattvas and reach Buddhahood. Kind regards Kenneth Ong Binh A wrote: G'day all, I have received a message from a Dhamma friend asking about the definition of Arahatship (as attached below, slightly edited). I hope you could assist in answering his enquiry . Metta, Binh PS. I also posted this message to the <> list. ************************************ [...] During my studies I came up with a question that I am not able to resolve myself and hope you could help me or ask someone nearby that could help. One of my field of interests in Buddhism, besides practice of course, is the distinction Mahayana-Hinayana, how it came about and the issues around it. Today, while I was reading through the third volume of Anguttara I came across a passage at Pa.thamahita Sutta, A.iii.12 (I inserted the Pali passage in Vri font). PTS translation runs like: 'Herein, monks, a monk is accomplished in virtue himself, but does not strive to perfect virtue in another'... (the same is repeated for concentration, wisdom, release (vimutti) and vision and knowledge of release). Now, I find that this passage, and many similar I found in Samyutta and Anguttara is a strong support that the Canon Pali emphasizes to search for liberation and all the rest for oneself and the others, placing itself above the later criticism of Mahayana proponents that accused Hinayana folowers as of searching for liberation only for themselves. The other passages I found make it clear that one should strive for the good of the both. Now, this particular passage in particular different from the others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those factors, including release, while, at the same time does not strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in release) and at the same time not strive for the release of others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that there was a kind of Arahant. (...) Could it be possible to interpret 'sampanno' in another way so that the meaning would be different. Or is that that the Buddha really makes a criticism of the Arahant? Would there be two kinds of Arahant, one the was accomplished only for himself and another *more complete*? -------------- Paµhamahitasutta½ (A.iii.12) 17. "Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±ya. Katamehi pañcahi? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu attan± s²lasampanno hoti, no para½ s²lasampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± sam±dhisampanno hoti, no para½ sam±dhisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± paññ±sampanno hoti, no para½ paññ±sampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttisampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampad±ya sam±dapeti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi aªgehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±y±"ti. Sattama½. ******************************************* 8306 From: Binh A Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 10:52am Subject: (2) Question on Arahant - Pali sources? --- KennethOng wrote: > > Dear Binh, > Further to my earlier email, the distinction with Mahayana and Thervada is that both has different emphasis. [...] ================================================================== BA: G'day Kenneth, Thanks for your informative comments. Much appreciated. In my humble opinion, concepts of Bodhisatva's ideal in Mahayana and its relation to original Buddhism (Theravada) were well explained in the book: Nalinaksha Dutt, "Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana", London, 1930 Here, regarding to my original question (from the message of my Dhamma friend), I'm looking for answers based on the Pali sources, on possible types (or grades) of Arahant. I remember (very vaguely) that I did come across some passages in the Pali Suttas which gave classification of different types of Arahant. However, due to my busy work lately, I haven't been able to locate the sources. Any help from my Pali scholars and/or Sutta readers? Metta, Binh 8307 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 9:17am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Mike - In a message dated 9/27/01 2:52:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > Dear Howard, > > Hope you don't mind my butting in again. > > --- Howard wrote: > > > The other point is with regard to intentional > > effort during > > meditation. When sitting for meditation on the > > breath, why is it that it is > > the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, > > for example, sounds? The > > answer is that one intentionally directs attention > > to the breath. > > I know this is the way it 'feels', to me, anyway (I've > done thousands of hours of this, by the way), but I > think it's much more accurate to say that the hearing > of the words of the Buddha and the recollection and > understanding of them in a particular way (among other > things) conditions attention to the breath. No one > attending or directing. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: If what you mean by this is that I would be unlikely to sit for mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about that being useful, I would agree. -------------------------------------------------- > > If one did > > not, then, most likely, one would not be attending > > to it. > > If this hearing, recollection and understanding had > not occurred, the subsequent attention would also not > occur. > > I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way fit > to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing > notes. In this context, I think the distinction > between conventional and technical(?) speech is > important. > > mike > =========================== I am not such an advanced practitioner as to be directly in touch with most of the referents of "techncal" speech, and that being the case, I personally find most technical speech to constitute little more than a morass of views in which I would best not become ensnared. I'm afraid that for a long, long time I shall have to depend on the somewhat conventional speech of the sutta pitaka and of the majority of Theravadin (and Mahayana) teachers, along with whatever fruits can be directly derived from my practice. Again, with regard to your intentions, I have nothing but good will towards you, and I feel nothing but good will coming from you, my friend. 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) 8308 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality Hi Larry, --- Larry wrote: > > Hello Sarah, > > I can't comment on the pali, unfortunately, but I agree this is an > "answer" that should be considered in the context of the question: "What > self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?" > > Whatever "conditionality" may mean, I think the general idea is that > actions don't affect or effect a self but rather action conditions or > perpetuates action and this is, in itself, suffering. Or something like > that ;) I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘action’, especially in the 2nd ‘conditions or perpetuates action’. I understand the general idea to be that there is no self in the 5khandhas ‘affected’ by ‘action’, just as there isn’t any self in the 5khanhdhas ‘performing action’ or anything else. For example, seeing consciousness now is the result of kamma and is not self. Both the cetana (intention) that produced the kamma and the result of kamma, seeing, and all other (conditioned) realities are inherently unsatisfactory because of their conditioned and impermanent nature. Hence the quote: > > "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in > > all things." > > > This brings to mind the dualism of conditioned and unconditioned, > another imponderable which may possibly be resolved "in the moment" a la > mahayana. I guess it depends on whether you think the unconditioned... > [sorry, I couldn't finish this sentence]. > > Getting in way over my head. Actually I’d be glad if you would get in ‘way over your head’ as the rest of us do;-)) >Nice to meet you, and you too Ken. You too and thanks Ken (or Ken’s khandhas;-))for conditioning so much lively discussion. Ken, very glad to read about the significance of dsg in your life....sorry, we were all too impatient to wait for you - a day or two can seem like a long time here;-)) Sarah 8309 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Thanks, Rob. Interesting and useful discussion. Robert E. ======= --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Robert E., > If you are attracted to the breath it may be that you had > practice in past lives with this object (or it could be just > some mundane desire). Anyway it is useful to know the > difficulties one may face and how one might confuse > miccha-samadhi(wrong concentration) with samma-samadhi (right > concentration). > > In ancient times teachers of samatha were aware of all 40 > objects. In the sammohavinodani (1153) p310 of vol 1 translation > It explains the case of a monk who is trying to develop the > meditation on parts of the body. In this example the monk gets > colour appearing. The teacher realises that this monk must have > developed meditation on kasina in past lives and so directs him > to leave the body meditation and go onto kasina. > If a teacher only knows anapanasati he might not be able to do > this.. > Thus I think we have to study carefully for ourselves at this > time; and in that way be in a better position to judge what > suits us. > Now about Buddhanusati and Dhammusati and sanghanusati.. > A comprehensive description of these ways of samatha is given in > chapter VII of the Visuddhimagga. > How do we develop Buddhanusati? There are so many ways. > Basically whenever we reflect with kusala citta(wholesome mind ) > about the merits of the Buddha and what he discovered we are > doing this. In section VII 10-22 it gives as one example the > dependent origination and how the Buddha understood it and so > brought it to an end "Mentality-materiality is a condition for > the sixfold base in sensual becoming.....the six kinds of > contact in sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of > feeling in sensual becoming...Now the Blessed one knew, saw and > understood this and penetrated it in all aspects.." > > So there are inumerable ways one can reflect with understanding > and detachment in this way. In a sense while reflecting we are > also teaching ourself and making conditions for future > reflection. It can't reach the deep stages of concentration that > breath can (because it relies on reflection) but can be done at > any time in any posture. The deeper ones understanding of the > Dhamma the easier, deeper, and more diverse this type of samatha > is. > For myself when/if I reflect: "the six kinds of contact in > sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of feeling in > sensual becoming" it reminds me almost automatically of the > feelings that are arising now. Am I taking these feelings now as > "my" feelings - if so then the nature of micchaditthi (self > view) is apparent. If they are perceived as "not mine", as only > phenomena, that is well and good but I know that understanding > is not yet enough to properly penetrate their nature. > > I add this to show how samatha and satipatthana(at some level) > can alternate and support each other. Personally I don't think > too much about having one or the other, this is just the way it > works for me. > robert 8310 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Sarah wrote: > > > 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. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Mike > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------- > Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to com > notes on AN1 10): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > .............................................. > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The commentary to this text explains > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life continuum (bhavanga), which is > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by defilements. The > defilements arise only in the active thought process, not in the subliminal > flow of consciousness’. > .............................................. Dear Sarah, Hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but this commentary does not seem to explain the original statement about the luminous mind. If the 'luminous mind' referred to a mind [subconscious] that is untouched by defilements, the sutra would not say: "...this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements." The idea that this mind is out of the stream of conscious life, and thus remains in its pristine undefiled state is a direct contradiction to the statement of the sutra. It is clear from the sutra, at least to me, that it refers to the mind itself, and says that it is currently in a defiled state, but is pure in its true nature, and becomes freed from defilements which process then reveals its inherent luminosity. Furthermore, even if the sutra was referring to the subconscious mind which is kept pristine by being kept out of the flow of life, it would still be difficult to escape the idea that there is this pure, undefiled, luminous mind, which would still be setting up an 'essential nature' of luminosity to be discovered, uncovered or freed from apparent defilements, would it not? Robert E. 8311 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E, > > We seem to have come to a useful and pleasant conclusion to the sabhava thread > and I'd like to thank you very much for your careful consideration and helpful > feedback. I agree. Thanks for your help in this area. I also like your 'map' analogy. We can certainly agree that with *no* map it is awfully difficult to find one's way! Having several maps is probably also a useful thing to have, as long as you don't try to read all of them at once! Robert E. =================== > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks Sarah, > > That actually clarifies a lot. I'm starting to get a better sense of some of > > these breakdowns and how they coordinate through hitting it at different > > angles > > this way. But as you stress, the direct apprehension of realities to the > > extent > > one is capable is where the classifications find their real expression in > > life. > > If we take what is happening in the moment, then the classifications are not > > as > > important. > > Yes, you've really appreciated what I've been (often clumsily) trying to > express very well. > > >They will sort themselves out as they become useful in looking at > > real > > experiences. This is my thought anyway, after these exchanges. However, I'm > > happy to be getting a little better picture of where and how the Buddha > > breaks > > down these realities. > > Yes, perhaps we can say that we may look at different maps to drive to our > destination. Some are simple and some are very detailed. Different maps give us > different indications or landmarks which help us find the way. We need to have > a look at some of the maps before we start off, but as we start travelling we > will need to look again and perhaps check the more detailed maps as we move > along. > > However, we don't have to remember all the details of all the maps and it may > be that different maps make more 'sense' to different people. However, with no > maps and no directions, it's not possible to find the way. > > > > Thanks again. > > Likewise, > > Sarah 8312 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Welcome & (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS I guess I'll go with your 'Rob Ep' idea. Seems like the easiest. Hmnnn..... Rob Ep. [sounds like a name from a superman comic]. =============== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ed, (Rob K, Rob Ep) > > Thank you very much indeed for your extremely helpful comments below, which I > look forward to reading more carefully later. I'm sure I speak for everyone > when I say that I'm really delighted that you've joined us here and really look > forward to more of your very 'enlightened' contributions;-) > > I hope you're fully recovered now and when you've 'caught up' , I think we'd > all be very interested to hear anything you wish to share about how your > serious interest in the Tipitaka and Pali developed (or anything else mundane > such as where you live and so on). > > We now have 3 Roberts and 2 Robert Es and not a Bob between you!! What to do? I > think you'll have to be Rob, Rob E and Rob Ed, unless anyone has any other > ideas;-)) Or maybe Rob K, Rob Ep and Rob Ed would confuse newcomers less .. > > Welcome again, > > Sarah > > --- Robert Eddison wrote: > > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of > > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or > > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the > > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" > > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka > > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context > > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being > > referred to. > > > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases > > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The > > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such > > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and > > the latter is not impermanent). > > > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. > > > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels > > are impermanent. > > > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not > > self. > > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material > > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the > > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > > (lokuttarabhuumi)] 8313 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment Dear Jon, I think my question is basically answered. The way I interpret your answer is that, one may have an effect on the outcome of kusala by intending it, but only if the complete balance of pre-existing factors leans in that direction. That makes sense. I guess that one's effort is one factor among others in the gradual movement towards kusala and wisdom. Robert E. ============================== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > Thanks for your carefully thought-out comments. I will do my best to > respond in kind. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your > > description that > > you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of > > pre-existing > > or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition > > involved > > in whether a kusala or akusala moments. > > I suppose it depends on what you mean by volition. If you mean the > intention, say, to have kusala at a subsequent moment, then I would say > that experience tells us that such intention may or may not bring the > desired outcome. The arising of kusala is conditioned by many factors but > principally, I believe, by one's accumulated tendencies for the various > forms of wholesome conduct (and also by the 'suitability' of the > occasion). For example, no matter how much we may resolve to respond > better next time in a particular situation, if we lack the understanding > and the particular accumulated tendencies to do so, it will not happen. > > The intention to have kusala is in essence a kind of mental activity, > similar to thinking and not necessarily different in nature from other > kinds of intention, for example, to get something to eat or drink. It may > *seem* more lofty, but perhaps that's because we are not able to > discriminate kusala from akusala moments to any significant degree, other > than by inference. > > > However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of > > the kusala > > and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an > > effect on > > cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent > > or effort > > to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just > > the outcome > > of arising conditions and causes? > > Rob, I'm afraid you've lost me here, but let me say that if the aim is the > cultivation of more moments of kusala mind-states (which means the > development of samatha rather than satipatthana/vipassana), then > understanding directly the kusala or akusala nature of the presently > arising mind-states is how that can be achieved in time. > > There is, however, a higher aim which is the development of the > understanding of the true nature of realities, and this is the teaching > that is unique to a Buddha. Under this form of development (bhavana), it > is all realities, not just mind-states, that are to be known and > understood as they are and, accordingly, there is no selecting of the > reality that is to be the object of attention or awareness -- the object > may be a rupa, or one of the moments of experience through a sense-door; > but one is not concerned *in particular* with understanding the nature of > the present mind-state. This of course does not mean one has any less > interest in developing more kusala; rather it means that the path can be > developed regardless of the nature of the present mind-state or one's > awareness of it. > > > I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely > > passive to this > > process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting > > conditions of the > > kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices > > the > > arisings. > > I hope what I have said above answers this last part; but if not, please > let me know. I do not myself think in terms of 'active' or 'passive', but > perhaps by some terms of reference these descriptions could be > appropriate. > > Thanks again for the chance to discuss these important aspects. > > Jon > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path. > > > > > Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time, > > > naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort > > is > > > 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the > > > wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila. > > > > > > Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of > > greatest > > > benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala. > > > > > > We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise > > in > > > our lives, just as we should also know more about the > > non-kusala/akusala > > > moments, too. > > 8314 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say that the mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that sometimes it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements. I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the luminous mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to be very similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a canonical basis for those sutras. Robert Ep. ================ --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Mike (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 9/26/01 8:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > mike writes: > > > > > > Dear Sarah, > > > > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely > > mistaken, on all counts. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I second your thanks for Sarah's post. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. > > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as > > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence > > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but > > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. > > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this > > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no > > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At > > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent > > defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga > > at the moment to be covered, as I understand it. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You being worried about my use of the term 'originally' is not > unjustified. There may very well have been a Mahayana influence in my using > it. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, > > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA > > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like > > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense > > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of > > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be > > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' > > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those > > who know. > > > > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my > > inane comments, Howard. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Not in the slightest - and I don't accept your negative > characterization of your comments. > ------------------------------------------------------- > I should have backtracked > > more before posting my response. Even when we > > disagree I value your correspondence very highly. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Thanks, Mike. Likewise. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Thanks again, Sarah. > > > > 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) > > > 8315 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS ha ha, thanks Kenneth. Well I'm happy to be a Robert at this time, even if I have to be an 'Ep'. Robert Ep. ============== --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi all, > All the Roberts are very good in their presentation and debating of views. > Maybe I should consider naming my son as Robert. > Three cheers for the three Roberts :) > Warmest regards > Kenneth Ong > robertkirkpatrick wrote: -- > > Welcome Robert ED., > Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. > best wishes > robert > - Robert Eddison wrote: > > Anders: > > > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > > > Howard: > > > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I > have no > > idea of where to look. > > > > Anders: > > > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > > > Howard: > > > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read > the > > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta > Nipata, > > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come > across > > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I > think > > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) > Nibbana > > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > > unacceptable. > > > > Robert: > > > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is > predicated of > > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term > or > > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, > the > > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are > impermanent" > > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma > Pi.taka > > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the > context > > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that > are being > > referred to. > > > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or > phrases > > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. > The > > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in > such > > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned > dhamma (and > > the latter is not impermanent). > > > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa > aniccaa. > > > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the > three levels > > are impermanent. > > > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels > are not > > self. > > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined > material > > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" > means the > > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Robert Eddison > > > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by > > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a > > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a > backlog of letters. > > 8316 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: So while > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. Dear Jon, I'd like to challenge the above a bit, although I'm not sure if I have any secure footing to do it. If right effort is the property of a kusala moment, then what is it an effort towards? It would not make sense to speak of effort unless it was intending to do something, not merely accompanying something already accomplished. If it is an accompaniment of a kusala moment, then it would have to be aiding the accomplishment of that which the kusala moment is trying to accomplish. What is the accomplishment of a kusala moment? Panna? Would 'right effort' then be the correct effort of a kusala factor to accomplish panna? Or does this not make sense? Best, Robert Ep. 8317 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/28/01 4:22:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the > translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' > which > is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say > that the > mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not > luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that > sometimes > it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements. > > I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the > luminous > mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to > be very > similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a > canonical > basis for those sutras. > > Robert Ep. > ============================== Well, I, for one, am basically in agreement with you. Somewhere in the Pali suttas I believe the mind is likened to gold ore; that is, pure gold with an admixture of foreign elements (the adventitious defilements). With the other metals mixed in, there is no shining evident. The removal of the "defiling" metals allows the shining to manifest. But the pure gold was there all the time! 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) 8318 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 8:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can > > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental > state, > > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any > moment. > But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the practice > laid > out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking about > what > the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom > can > arise at any time - or, it may not. > ----------------------------------------------------------- I agree with you as regards the fact that mere listening/reading and thinking does not constitute the development of understanding as taught by the Buddha. The 'any time, any place, any situation, any reality' axiom is simply given as a reminder of the nature of the beast that is awareness, since it is all too easy to find ourselves thinking of 'practice' in terms that fail to acknowledge one or other of these attributes. > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do > with > > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the > > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of > > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > So > > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general > > mindfulness. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your practice > to be > that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually > lead > to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort to > > exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or > not, > independent of "personal" effort? > ------------------------------------------------------------ My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying that to the experience of the present moment. As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as being so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In other words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on the path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment of enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly developed the factor of effort. > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > ------------------------------------------------------------- I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. I am finding it a very interesting exchange. Jon 8319 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 9:36pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Sorry about the confusing sentence in my post of a few minutes ago. I meant to say-- As to "personal" effort, is this the effort that the Buddha described as being so essential to the development of the path? I do not believe it is. Apologies to Howard and all. Jon --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality > can > > > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental > > state, > > > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any > > moment. > > But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the > practice > > laid > > out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking > about > > what > > the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom > > can > > arise at any time - or, it may not. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree with you as regards the fact that mere listening/reading and > thinking does not constitute the development of understanding as taught > by > the Buddha. The 'any time, any place, any situation, any reality' axiom > is simply given as a reminder of the nature of the beast that is > awareness, since it is all too easy to find ourselves thinking of > 'practice' in terms that fail to acknowledge one or other of these > attributes. > > > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do > > with > > > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the > > > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development > of > > > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general > mindfulness. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > So > > > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a > general > > > mindfulness. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your > practice > > to be > > that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually > > lead > > to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort > to > > > > exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or > > not, > > independent of "personal" effort? > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > that > to the experience of the present moment. > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > being > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > other > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > the > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > of > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > developed the factor of effort. > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. I > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > Jon > 8320 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 0:51am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/28/01 8:58:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can > > > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental > > state, > > > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any > > moment. > > But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the practice > > laid > > out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking about > > what > > the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom > > can > > arise at any time - or, it may not. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree with you as regards the fact that mere listening/reading and > thinking does not constitute the development of understanding as taught by > the Buddha. The 'any time, any place, any situation, any reality' axiom > is simply given as a reminder of the nature of the beast that is > awareness, since it is all too easy to find ourselves thinking of > 'practice' in terms that fail to acknowledge one or other of these > attributes. > > > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do > > with > > > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the > > > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of > > > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > So > > > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general > > > mindfulness. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your practice > > to be > > that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually > > lead > > to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort to > > > > exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or > > not, > > independent of "personal" effort? > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying that > to the experience of the present moment. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But what I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort must be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". ----------------------------------------------------------- > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as being > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In other > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on the > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment of > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > developed the factor of effort. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I expressed in a recent on-list post to Mike. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. I > am finding it a very interesting exchange. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I as well! --------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > =========================== 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) 8321 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 11:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 9/28/01 4:22:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the > > translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' > > which > > is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say > > that the > > mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not > > luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that > > sometimes > > it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements. > > > > I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the > > luminous > > mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to > > be very > > similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a > > canonical > > basis for those sutras. > > > > Robert Ep. > > > ============================== > Well, I, for one, am basically in agreement with you. Somewhere in the > Pali suttas I believe the mind is likened to gold ore; that is, pure gold > with an admixture of foreign elements (the adventitious defilements). With > the other metals mixed in, there is no shining evident. The removal of the > "defiling" metals allows the shining to manifest. But the pure gold was there > all the time! > > With metta, > Howard I think the reason Buddha was a little circumspect about this, is because of the danger of taking 'luminous mind' and turning it into a thing, like an image of a shining brain up in the sky somewhere [the Godhead revisited] or as a goal to be attained, as if there is this thing or state to be grasped. Even if there *is* an 'original luminosity' of Awareness that exists in Nibbana after the defilements are gone, it is neither a possession or a self. We can still get Buddha's basic message on that, even if we disagree on the 'original mind'. So then what are we talking about? We are talking about something that being 'already one's pre-existing nature' would not show up as a new possessions or self, but as something that would be 'nothing' by the self's standards. The transparent ground of being could not be personal or objectified. Anyway, we can still disagree, but at least it can be clear that we are not trying to create a soul, or a self, or a divine object, but rather an original state or status...very difficult to describe, even for the Buddha. Robert Ep. 8322 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 0:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) Howard I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. When I said ... > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In other > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on the > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment of > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > developed the factor of effort. ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ for conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes less and less as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one attaining to enlightenment. Coming to your post to me-- --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > that > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > what > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > must > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > ----------------------------------------------------------- My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate what I mean. Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? Surely not – yet such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to appreciate that act? Surely not. When someone asks for our assistance and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. When dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of kusala are not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – this is an experience common to everyone. You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations is, more often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for what it is). This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or others."[ends] All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the aim is for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we don’t learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right effort’, then, as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a kusala citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. Jon > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > being > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > other > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > the > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > of > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > developed the factor of effort. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > expressed > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > I > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I as well! > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Jon > > > > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard 8323 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 6:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard HI all, I think the luminious mind is the what we call attainment of Buddhahood mind. Buddha mind is definitely luminious. This is illustrated by Chan Master Hui Neng said that the difference between our mind and Buddha mind is that we have right and wrong, good and evil (chinese literal translation). Kind regards Kenneth Ong Robert Epstein wrote: --- Sarah wrote: > > > 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. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Mike > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------- > Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to com > notes on AN1 10): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > .............................................. > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The commentary to this text explains > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life continuum (bhavanga), which is > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by defilements. The > defilements arise only in the active thought process, not in the subliminal > flow of consciousness’. > .............................................. Dear Sarah, Hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but this commentary does not seem to explain the original statement about the luminous mind. If the 'luminous mind' referred to a mind [subconscious] that is untouched by defilements, the sutra would not say: "...this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements." The idea that this mind is out of the stream of conscious life, and thus remains in its pristine undefiled state is a direct contradiction to the statement of the sutra. It is clear from the sutra, at least to me, that it refers to the mind itself, and says that it is currently in a defiled state, but is pure in its true nature, and becomes freed from defilements which process then reveals its inherent luminosity. Furthermore, even if the sutra was referring to the subconscious mind which is kept pristine by being kept out of the flow of life, it would still be difficult to escape the idea that there is this pure, undefiled, luminous mind, which would still be setting up an 'essential nature' of luminosity to be discovered, uncovered or freed from apparent defilements, would it not? Robert E. 8324 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 6:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Rober Ep. I believe this is why Buddha said that we all have Buddha nature. I think in my opinion he is referring to our luminious mind. But now we are clouded by our defilements Kenneth Ong Robert Epstein wrote: well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say that the mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that sometimes it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements. I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the luminous mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to be very similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a canonical basis for those sutras. Robert Ep. ================ --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Mike (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 9/26/01 8:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > mike writes: > > > > > > Dear Sarah, > > > > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely > > mistaken, on all counts. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I second your thanks for Sarah's post. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. > > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as > > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence > > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but > > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. > > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this > > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no > > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At > > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent > > defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga > > at the moment to be covered, as I understand it. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You being worried about my use of the term 'originally' is not > unjustified. There may very well have been a Mahayana influence in my using > it. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, > > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA > > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like > > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense > > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of > > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be > > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' > > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those > > who know. > > > > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my > > inane comments, Howard. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Not in the slightest - and I don't accept your negative > characterization of your comments. > ------------------------------------------------------- > I should have backtracked > > more before posting my response. Even when we > > disagree I value your correspondence very highly. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Thanks, Mike. Likewise. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Thanks again, Sarah. > > > > 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) > > > 8325 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma Nina, Many thanks for this detailed and helpful explanation which really puts the earlier translated passage in its context. >Dear Jon and all, > > The teaching according to the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma > is > different, but each one of these methods points to the same goal: the > development of satipatthana which leads to the eradication of > defilements. > Satipatthana can only be taught by a Buddha and thus it is always > implied. > Satipatthana is the one way of practice leading to the goal. But by > these > three methods we are reminded of the goal under different aspects. Since > we > are by nature forgetful, we should be grateful to be reminded by way of > different aspects of the teachings. > The monk has to observe the rules of Patimokkha, he has to have > Patimokkha > samvara sila, but also indriya samvara sila, the guarding of the six > doors. > There are different degrees of guarding the six doors, but the highest > is > satipatthana. By mindfulness of nama and rupa the six doors are guarded, > there can be higher sila, adhisila. Someone may be inclined to rude > speech, > or to hurt an insect, but sati can arise and then he will not utter bad > speech or hurt a living being. Vinaya should not be separated from > satipatthana. And, as A. Sujin says, also layfollowers can apply rules > of > the Vinaya in their own situation. > In the Discourses the Buddha spoke about the dukkha in our life: the > loss of > family and friends, a grandmother who went around to the corners of the > streets, exclaiming, where is my granddaughter. When people were ready > for > it he would explain dukkha in change, how things are susceptible to > change, > and if their panna was developed enough he would explain that the five > khandhas that are impermanent are dukkha. As Robert said in his post > about > the three methods, also when reading suttas you have to know a lot about > khandhas, elements, ayatanas (sensefields). The Buddha gave a gradual > teaching to people, about the danger of akusala, the benefit of kusala, > and > if they were ready for it, he taught the four noble Truths, and then > people > could attain enlightenment. We study the suttas, but the study should > have > as purpose the understanding of the characteristics of realities > appearing > now: nama and rupa, the khandhas, the elements, the ayatanas. The study > should not stay on the level of theoretical knowledge. > As to the Abhidhamma method, as Robert said, Abhidhamma is synonymous > with > understanding life, with vipassana. Seeing, hearing, attachment, > aversion, > feeling, they are realities of life and they are elucidated in detail in > the > Abhidhamma. With what purpose? To understand this moment, because in > that > way the panna develops that can eventually erdicate wrong view and the > other > defilements. > Thus, the three parts of the teachings are one, all pointing to the same > goal. The practice is one: satipatthana, understanding this very moment. > > Someone was wondering who meditates and who does not. Meditation is a > word > that can create confusion, shall we use the word bhavana, mental > development? Samatha is bhavana but also vipassana is bhavana, and for > vipassana, this can be developed no matter what one is doing. I am so > glad > the Buddha speaks in the Vinaya about cleaning the dwellings, freeing > them > from dust, washing the robes. The monks are supposed to do such chores > with > mindfulness. I am cleaning, cooking, ironing, and I should not be > forgetful > either, but I am most of the time forgetful. > The word kammatthana is used in connection with bhavana, translated as > meditation subject. In the Commentary to the Gradual Sayings, Book of > the > Threes, Ch VII, § 5-8, elements have been explained in short and in > detail > as ayatanas, as khandhas and other dhammas. It is repeated that with > these > kammatthanas one can become an arahat. This means, they are not objects > of > mere concentration, they are objects of understanding. Understanding of > the > nama or rupa now. Otherwise arahatship could never be attained. > Someone was looking for the text: all dhammas are anatta, this is in > Dhammapada, vs. 279. Nibbana is included in all dhammas. > Best wishes, Nina. Two other instances of reference to 'dhammas' as being not-self, in apposition to 'sankharas' as being impermanent and suffering, are at A. I, xv and A. III, 134 (apologies if these references have already been given by others). Jon 8326 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka > > Atthakatha (published > > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > > Brahmajala Sutta) it is > > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the > > practice of the other > > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all > > the paramis". It is > > also described as being to the other paramis as life > > is to the bodily > > organism. I think that gives it a certain > > pre-eminence. > > Definitely (and thanks for correcting my > 'pre-immminence'). Hadn't noticed it, to be honest! > > Another passage from the same section is of > > relevance to one of the other > > current threads on our list. In dealing with the > > role of wisdom in the > > perfection of energy parami, it says: > > > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the > > purpose desired, since it > > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse > > energy at all than to > > arouse it in the wrong way." > > > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than > > wrongly aroused. > > Strong words indeed. > > Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be > true of the other paramis, too. Without > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can > be dangerous I think. Although not for true actual patience and friendliness, but for their near enemies, perhaps you mean? Energy is in a slightly different category, I think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and performs its function in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every kusala citta and performs its function in a kusala manner. > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one > > that we probably > > associate with wisdom, is this: > > > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the > > wrongs of others, not > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the > > wrongs of others only > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his > > patience into play > > and make it grow even stronger." > > > > It might be interesting to consider the connection > > being made here. > > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening > patience. Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being able to tolerate the wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had said, Mike. I just happened to come across it when answering your post. I am wondering if any of our long-time lurking members would like to make a reappearance on this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others? Jon 8327 From: m. nease Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 0:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Without > > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. > > can > > be dangerous I think. > > Although not for true actual patience and > friendliness, but for their near > enemies, perhaps you mean? I probably did mean this, without realizing it (have to refresh my memory on these). I meant e.g. friendliness with bad friends (as described by the Buddha) and patience--well, patience is different, maybe. Even with wrong view, nivaranas etc. it's hard to see danger in it. > Energy is in a slightly > different category, I > think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and > performs its function > in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every > kusala citta and > performs its function in a kusala manner. Yes, point taken (finally!) > > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not > one > > > that we probably > > > associate with wisdom, is this: > > > > > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate > the > > > wrongs of others, not > > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, > the > > > wrongs of others only > > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call > his > > > patience into play > > > and make it grow even stronger." > > > > > > It might be interesting to consider the > connection > > > being made here. > > > > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening > > patience. > > Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being > able to tolerate the > wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had > said, Mike. No, I didn't take it personally--just paraphrasing it (and depersonalizing it, as is my habit) to be sure I wasn't missing anything. > I just > happened to come across it when answering your post. > I am wondering if > any of our long-time lurking members would like to > make a reappearance on > this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others? Good point--besides simply missing them, I at least could surely use their help. mike 8328 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 8:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. > > When I said ... > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > other > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > the > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > of > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > developed the factor of effort. > > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ for > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes less and less > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one > attaining to enlightenment. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to understand your position to be. --------------------------------------------------------------- > Coming to your post to me-- > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > > that > > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > > what > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > > must > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate > what I mean. > > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be chosen despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and conditions - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily *teeth-gritting* volition. ---------------------------------------------------- Surely not – yet > > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to > appreciate that act? Surely not. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Agreed. Automatic response there. -------------------------------------------------- When someone asks for our assistance > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions. --------------------------------------------------- When > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of kusala are > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – this is > an experience common to everyone. > > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations is, more > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for > what it is). > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be less useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more true the "further along" one is, I believe. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). > > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- > > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or > others."[ends] > > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. > > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the aim is > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we don’t > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. > > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right effort’, then, > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a kusala > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think you make good points here, Jon. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. > > Jon > > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > > being > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > other > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > the > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > of > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > developed the factor of effort. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > > expressed > > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Howard: > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > > I > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I as well! > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > =========================== > > With metta, > > Howard > ================================= 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) 8329 From: claudia harris Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 0:57am Subject: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 North America's response to terrorism-- metta for Bin Laden Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > How big is your heart? Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut down in pain or fear or anger? Will you be a vehicle for peace? > > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for just one moment the cycle > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace, > something may shift in the human experience. And > the > world can be a safer place for all of us. Please help to spread the word about metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > Blessings, Claudia "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate; hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das 8330 From: m. nease Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 1:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Howard, --- Howard wrote: > mike writes: > > I > > think it's much more accurate to say that the > > hearing of the words of the Buddha and the > > recollection and understanding of them in a > > particular way (among other things) conditions > > attention to the breath. No one attending or > > directing. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > If what you mean by this is that I would be > unlikely to sit for > mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about that > being useful, I would > agree. > -------------------------------------------------- I meant that the anapanasati couldn't occur without hearing, recollecting and understanding of the Dhamma having occurred first, and that the effort attending it (or any other moment) is impersonal. > > > If one did > > > not, then, most likely, one would not be > attending > > > to it. > > > > If this hearing, recollection and understanding > had > > not occurred, the subsequent attention would also > not > > occur. > > > > I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way > fit > > to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing > > notes. In this context, I think the distinction > > between conventional and technical(?) speech is > > important. > > > > mike > > > =========================== > I am not such an advanced practitioner as to > be directly in touch with > most of the referents of "techncal" speech, and that > being the case, I > personally find most technical speech to constitute > little more than a morass > of views in which I would best not become ensnared. > I'm afraid that for a > long, long time I shall have to depend on the > somewhat conventional speech of > the sutta pitaka and of the majority of Theravadin > (and Mahayana) teachers, > along with whatever fruits can be directly derived > from my practice. I think you're right about this, Howard. I was wrong to try to rephrase your comments in impersonal terms. The Buddha did speak of effort in conventional terms sometimes. The expression 'he puts forth effort' e.g. occurs fairly often in the sutta pitaka. When he speaks of paticcasamuppaada or the khandhas, for example, it's usually impersonal--that is, no 'one's contact' or 'one's materiality'. It was the latter manner of speaking I was aiming at. Still, I think it was out of place in the context of our discussion--my apologies. As for the morass of views, wrong view can surely be supported as well by conventional language as by 'technical' language--or by refraining from either, for that matter. It's the accompanying understanding (or lack thereof), I think, that determines the rightness or wrongness of any mode of speech (or abstinence from speech) more than anything else. I'm glad to have your company in the pursuit of that understanding. > Again, with regard to your intentions, I have > nothing but good will > towards you, and I feel nothing but good will coming > from you, my friend. Glad to hear it and back at you, Howard, mike 8331 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:17am Subject: Volition and Self [To Jon] Hi, Jon - With regard to volition/intention, I think there is a range of view in which we both occupy middle positions, with you slightly towards what I think of as the "left" extreme and with me slightly towards the "right" extreme, with both extremes constituting forms of wrong view. It seems to me that volition/intention is a phenomenon which, when wrongly understood, is a factor in the formation of the view of 'person' or 'self'. In fact, intention is a completely impersonal phenomenon arising automatically when the conditions for it to do so are in place. But when that intention or volition is seen, even subliminally, as personal, as the intervention of an alleged "self" in the causal flow, ignorance is active and growing. This is one extreme. It is the extreme I need to guard against. As I see it, the other extreme, the "left-hand" error, is to see intention, at least at a subliminal level of awareness, as almost illusory, as being a superfluous step in the chain of causality, so that it appears that there is no effective volition at all, with everything that occurs being either random, in one form of the error, or as fated, in another, but, in either case, leading to a kind of hopelessness, a sense of *total* lack of control, a kind of nihilistic despair. I think that you may need to guard against movement towards that extreme, though, of course, you are far, far away from it. If anything, I see you as quite possibly being closer to the "truthful center" than I. I talk only about tendencies here, tendencies to be closely watched. 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) 8332 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:57am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Mike - In a message dated 9/29/01 1:53:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > Hi, Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > > > mike writes: > > > > I > > > think it's much more accurate to say that the > > > hearing of the words of the Buddha and the > > > recollection and understanding of them in a > > > particular way (among other things) conditions > > > attention to the breath. No one attending or > > > directing. > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > If what you mean by this is that I would be > > unlikely to sit for > > mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about that > > being useful, I would > > agree. > > -------------------------------------------------- > > I meant that the anapanasati couldn't occur without > hearing, recollecting and understanding of the Dhamma > having occurred first, and that the effort attending > it (or any other moment) is impersonal. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think we are disagreeing here. --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > If one did > > > > not, then, most likely, one would not be > > attending > > > > to it. > > > > > > If this hearing, recollection and understanding > > had > > > not occurred, the subsequent attention would also > > not > > > occur. > > > > > > I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way > > fit > > > to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing > > > notes. In this context, I think the distinction > > > between conventional and technical(?) speech is > > > important. > > > > > > mike > > > > > =========================== > > I am not such an advanced practitioner as to > > be directly in touch with > > most of the referents of "techncal" speech, and that > > being the case, I > > personally find most technical speech to constitute > > little more than a morass > > of views in which I would best not become ensnared. > > I'm afraid that for a > > long, long time I shall have to depend on the > > somewhat conventional speech of > > the sutta pitaka and of the majority of Theravadin > > (and Mahayana) teachers, > > along with whatever fruits can be directly derived > > from my practice. > > I think you're right about this, Howard. I was wrong > to try to rephrase your comments in impersonal terms. > The Buddha did speak of effort in conventional terms > sometimes. The expression 'he puts forth effort' e.g. > occurs fairly often in the sutta pitaka. When he > speaks of paticcasamuppaada or the khandhas, for > example, it's usually impersonal--that is, no 'one's > contact' or 'one's materiality'. It was the latter > manner of speaking I was aiming at. Still, I think it > was out of place in the context of our discussion--my > apologies. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Don't give it a thought, Mike! --------------------------------------------------------- > > As for the morass of views, wrong view can surely be > supported as well by conventional language as by > 'technical' language--or by refraining from either, > for that matter. It's the accompanying understanding > (or lack thereof), I think, that determines the > rightness or wrongness of any mode of speech (or > abstinence from speech) more than anything else. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: For sure! --------------------------------------------------------- I'm > glad to have your company in the pursuit of that > understanding. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Likewise!! -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Again, with regard to your intentions, I have > > nothing but good will > > towards you, and I feel nothing but good will coming > > from you, my friend. > > Glad to hear it and back at you, Howard, > > 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) 8333 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging (ERIK) Hi Erik, I'm not really intending to start another big debate, but would just like to ask one or two (or three:-)) questions and make one or two comments on your post to Dan as he's on leave. --- rikpa21 wrote: > > serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- > > dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of > > inquiry. > > Thanks for mentioning this, Dan, because this may not always be > obvious to those unfamiliar with my style, or yours. There is also a > very long tradition, at least in the Tibetan debating system, > of "challenger" (the role I've been playing with Sarah and Dan > recently) to shake and rattle the "witness", much like a lawyer cross- > examination a witness on the stand. Now in my book, if someone is shaken or rattled, it sounds like dosa (aversion) is pretty apparent. My question is this: if one has the intention (whether one is a good cyber-dhamma friend or an LA lawyer) to 'shake and rattle the 'witness' ' and thus be a condition for dosa, is this intention kusala or akusala? I'm not referring here to any tradition or system, but to your experience, Erik. > This long and noble tradition is enshrined in Tibetan debate because > it helps tease out key issues. It is also a great way to train in not > taking debates "personally", since any discomfort that arises in the > course of having views challenged and examined is an excellent > opportunity for satipatthana, noting the arising of clinging to self > in terms of how much of a "me" is there in the view under discussion. Of course any aversion, discomfort or taking any points 'personally' have many conditions, most of all the accumulations and wrong views at play. However, again I wonder whether hoping to cause discomfort can be skilful. Surely a good friend wishes to put others at ease and in comfort rather than the reverse. > > The Dhamma is much like cooking a soup. You need lots of heat and to > stir constantly. :) Or, another analogy I like. The Dhamma is about > turning ordinary carbon into the most refined diamond. There is only > one way I know of doing that: heat and pressure. What about skilful mental states and wisdom? > > In this we appear to agree again, Dan. Agreeing with you AND Jonothan > within the span of a week. This is nearly unprecedented! :) Herman once asked if it was OK to agree here (he was brought up in his family never to admit it if he agreed, or something like that). I think it's very OK to agree (and certainly not an admission of defeat;-)) and it's good to see some 'common sharing'. > > Sati > > can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible > > objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an > > opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the > > diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. > > > There was a point where I'd even seek out special conditions for > panic, by taking psychedelic drugs in a way sufficient to trigger a > massive, several-hour series of panic-moments where the panic was > deep enough to make me think I'd lose "my" mind at some points. The > degree of panic in these moments was infinitely greater than the > panic I felt peering over the edge of a bungee platform a few years > ago, for example, so this was excellent training. I was glad to read about the value of satipatthana during your panic attacks. I do wonder, however, Eric, whether you don't have some idea that there have to be extremely unpleasant and diffcult experiences, as in this example, for satipatthana to develop. I don't wish to re-open old threads but just to question whether there is any idea of experiencing more unpleasant feelings and dosa (isn’t that what panic is?) in order to learn or develop wisdom. > > In terms of daily life, training in seeing this panic (or any > unpleasant sensation) as not-self made it possible to stroll a mile > through what sure looked like the "Killing Fields" into a former > Khmer Rouge stronghold recently........ It's good to hear about your appreciation of the Teachings in your daily life experiences. I fully appreciate that in this example you were not going out of your way to have fearful experiences but that your daily life just happens to be a little different..;-)) > > That is an example of a real-world effect of satipatthana training > (though I do not pretend to have mastered this by any means). There > was no need for any false bravado. There was only the understanding > that there is uncontrollable vipaka arising moment to moment; and > that even if it were to cost me my life (or worse), that none of > these things are "self". It was a very interesting test of > understanding, and as concrete an example as I can think of for how > this applies in daily life, even in a rather unusual case. (By-the- > by, it was in this little village that it became clear that the woman > I was with would become my wife, and turned out to be one of the most > incredible moments of this short life!) there are some useful reflections and understanding here, Erik, and we're glad you came out alive. Of course a development of understanding doesn't mean one shouldn't take care and precautions, but as you've said, vipaka is uncontrollable and we never have any idea what is in store for us from moment to tmoment. > That has been the entire point of my line of inquiry in these posts. > Because let's face it, there are plent of people who don't train the > mind out there, and if sati simply arose spontaneously, without > training, we'd have a lot of arahats walking around. Not unless there was a lot of careful listening and considering over and over and more importantly not unless there was the full development of wisdom. >But in practical > terms, this is not the case. In practical terms, the fruits of the > noble path will have no conditions to arise without diligent practice > (even though the can't be forced or expecetd even a little bit, and > ripen in their own sweet time independent of any wishes). We have to > cultivate our little plot of land with urgency no matter what: Let's say the plot of land has to be cultivated...no 'we' to do it, of course. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-093.html > There was mistaking serious lobha for kusala on more than one > occasion. But that misunderstanding is always exposed once the source > of the pleasant sensation engendering clinging disappears and there > is only the aftermath of dukkha arising from, what else, lobha? Perhaps we tend to be more 'conscious' or concerned about the unpleasantness (or dukkha) because it is accompanied by unpleasant feeling. What about the clinging now? It may not be ‘serious’ lobha and it may not be mistaken for kusala (though I think this is very common), but i think that as panna and sati grow, they begin to know and be aware of more and more subtle shades of lobha. What seems subtle now will seem like ‘serious lobha’ with more wisdom. This is already much more than I planned to say, so I'll rest my case;-)) Sarah 8334 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 3:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 A good suggestion here: please go to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ and read the two works here on the proper practice of Metta. It seems there may be some confusion concerning Metta (Maitri) and Tonglen. Tonglen is a bit different a practice then Metta. It has some other requirements. This is a Theravada study group, and though many members are eclectic about Dhamma study, one thing is essential, and that is the practice of Metta does have a technique that should be respected and well followed. Asking everyone to practice Metta for Osama Bin Laden sounds easy enough, but if there is any anger or resentment and one tries to practice Metta without first removing such obscurations, then either frustration could ensue or the practice may not be potent and do what it is supposed to do. The other problem, of course, would be that the technique is not practiced correctly. May this be of help to many... With Karuna, Ven. Dr. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo ----- Original Message ----- From: "claudia harris" Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 12:57 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 > North America's response to terrorism-- > metta for Bin Laden > Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > How big is your heart? > > Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut > down in pain or fear or anger? > > Will you be a vehicle for peace? > > > > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A > moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of > peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for > just one moment the cycle > > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace, > > something may shift in the human experience. And > > the > > world can be a safer place for all of us. > > Please help to spread the word about > metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2, > 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > Blessings, > Claudia > > "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate; > hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield > is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want > peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all > do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to > deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and > disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das > > 8335 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 3:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Dear Jon, I was just thinking about your letter to Howard, the one addressing the 'right effort' issue, and was seriously considering sending you a post expressing my appreciation. I do not know if I have anything useful to say, even if I did, someone or the other always expresses what I have in mind much better than I can. But since you asked me to contribute, and since I have come to appreciate your own contributions more and more, I will say something. My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises only when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience. When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from fear of repercussions to cold indifference. And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are dealing purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the conceptual level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that everytime there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for example, knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements, and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be patient towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can arise. Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for patience to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the development of wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'. A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with regard to development of wisdom. I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments from anybody. Metta, Sukin. Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka > > > Atthakatha (published > > > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > > > Brahmajala Sutta) it is > > > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the > > > practice of the other > > > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all > > > the paramis". It is > > > also described as being to the other paramis as life > > > is to the bodily > > > organism. I think that gives it a certain > > > pre-eminence. > > > > Definitely (and thanks for correcting my > > 'pre-immminence'). > > Hadn't noticed it, to be honest! > > > > Another passage from the same section is of > > > relevance to one of the other > > > current threads on our list. In dealing with the > > > role of wisdom in the > > > perfection of energy parami, it says: > > > > > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the > > > purpose desired, since it > > > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse > > > energy at all than to > > > arouse it in the wrong way." > > > > > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than > > > wrongly aroused. > > > Strong words indeed. > > > > Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be > > true of the other paramis, too. Without > > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can > > be dangerous I think. > > Although not for true actual patience and friendliness, but for their near > enemies, perhaps you mean? Energy is in a slightly different category, I > think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and performs its function > in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every kusala citta and > performs its function in a kusala manner. > > > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one > > > that we probably > > > associate with wisdom, is this: > > > > > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the > > > wrongs of others, not > > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the > > > wrongs of others only > > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his > > > patience into play > > > and make it grow even stronger." > > > > > > It might be interesting to consider the connection > > > being made here. > > > > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening > > patience. > > Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being able to tolerate the > wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had said, Mike. I just > happened to come across it when answering your post. I am wondering if > any of our long-time lurking members would like to make a reappearance on > this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others? > > Jon 8336 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 4:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely > mistaken, on all counts. I didn't consider it that way at all, Mike. your posts are always a condition for useful reflection for me. > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent > defilements?) Yes, there are latent defilements and all other ‘accumulated tendencies’ with each citta (moment of conciousness), including bhavanga cittas (life-continuum consciousness). Of course, as you imply, each citta, including each bhavanga citta is very fast and there is no continuous ‘luminous’ or any other existence. > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it > > is defiled by intrusive > > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, > > and it is freed from > > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) As we know, mind always refers to ‘citta’ and in this case to bhavanga cittas the Atthasalani also refers to this quote and says; “Mind also is said to be ‘clear’ in the sense of ‘exceedingly pure,’ with reference to the subconscious life-continuum. So the Buddha has said;- ‘bhikkhus, the mind is luminous, but is corrupted by adventitious corruptions.’ Though immoral, it is called ‘clear’ because it issues (from subconscious vital conditions) just as a tributary of the Ganges is like the Ganges and a tributary of the Godhaavarii is like the Godhaavarii” (Atth, 140, p.185 PTSed) >.. When defilements manifest, no bhavanga To be even more precise, the defilements only manifest with the akusala cittas during the javana process, there are the other cittas in the processes when there are no bhavanga cittas and yet no defilements manifesting. If we’re lucky, Kom or Num may add more details;-) I actually think 'sub-conscious' (life continuum) for bhavanga cittas in the above Atth. translation is rather confusing because it suggests bhavanga cittas are present all the time beneath the surface which of course is not correct. (but then I come from a psychology background so I may be particularly sensitive to these connotations;-) > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those > who know. I can’t pretend to understand some of these details well myself. I haven’t heard this theory of citta as a pure slate, tarnished by defilements before (except about bhavanga cittas as discussed). On the contrary, I understand kusala citta to be very different from akusala citta and kusala vipaka citta to be very different from akusala vipaka citta and so on. To give a couple of examples, seeing consciousness now may be kusala or akusala vipaka citta. The actual seeing, regardless of the feelings and other mental factors accompanying it, is inherently good or bad result and of a different nature from any other moment of seeing in kind and quality as well as time. In the same way, a moment of skilful thinking (kusala citta) is quite different from a moment of unwholesome thinking (akusala citta) because of its inherent nature as well as because of the ‘good’ or ‘unwholesome’ mental factors accompanying each. There are many references to the variegated nature of the mind such as these ones in ‘The Leash’ (SN III 22.100BB translation): “Bhikkhus, I do not see any other order of living beings so diversified as those in the animal realm. Even those beings in the animal realm have been diversified by the mind (citta), yet the mind is even more diverse than those beings in the animal realm.” `"Bhikkhus, have you seen the picture called `Faring On'?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Even that picture called `Faring On' has been designed in its diversity by the mind, yet the mind is even more diverse than that picture called `Faring On'. …" The following quotes from the Atthasalani (Atth (68), p.91 ) also make it clear, I think, that the mind (citta) doesn’t just follow the mental states, but is instead the ‘leader’: ‘Not merely in the explanation of the Vinaya, but also in some other lay discourses has he shown mind to be the principal. Even as he said, ‘Bhikkhus, whatever states are immoral, pertain to the immoral, take sides with the immoral, all are led by mind; of these states mind arises first. ‘consciousness leads, rules, makes all mode of mind. And whoso speaks or acts with evil mind, Him evil follows as the wheel the ox. Consciousness leads, rules, makes all modes of mind, And whoso speaks or acts with a good mind, Bliss like a faithful shadow follows him. By mind the world is led, by mind is drawn: And all men own the sovereignty of mind,’ > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my > inane comments, Howard... Like Howard, I never find any of your comments in the slightest bit inane, Mike. Indeed they are a condition for some deep and useful reflection on my part. No need to apologise or backtrack at all, as far as I’m concerned. I think we all learn from your kind, modest and sincere contemplations here as elsewhere. Sarah 8337 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 7:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Rob Ep, More on the ‘luminous mind' ;-) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to > com > > notes on AN1 10): > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from > > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > > .............................................. > > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The commentary to this text > explains > > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life continuum (bhavanga), which is > > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by defilements. The > > defilements arise only in the active thought process, not in the subliminal > > flow of consciousness’. > > .............................................. > > Dear Sarah, > Hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but this commentary does not seem to > explain > the original statement about the luminous mind. > > If the 'luminous mind' referred to a mind [subconscious] that is untouched by > defilements, the sutra would not say: > > "...this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > > (aagantukehi) defilements." > > The idea that this mind is out of the stream of conscious life, and thus > remains > in its pristine undefiled state is a direct contradiction to the statement of > the > sutra. Dear Rob Ep, you’re never presumptuous and I think these are tricky but important points, especially as this one sentence holds such significance for many and is so often referred to on dsg. I don’t know if my post just sent to Mike clarified or clouded the issue further for you (and others....be sure that many share your ‘concerns’). As I mentioned, mind refers to cittas - zillions of them ‘triggering’ each other off without any self or permanence from one to the next. As I suggested, I think ‘sub-conscious’ is very mis-leading when referring to the bhavanga cittas (life-continuum cittas) Literally, they mean ‘factors of life’ and they have the task of ensuring continuity of life when there are no sense-impressions or experiences, no thinking and no wholesome or unwholesome moments of consciousness. They are compared to the current of a river which is interrupted from time to time..They are considered ‘luminous’ or ‘pristine’ just in the sense that there are no defilements arising with them for those moments as I understand it. There is no sense of mind or citta remaining in this state for more than the instant that the bhavanga citta lasts. > It is clear from the sutra, at least to me, that it refers to the mind > itself, and > says that it is currently in a defiled state, but is pure in its true nature, > and > becomes freed from defilements which process then reveals its inherent > luminosity. I don’t think there are any references to ‘true nature’ in this context. As Jon and Sukin would say, it’s a descriptive passage explaining the inter-relationship between different cittas. > Furthermore, even if the sutra was referring to the subconscious mind which > is > kept pristine by being kept out of the flow of life, it would still be > difficult > to escape the idea that there is this pure, undefiled, luminous mind, which > would > still be setting up an 'essential nature' of luminosity to be discovered, > uncovered or freed from apparent defilements, would it not? The bhavanga cittas are the ‘flow of life’ or part of it anyway. They are not ‘kept pristine’ but this is their nature. They are vipaka cittas, the results of kamma (from the previous life), so nothing will change or affect their nature or characteristic. They have nothing to do with nibbana or realizing nibbana (except very indirectly) and I don’t believe their sabhava or nature can be known to us. Of course it was known in very precise detail to the Buddha who cared to share a ‘handful of leaves’ to help us understand how biref and anatta all moments of consciousness are. Nina writes in detail about bhavanga cittas in ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’, but I know that’s more homework, Rob;-)).... When it mentions (in Jim’s translation above) about the mind being ‘freed from intrusive defilements’, again I understand this to be descriptive and not a ‘thing-to-do’. It helps to understand that the defilements are also impermanent and not self. It may seem that attachment or anger last for a while but in fact they last for a split-second only and in between moments of defilements are many, many ‘undefiled’ or ‘luminous’ bhavanga cittas. In the 2 suttas in AN, reference is made to the speed of changing cittas and the importance of seeing the danger or unwholesome states and the value of skilful states even ‘if for just the lasting of a finger-snap’.I think it’s important to appreciate the context when we read the following: “Monks, I know not of any other single thing so quick to change as the mind: insomuch that it is no easy thing to illustrate how quick to change it is. This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that come from without.’ I’d be very interested to hear if this still isn’t clear to you or you still understand the passage in a different manner to me. The ancient commentary notes to these suttas, referring to the bhavanga cittas, had to be approved by the councils of arahats, so I doubt there could be any argument about their authenticity. I also wonder if there are any other (Pali canon) Tipitaka references which the understanding of a lasting, inherently luminous mind or awareness is based on. I’d be interested to discuss any of these as well. Thanks again for raising these useful points and considering my message so carefully. Sarah 8338 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Robert Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Jon, > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full lotus > quite a bit, > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, but > on the > other hand, it is possible that it does. > > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that the > fact that > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to get > into, it has > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a difficult > posture > if it had no significance? > > Many other meditative traditions, from yoga to the Taoists and Tibetans > consider > the cross-legged sitting position to allow the body's natural energies > to align > properly, and for energetic centers to be held in a particular relation > when > meditating. If the Buddha did not specifically emphasize such things, > it may be > that they do not matter to the path of understanding that is uniquely > his. But it > may also be, as some have suggested, that he took it for granted as a > proper way > of sitting for meditation or contemplation. > > I agree that we cannot decide in ignorance that this is the best way to > sit, but > should we then decide in equal ignorance that it is not? I don't think I've decided anything, at least, not in the sense of being closed to discussion on the subject. I do of course have a view, based partly on the assumption that if a particular posture had any special significance it would have been mentioned in the suttas, and partly on my reading of the Satipatthana Sutta which says that awareness is to be developed in whichever of the 4 postures one finds oneself at the time (I think you would be familiar with the passage in question). I am open to discussion, however, if you would like to put anything forward. ;-)) Jon 8339 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Howard In your post below you mention, I think, 2 different stages of development. In the first one relies on an 'anchor' as a focus for one's attention and on intentional effort, while the second can be developed without reliance on, or at least with reduced reliance on, these 2 factors. While I would of course question such an interpretation of the path, I am prepared to accept it for the purpose of this post, because I would like to focus on the nature of right effort vs. deliberate/intentional effort. There are I believe significant differences between the sort of intentional effort you refer to and the 'right effort' in the suttas. First, intentional effort as you describe it is exerted when the citta is not kusala in order to spur kusala to arise, and it is not itself kusala, or not necessarily so, (otherwise one wouldn't need to exert it!). Right effort, on the other hand, is kusala and arises only with a kusala citta. Secondly, under your description intentional effort is needed less and less, and therefore arises less and less, as understanding is developed, whereas right effort increases in strength as wisdom is developed, and is at its strongest as one of the factors present at the moment of enlightenment. Howard, I think you may have agreed with this analysis in a previous post, but I didn't follow up on it at the time. What I am suggesting is simply that conventional 'intentional effort', even if followed by moments of kusala, is not the same as right effort. Intentional effort is something that precedes the arising of kusala. Right effort is a co-arising factor associated with a kusala citta (or, as a mundane path factor, with the mundane path citta), and is developed by the development of the kusala (or path) citta it arises with. Just seeking to clarify. Jon --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/27/01 9:41:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > > > Howard > > > > Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective > on a > > couple of the areas where we differ. > > > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > > > 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'. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that > > > there be) > > > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing > of > > > the > > > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained > until > > > that > > > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for > > > attention to > > > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a > matter > > > of > > > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in > removing > > > it > > > or tearing the mind away. > > > > I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular > > object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the > object > > is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') > the > > akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to > > return to the chosen object. > > > > I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana > in > > passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking > is > > in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you > see > > the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or > is > > it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > My statement here pertained to an early stage of meditation, in > which > concentration is still weak, a stage in which one uses a primary object, > say > the breath, as kind of an anchor for the meditation. In that stage, > focus is > on the "anchor". When other objects arise, one sees them clearly (and > this is > to be done for kusala as well as akusala), but observes them "lightly", > without clinging or aversion, letting the objects come and go, duely > noting > their nature in the process, and then returning to the anchor. > At a later stage of meditation, when concentration has become > stronger > and more stable, one "opens" up the field of awareness. At that point, > the > principle of non-clinging and non-aversion remains the same, but there > is no > returning to a primary meditation object or anchor - there is simply the > > awareness of the next object of discernment in the now-broad field of > awareness. It is this later stage it is most aptly called a setting up > of > mindfulness. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of > applying > > attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of > > control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, > Howard? > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Yep! > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this > regard. > > > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to > have > > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta > chain. > > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but > the > > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So > while > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > In the actual practice of meditation, until a certain stage, > intentional effort is exercised. C'han/Zen, for example, doesn't *speak* > that > way. I speaks the way *you* do. But the actual *practice* of C'han/Zen > meditation, of all varieties, just as the actually practiced meditation > in > the various schools of Theravada, involves intentional effort at the > early > stages. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable > > thought you have put into these matters, Howard. > > > > Jon > > > =============================== > 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) 8340 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > So is 'latency' a characteristic shared in common > with, e.g., paññaa (since it only understands one > object at a time, of all the objects it could > understand), and with anusaya? Where does it fit into > abhidhamma? (I found it in Pali as 'apaakatataa' or > 'paticchannataa', but don't think I've run across > either of these before). I suppose we could say that anything that has been accumulated but is not manifesting at the present moment is latent. But I have only come across latency in the context of the anusaya. Nina may be able to add more on this. Thanks for the Pali terms. I'm not familiar with them, I'm afraid. Where did you get them from? I'd be interested to know more. Jon 8341 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 10:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... In my understanding, aren't whether our actions prompted or unprompted to do kusala still mingled or attached to kusala. Isn't not attached to an right extreme view. What do we mean by unprompted, are we so sure that it is not attached to a subtle (or subconscious self), as long as self ego is not let go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort still surrounds it. When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall into the two extreme? Please forgive me for the strong wording Kind regards. Kenneth Ong Howard wrote: Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. > > When I said ... > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > other > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > the > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > of > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > developed the factor of effort. > > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ for > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes less and less > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one > attaining to enlightenment. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to understand your position to be. --------------------------------------------------------------- > Coming to your post to me-- > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > > that > > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > > what > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > > must > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate > what I mean. > > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be chosen despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and conditions - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily *teeth-gritting* volition. ---------------------------------------------------- Surely not – yet > > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to > appreciate that act? Surely not. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Agreed. Automatic response there. -------------------------------------------------- When someone asks for our assistance > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions. --------------------------------------------------- When > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of kusala are > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – this is > an experience common to everyone. > > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations is, more > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for > what it is). > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be less useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more true the "further along" one is, I believe. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). > > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- > > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or > others."[ends] > > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. > > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the aim is > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we don’t > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. > > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right effort’, then, > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a kusala > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think you make good points here, Jon. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. > > Jon > > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > > being > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > other > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > the > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > of > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > developed the factor of effort. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > > expressed > > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Howard: > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > > I > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I as well! > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > =========================== > > With metta, > > Howard > ================================= 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) 8342 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 7:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 9/30/01 10:47:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > In my understanding, aren't whether our actions prompted or unprompted to do > kusala still mingled or attached to kusala. Isn't not attached to an right > extreme view. What do we mean by unprompted, are we so sure that it is not > attached to a subtle (or subconscious self), as long as self ego is not let > go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the > self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we > give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self > effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort > still surrounds it. > When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not > attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall > into the two extreme? > Please forgive me for the strong wording > Kind regards. > Kenneth Ong > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Two comments, Kenneth. One is that I am having trouble understanding the content of the foregoing. I apologize that this difficulty on my part makes it impossible for me to respond intelligently. The other comment is that I am not clear as to who it is that you are writing to here, Jon or me. The post you are replying to was written by me, but the material, "when we give it willingly there is not volition", which you quote was not mine. ================================ With metta, Howard > > > Howard wrote: Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > Howard > > > > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous > > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. > > > > When I said ... > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > other > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > the > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > of > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > developed the factor of effort. > > > > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ > for > > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for > > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would > > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I > > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for > > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes > less and less > > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort > > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and > > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one > > attaining to enlightenment. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised > me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to > understand your position to be. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Coming to your post to me-- > > > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > > > that > > > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > > > what > > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > > > must > > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional > > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate > > what I mean. > > > > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the > > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times > there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be > chosen > despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the > one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some > criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and > conditions > - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily > *teeth-gritting* volition. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Surely not – yet > > > > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees > > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to > > appreciate that act? Surely not. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Agreed. Automatic response there. > -------------------------------------------------- > When someone asks for our assistance > > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of > volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions. > --------------------------------------------------- > When > > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, > > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise > > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of > kusala are > > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – > this is > > an experience common to everyone. > > > > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in > > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not > > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what > > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations > is, more > > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with > > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of > > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for > > what it is). > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort > involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be > less > useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's > actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more > true the "further along" one is, I believe. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced > > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class > > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala > > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). > > > > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- > > > > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or > > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such > > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when > > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or > > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this > > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or > > others."[ends] > > > > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following > > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, > > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. > > > > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the > aim is > > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more > > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know > > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of > > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. > > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we > don’t > > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it > > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior > > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. > > > > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are > > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right > effort’, then, > > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the > > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a > kusala > > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think you make good points here, Jon. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. > > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. > > > > Jon > > > > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > > > being > > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > > other > > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > > the > > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > > of > > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > > developed the factor of effort. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > > > expressed > > > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Howard: > > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > > > I > > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I as well! > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > =========================== > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > ================================= > 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) 8343 From: rikpa21 Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 11:42pm Subject: Re: Clinging (ERIK) --- Sarah wrote: > > Thanks for mentioning this, Dan, because this may not always be > > obvious to those unfamiliar with my style, or yours. There is also a > > very long tradition, at least in the Tibetan debating system, > > of "challenger" (the role I've been playing with Sarah and Dan > > recently) to shake and rattle the "witness", much like a lawyer cross- > > examination a witness on the stand. > > Now in my book, if someone is shaken or rattled, it sounds like dosa > (aversion) is pretty apparent. Right, therefore, when one notes aversion arising, one should know it for what it is and let it go. 8344 From: m. nease Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 1:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Sarah, Some great citations here! --- Sarah wrote: > > However, bhavanga only occurs when there are > no > > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. > At > > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or > latent > > defilements?) > > Yes, there are latent defilements and all other > ‘accumulated tendencies’ with > each citta (moment of conciousness), including > bhavanga cittas (life-continuum > consciousness). Of course, as you imply, each citta, > including each bhavanga > citta is very fast and there is no continuous > ‘luminous’ or any other > existence. Understood... > > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but > it > > > is defiled by intrusive > > > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is > luminous, > > > and it is freed from > > > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > > As we know, mind always refers to ‘citta’ and in > this case to bhavanga cittas > the Atthasalani also refers to this quote and says; > > “Mind also is said to be ‘clear’ in the sense of > ‘exceedingly pure,’ with > reference to the subconscious life-continuum. So > the Buddha has said;- > ‘bhikkhus, the mind is luminous, but is corrupted by > adventitious corruptions.’ > Though immoral, it is called ‘clear’ because it > issues (from subconscious vital > conditions) just as a tributary of the Ganges is > like the Ganges and a > tributary of the Godhaavarii is like the > Godhaavarii” (Atth, 140, p.185 PTSed) My project for the day is to be sure to order a copy of Atthasaalinii. > >.. When defilements manifest, no bhavanga > > To be even more precise, the defilements only > manifest with the akusala cittas > during the javana process, there are the other > cittas in the processes when > there are no bhavanga cittas and yet no defilements > manifesting. If we’re > lucky, Kom or Num may add more details;-) Yes--thanks for filling in these details. > I actually think 'sub-conscious' (life continuum) > for bhavanga cittas in the > above Atth. translation is rather confusing because > it suggests bhavanga cittas > are present all the time beneath the surface which > of course is not correct. > (but then I come from a psychology background so I > may be particularly > sensitive to these connotations;-) Maybe not--I feel the same way and, as you know, find this particular point to be hugely important. > > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at > all, > > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > > something about citta in general. Don't I > remember TA > > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, > like > > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > > citta and cetasika arise together and in that > sense > > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by > virtue of > > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to > be > > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > > something like 'luminous but covered by > defilements' > > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from > those > > who know. > > I can’t pretend to understand some of these details > well myself. I haven’t > heard this theory of citta as a pure slate, > tarnished by defilements before > (except about bhavanga cittas as discussed). On the > contrary, I understand > kusala citta to be very different from akusala citta > and kusala vipaka citta to > be very different from akusala vipaka citta and so > on. To give a couple of > examples, seeing consciousness now may be kusala or > akusala vipaka citta. The > actual seeing, regardless of the feelings and other > mental factors accompanying > it, is inherently good or bad result and of a > different nature from any other > moment of seeing in kind and quality as well as > time. In the same way, a moment > of skilful thinking (kusala citta) is quite > different from a moment of > unwholesome thinking (akusala citta) because of its > inherent nature as well as > because of the ‘good’ or ‘unwholesome’ mental > factors accompanying each. > > There are many references to the variegated nature > of the mind such as these > ones in ‘The Leash’ (SN III 22.100BB translation): > > “Bhikkhus, I do not see any other order of living > beings so diversified as > those in the animal realm. Even those beings in the > animal realm have been > diversified by the mind (citta), yet the mind is > even more diverse than those > beings in the animal realm.” > > `"Bhikkhus, have you seen the picture called `Faring > On'?" > "Yes, venerable sir." > "Even that picture called `Faring On' has been > designed in its > diversity by the mind, yet the mind is even more > diverse than that picture > called `Faring On'. …" > > The following quotes from the Atthasalani (Atth > (68), p.91 ver1,2; Si,39>) also make it clear, I think, that > the mind (citta) doesn’t just > follow the mental states, but is instead the > ‘leader’: > > ‘Not merely in the explanation of the Vinaya, but > also in some other lay > discourses has he shown mind to be the principal. > Even as he said, ‘Bhikkhus, > whatever states are immoral, pertain to the immoral, > take sides with the > immoral, all are led by mind; of these states mind > arises first. > > ‘consciousness leads, rules, makes all mode of mind. > And whoso speaks or acts with evil mind, > Him evil follows as the wheel the ox. > Consciousness leads, rules, makes all modes of mind, > And whoso speaks or acts with a good mind, > Bliss like a faithful shadow follows him. > > By mind the world is led, by mind is drawn: > And all men own the sovereignty of mind,’ These are good points and great quotes. I must be mistaken in remembering citta as being essentially pure. I know that kusala and akusala cittas are the result of many conditions, but still don't understand what makes a citta kusala or akusala (in the moment) other than cetasikas, so must study some more--a lot more. Thanks again, mike 8345 From: m. nease Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 2:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Jon, Thanks--the pali came from Ven. Buddhadatta's English - Pali Dictionary. mike --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > > So is 'latency' a characteristic shared in common > > with, e.g., paññaa (since it only understands one > > object at a time, of all the objects it could > > understand), and with anusaya? Where does it fit > into > > abhidhamma? (I found it in Pali as 'apaakatataa' > or > > 'paticchannataa', but don't think I've run across > > either of these before). > > > I suppose we could say that anything that has been > accumulated but is not > manifesting at the present moment is latent. But I > have only come across > latency in the context of the anusaya. Nina may be > able to add more on > this. > > Thanks for the Pali terms. I'm not familiar with > them, I'm afraid. Where > did you get them from? I'd be interested to know > more. > > Jon > 8346 From: Jinavamsa Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 6:02am Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 hello Claudia and the Ven. Dr. Dhammapiyo, and all, I thought it was an most unusual and inspiring idea, this proposal in the USA for a general time for sending out metta to Osama Bin Laden. That is hardly the approach that was heard after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This to me a (slight) indication of some (slight) shift in consciousness going on in the world, perhaps. In a way (a Buddhist way) of thinking about such things, the conditions here are allowing for this more careful understanding of violence to arise. What I mean is that here, unlike the situation back in December of '41, the attack was not done by the regular Armed Forces of a nation state. Had the highjackers pulled off their civilian clothing and changed into the military uniform of some recognized governmental army, I suspect the US would have declared war immediately (as it did the day after Pearl Harbor). Anyway, Dr. Dhammapiyo, thank you for pointing out that metta practice requires a certain clearing of the consciousness so to speak before it can be smooth flowing as a process. I would sense that if there is resentment or anger that arises in the process of doing a metta practice, that that would in a way replace the metta practice, or at least suspend it for a while, while the anger or pain or whatever would be investigated..... Would you be willing to give a guideline or two of what people might be alert to if they are to decide to go along with the Metta for Bin Laden suggestion? or point out the distinctions between metta and tonglen practice? (Do you think that tonglen practice would be more powerful here, for example, or more relevant?) in peace, jinavamsa ====== 8347 From: KennethOng Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 11:16am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Sorry Howard, i think it should be directed to Jon, I think I should rephrase my paragraph as I did it in the middle of the night. The mind is tired so the words become "tired" Our actions prompted or unprompted still attached to kusala and the attachment of kusala is an attachment to an extreme right view. What is umprompted, are we so sure it is also not attached to self. Our actions whether prompted or unprompted still attached to a self because our self is not let go. Hence all efforts are self attached effort be it prompted or unprompted. When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall into the two extreme? Kindest regards Kenneth Ong as long as self ego is not let > go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the > self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we > give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self > effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort > still surrounds it. Howard wrote: Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 9/30/01 10:47:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > In my understanding, aren't whether our actions prompted or unprompted to do > kusala still mingled or attached to kusala. Isn't not attached to an right > extreme view. What do we mean by unprompted, are we so sure that it is not > attached to a subtle (or subconscious self), as long as self ego is not let > go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the > self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we > give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self > effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort > still surrounds it. > When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not > attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall > into the two extreme? > Please forgive me for the strong wording > Kind regards. > Kenneth Ong > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Two comments, Kenneth. One is that I am having trouble understanding the content of the foregoing. I apologize that this difficulty on my part makes it impossible for me to respond intelligently. The other comment is that I am not clear as to who it is that you are writing to here, Jon or me. The post you are replying to was written by me, but the material, "when we give it willingly there is not volition", which you quote was not mine. ================================ With metta, Howard > > > Howard wrote: Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > Howard > > > > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous > > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. > > > > When I said ... > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > other > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > the > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > of > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > developed the factor of effort. > > > > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ > for > > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for > > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would > > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I > > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for > > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes > less and less > > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort > > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and > > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one > > attaining to enlightenment. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised > me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to > understand your position to be. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Coming to your post to me-- > > > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > > > that > > > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > > > what > > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > > > must > > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional > > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate > > what I mean. > > > > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the > > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times > there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be > chosen > despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the > one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some > criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and > conditions > - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily > *teeth-gritting* volition. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Surely not – yet > > > > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees > > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to > > appreciate that act? Surely not. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Agreed. Automatic response there. > -------------------------------------------------- > When someone asks for our assistance > > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of > volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions. > --------------------------------------------------- > When > > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, > > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise > > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of > kusala are > > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – > this is > > an experience common to everyone. > > > > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in > > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not > > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what > > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations > is, more > > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with > > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of > > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for > > what it is). > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort > involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be > less > useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's > actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more > true the "further along" one is, I believe. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced > > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class > > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala > > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). > > > > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- > > > > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or > > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such > > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when > > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or > > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this > > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or > > others."[ends] > > > > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following > > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, > > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. > > > > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the > aim is > > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more > > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know > > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of > > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. > > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we > don’t > > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it > > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior > > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. > > > > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are > > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right > effort’, then, > > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the > > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a > kusala > > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think you make good points here, Jon. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. > > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. > > > > Jon > > > > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > > > being > > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > > other > > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > > the > > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > > of > > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > > developed the factor of effort. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > > > expressed > > > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Howard: > > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > > > I > > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I as well! > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > =========================== > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > ================================= > 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) 8348 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 0:05pm Subject: More on the Luminosity of Mind (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard) --- Sarah wrote: > This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from > without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that come > from without.’ Hi Sarah! Thanks for your answers. I find this very interesting and I appreciate you going through these points with me. Well, here is where translation is important, because if the original really says 'this' mind, and then 'that' mind, as two different arising cittas, then it would point in the direction of saying that some cittas are defied and some undefiled, and that they arise and pass away, rather than being a continuous underlying 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed from them. However, I still have some questions: If the bhavanga cittas are luminous, and they are thus freed from defilements, why are they spoken of as being defiled? The idea that the underlying bhavanga cittas that give continuity to the flow of life are inherently luminous, but not continuous, is fine in itself, but it is the luminous mind that is said to be 'defiled by taints that come from without.' Why would the luminous mind, which you have said is 'freed from taints' because it is the result of a previous life, be spoken of as being defiled 'from without'? It seems to me that this is still different from your explanation. Please forgive me for being so blunt, but I am really interested in getting to the bottom of this. Hope you don't mind! Then the mind which is said to be 'cleansed' of taints from without, sounds like it is saying that it was previously defiled but is no longer defiled, as it has been 'cleansed', a process that takes place in time. If it was merely a momentary 'citta' rather than talking about a general structure of 'mind', how could it be defiled and then be cleansed of defilements. But it says: "that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that come from without. It is luminous, but has been cleansed of taints. Note that it doesn't say 'absent' of taints or 'doesn't have any' taints, but that it is cleansed. I don't see any way to interpret cleansed other than to say 'it was once dirty, but it has been made clean through a cleansing process'. That would have to refer to something that lasts longer than a moment, more than one citta in other words, either a structure of mind or a process of mind that continues beyond a moment or two. Putting these two statements together, it still seems more logical to me that they are referring to a process in which the process of mind which is inherently luminous takes on defilements from without, and then is cleansed by a process of purification. If I am right about this, which is highly doubtful , then my next question would be whether this interpretation can in any way reconciled with Abdhidhamma? Again, I speak as one who is only very gradually getting more familiar with this area, but I would initially and boldly say 'yes'. The reason I have some hope that this is possible is because I assume that the perceptual and thought process of a more advanced person on the path is indeed more 'pure' and freer of defilements than someone who has not had any insight into the true structure of realities. Since kusala and panna are accumulated [both?] and passed down through successive cittas, and since akusala is gradually eliminated, one could say that the path of wisdom is also a path of purifying defilements. What if Buddha is referring to this process of arisings, continuities and passing of accumulations of more pure and wise cittas as 'mind'? If this were so, the statement in the sutra would make sense as one of process, without every establishing an underlying 'mind' that is always there and stays the same. What is the 'luminosity' that might be revealed by the purification of 'defilements' from outside? As the cittas become more aware of the true nature of things, they gain more panna. So my question is: would it make sense to say that panna is luminous, in the same sense that the bhavanga cittas are said to be luminous in your explanation? If so, one can look at the luminosity of mind as the luminosity of panna. Every arising citta contains the seed of panna. It only needs to be looked at properly for vipassana and then panna to arise on any given occasion. Of course, it may not, but this potential for panna is inherent in every arising moment. I don't know if all this is going too far, from your point of view, but I think it may make more sense of the original statement in the sutra, if someone can fill in some of the holes for me. > I’d be very interested to hear if this still isn’t clear to you or you still > understand the passage in a different manner to me. The ancient commentary > notes to these suttas, referring to the bhavanga cittas, had to be approved by > the councils of arahats, so I doubt there could be any argument about their > authenticity. I also wonder if there are any other (Pali canon) Tipitaka > references which the understanding of a lasting, inherently luminous mind or > awareness is based on. I’d be interested to discuss any of these as well. > > Thanks again for raising these useful points and considering my message so > carefully. Thank you for being so patient! As you can see, I do still have a few ideas and questions that aren't quite settled yet! I would love to have a look at the commentaries on this particular passage. I am anxious to further confuse myself on this passage , which seems particularly ripe to me. I'll be very interested in what you think about this. Best Regards, Robert Ep. ============================ 8349 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 0:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I don't think I've decided anything, at least, not in the sense of being > closed to discussion on the subject. I do of course have a view, based > partly on the assumption that if a particular posture had any special > significance it would have been mentioned in the suttas, and partly on my > reading of the Satipatthana Sutta which says that awareness is to be > developed in whichever of the 4 postures one finds oneself at the time (I > think you would be familiar with the passage in question). > > I am open to discussion, however, if you would like to put anything > forward. ;-)) > > Jon Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I think you are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was prescribed for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm remembering wrong [which is very possible]. I think it must be true in any case, that awareness should be developed in all of the positions one finds oneself in. This is a little different from 'meditation practice', but that doesn't assume tbat meditation is the only way to practice, either. Best Regards, Robert Ep. 8350 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 7:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) Robert Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > A few possible points for your consideration: > > If the Sutras contained all that we need to know, why the commentaries, > and why > the teachers? I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but if Ajahn > Chah or K. > Sujin give teachings on how to work with the sutras and their > application, then we > can say that additional interpretations are actually necessary to put > the sutras > into practice. > > In other words, our understanding is not adequately fulfilled in many > cases by the > Buddha's words alone, or even by the Buddha's words and the traditional > commentaries alone. But there is a growing, living tradition of > understandings > and insights at any given time, and we avail ourselves of these rivulets > of wisdom > that come off the main stream, do we not? We have different ideas here, Rob. ;-)) I take the view that the suttas do indeed contain all that needs to be known but that, because of our ignorance (relative to those to whom the suttas were originally addressed), that information is not readily accessible to us. We have to rely on the abhidhamma, the commentaries and 'good friends' with a better understanding than our own for elucidation of the true meaning of the suttas. In terms of the dhamma, a good friend is a person who, like the commentaries, explains for us the teachings as found in the Tipitaka. A good friend does not try to supplant the teachings with his/her own views. I also beg to differ as regards your reference to a 'growing' tradition of understandings and insights. Regrettably, the store of extant knowledge about the teachings is diminishing rather than expanding (and will continue to do so until it disappears entirely -- a phenomenon anticipated by the Buddha before his death). Some commentaries go into considerable detail about the exact rate and extent of the decline of the teachings over the centuries/millennia. > Likewise, I may be more or less developed in my understanding, but I > have to > consult and develop my own sense of wisdom, as laughable as that may > start out, in > order to make the choices that I make from moment to moment. Is there > anything > inherently more desireable in considering oneself to be completely > unqualified to > discern the truth, than to promote one's own understanding through > cultivation and > referring back to it to see how it's coming along? I may have a very > different > view of things, but I don't see those on the path as being incapable of > discerning > anything apart from the sutras. I see the sutras as something to be > incorporated > and assimilated into one's own storehouse of wisdom. > > As I understand it [in the vaguest possible way] Abhidhamma teaches that > panna is > passed on and accumulated in successions of continuing moments, even > though they > arise and fall instantaneously one after the other. If one is growing > an ability > to see more and understand more of the true nature of things as one > progresses, I > would think that one's ability to discern what is true and false to > increase as > well. We will never reach spiritual maturity if we see ourselves as > nothing and > the Buddha as everything. I prefer to see us as potential Buddhas in > training. > Otherwise, by choosing a kind of passivity with respect to our own > understanding, > we may bypass many moments of panna that correspond to a kind of > interest or > investigation or creative moment that would otherwise be put forth. > > So while we may defer to the teachings themselves, I think we should > engage with > them actively and milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves, > rather > than take them as already whole and complete. To me, a sutra is a > living document > and also a blueprint, not fully actualized until it is ingested by a > human being > and turned into their way of seeing and understanding. > > I think it is equally dangerous as ignoring the sutras to assume we know > what they > mean by adopting the meanings that occur to us simply by reading [and > even > re-reading and re-reading] without challenging our view of that meaning > over time > and going through our own process of discovery. Again, differences between us. ;-)), ;-)). As I see it, the wisdom we are seeking to develop is the wisdom that was discovered by the Buddha and contained in the suttas which have come down to us today. It is not some wisdom that is innately 'ours' and that simply needs the right conditions to blossom. (What is innately 'ours', if you like, is the vast quantity of defilements accumulated over the aeons and the relatively meagre amount of wisdom similarly accumulated.) The only true source and guide we have for the accumulation of further wisdom is the suttas, as amplified by the abhidhamma and the commentaries. Once the Tipitaka and commentaries are gone, so will be all the knowledge they 'contain' (again, this was explained by the Buddha before his death). So if at any time we become aware of instances in which our 'sense of wisdom' is at odds with what is explained in the Tipitaka and commentaries, this should give us cause to consider very carefully whether our 'understanding' is indeed that and not our old friend wrong view. I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest (if I read you correctly) that the teachings are other than 'whole and complete', and so needing us to 'milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves'. I would be interested to hear examples of any areas where you see this as applying. > Anyway, I may prove to be off base, but that is the way it appears to > me. > Hope I'm not coming on too strong, considering I may not know what I'm > talking > about. Not at all, Rob (and anyway, who would I be to complain about someone coming on too strong?!). Members are welcome to float their views here (without fear of being jumped on, I hope); but they should be prepared to be asked to back up any assertion made! Jon 8351 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:27pm Subject: [Fwd: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis] 8352 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Thanks, Sukin, for coming in here. Since you invite comments from anybody, I would like to see if some of our (recently) more silent members would like to join this thread. Let's hear it, Kom, Num, Betty, Tadao, Alex ... or anyone else, of course. ;-)) --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > Dear Jon, > I was just thinking about your letter to Howard, the one addressing the > 'right effort' issue, and was seriously considering sending you a post > expressing my appreciation. > I do not know if I have anything useful to say, even if I did, someone > or > the other always expresses what I have in mind much better than I can. > But since you asked me to contribute, and since I have come to > appreciate > your own contributions more and more, I will say something. > My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises > only > when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience. > When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from > fear of repercussions to cold indifference. > And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it > to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are > dealing > purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the > conceptual > level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop > until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that > everytime > there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for example, > knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements, > and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be > patient > towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can > arise. > Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other > paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for patience > to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the > development of > wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not > the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'. > A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with regard > to development of wisdom. > I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments from > anybody. > > Metta, > Sukin. > > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Mike > > > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > > > > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka > > > > Atthakatha (published > > > > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > > > > Brahmajala Sutta) it is > > > > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the > > > > practice of the other > > > > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all > > > > the paramis". It is > > > > also described as being to the other paramis as life > > > > is to the bodily > > > > organism. I think that gives it a certain > > > > pre-eminence. > > > > > > Definitely (and thanks for correcting my > > > 'pre-immminence'). > > > > Hadn't noticed it, to be honest! > > > > > > Another passage from the same section is of > > > > relevance to one of the other > > > > current threads on our list. In dealing with the > > > > role of wisdom in the > > > > perfection of energy parami, it says: > > > > > > > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the > > > > purpose desired, since it > > > > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse > > > > energy at all than to > > > > arouse it in the wrong way." > > > > > > > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than > > > > wrongly aroused. > > > > Strong words indeed. > > > > > > Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be > > > true of the other paramis, too. Without > > > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can > > > be dangerous I think. > > > > Although not for true actual patience and friendliness, but for their > near > > enemies, perhaps you mean? Energy is in a slightly different > category, I > > think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and performs its > function > > in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every kusala citta and > > performs its function in a kusala manner. > > > > > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one > > > > that we probably > > > > associate with wisdom, is this: > > > > > > > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the > > > > wrongs of others, not > > > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the > > > > wrongs of others only > > > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his > > > > patience into play > > > > and make it grow even stronger." > > > > > > > > It might be interesting to consider the connection > > > > being made here. > > > > > > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening > > > patience. > > > > Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being able to tolerate > the > > wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had said, Mike. I > just > > happened to come across it when answering your post. I am wondering > if > > any of our long-time lurking members would like to make a reappearance > on > > this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others? > > > > Jon > > > > > 8353 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Kenneth Hi! First, a belated welcome to the group from me, and my thanks for your many recent posts --- KennethOng wrote: > > Sorry Howard, i think it should be directed to Jon, > I think I should rephrase my paragraph as I did it in the middle of the > night. The mind is tired so the words become "tired" > Our actions prompted or unprompted still attached to kusala and the > attachment of kusala is an attachment to an extreme right view. What is > umprompted, are we so sure it is also not attached to self. Our actions > whether prompted or unprompted still attached to a self because our self > is not let go. Hence all efforts are self attached effort be it prompted > or unprompted. > > When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it > not attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we > fall into the two extreme? Let me see if I have understood. You are suggesting, I think, that developing kusala does not necessarily help to reduce our attachment to an idea of a self. Have I got it right? I think this is a very perceptive comment, and one I would entirely agree with. Would you like to say more about how the idea of self can be overcome (or, as you put it, 'let go of')? By the way, I think the distinction between prompted an unprompted kusala cittas is still a useful one. It helps us to understand the conditioned nature of these moments, and also the value of useful reminders given by ourselves or others. I would be interested to know whether this distinction is meaningful to you, the way it is described in the Visuddhimagga (in my earlier post). By that I mean, are you able to relate it to your own experience? Jon 8354 From: Howard Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 6:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Thanks, Kenneth. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/30/01 11:17:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > > Sorry Howard, i think it should be directed to Jon, > I think I should rephrase my paragraph as I did it in the middle of the > night. The mind is tired so the words become "tired" > Our actions prompted or unprompted still attached to kusala and the > attachment of kusala is an attachment to an extreme right view. What is > umprompted, are we so sure it is also not attached to self. Our actions > whether prompted or unprompted still attached to a self because our self is > not let go. Hence all efforts are self attached effort be it prompted or > unprompted. > > When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not > attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall > into the two extreme? > > Kindest regards > > Kenneth Ong > > /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) 8355 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 11:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Robert Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > A few possible points for your consideration: > > > > If the Sutras contained all that we need to know, why the commentaries, > > and why > > the teachers? I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but if Ajahn > > Chah or K. > > Sujin give teachings on how to work with the sutras and their > > application, then we > > can say that additional interpretations are actually necessary to put > > the sutras > > into practice. > > > > In other words, our understanding is not adequately fulfilled in many > > cases by the > > Buddha's words alone, or even by the Buddha's words and the traditional > > commentaries alone. But there is a growing, living tradition of > > understandings > > and insights at any given time, and we avail ourselves of these rivulets > > of wisdom > > that come off the main stream, do we not? > > We have different ideas here, Rob. ;-)) I take the view that the suttas > do indeed contain all that needs to be known but that, because of our > ignorance (relative to those to whom the suttas were originally > addressed), that information is not readily accessible to us. We have to > rely on the abhidhamma, the commentaries and 'good friends' with a better > understanding than our own for elucidation of the true meaning of the > suttas. In terms of the dhamma, a good friend is a person who, like the > commentaries, explains for us the teachings as found in the Tipitaka. A > good friend does not try to supplant the teachings with his/her own views. Hi Jon! My point is that if the Suttas are not readily accessible to us because of ignorance, then any 'good friend' who interprets the true meaning for us is giving us their interpretation. How do we know it is not 'their view' and is the original view of the Sutta? We have to trust our 'good friend' to have access to the original view, since we can't verify it ourselves. That's fine, as long as you feel that you can know with some certainty that the interpreters you are relying upon understand the original meaning. It is not, however, the same thing, as hearing the words of the Buddha directly. It is an explanation or interpretation that you are relying upon, one way or the other. This is only to say that if I rely on the wisdom of a Zen Master who also seeks to relay the true meaning of the Buddha's words to me, I don't believe that is very different from what you are relying on in the commentaries, or via the teachers who explain the Suttas. Or is it? > I also beg to differ as regards your reference to a 'growing' tradition of > understandings and insights. Regrettably, the store of extant knowledge > about the teachings is diminishing rather than expanding (and will > continue to do so until it disappears entirely -- a phenomenon anticipated > by the Buddha before his death). Some commentaries go into considerable > detail about the exact rate and extent of the decline of the teachings > over the centuries/millennia. If people are still using the Buddha's teachings to move towards enlightenment and if some are realizing Nibbana and carrying on the teachings, I don't understand how they can continue to devolve. Why would this be? Isn't the eventual destination that the Buddha laid out more and more people reaching Nibbana? Or is restricted to a very few in your understanding? > > Likewise, I may be more or less developed in my understanding, but I > > have to > > consult and develop my own sense of wisdom, as laughable as that may > > start out, in > > order to make the choices that I make from moment to moment. Is there > > anything > > inherently more desireable in considering oneself to be completely > > unqualified to > > discern the truth, than to promote one's own understanding through > > cultivation and > > referring back to it to see how it's coming along? I may have a very > > different > > view of things, but I don't see those on the path as being incapable of > > discerning > > anything apart from the sutras. I see the sutras as something to be > > incorporated > > and assimilated into one's own storehouse of wisdom. > > > > As I understand it [in the vaguest possible way] Abhidhamma teaches that > > panna is > > passed on and accumulated in successions of continuing moments, even > > though they > > arise and fall instantaneously one after the other. If one is growing > > an ability > > to see more and understand more of the true nature of things as one > > progresses, I > > would think that one's ability to discern what is true and false to > > increase as > > well. We will never reach spiritual maturity if we see ourselves as > > nothing and > > the Buddha as everything. I prefer to see us as potential Buddhas in > > training. > > Otherwise, by choosing a kind of passivity with respect to our own > > understanding, > > we may bypass many moments of panna that correspond to a kind of > > interest or > > investigation or creative moment that would otherwise be put forth. > > > > So while we may defer to the teachings themselves, I think we should > > engage with > > them actively and milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves, > > rather > > than take them as already whole and complete. To me, a sutra is a > > living document > > and also a blueprint, not fully actualized until it is ingested by a > > human being > > and turned into their way of seeing and understanding. > > > > I think it is equally dangerous as ignoring the sutras to assume we know > > what they > > mean by adopting the meanings that occur to us simply by reading [and > > even > > re-reading and re-reading] without challenging our view of that meaning > > over time > > and going through our own process of discovery. > > Again, differences between us. ;-)), ;-)). As I see it, the wisdom we > are seeking to develop is the wisdom that was discovered by the Buddha and > contained in the suttas which have come down to us today. It is not some > wisdom that is innately 'ours' and that simply needs the right conditions > to blossom. (What is innately 'ours', if you like, is the vast quantity > of defilements accumulated over the aeons and the relatively meagre amount > of wisdom similarly accumulated.) We still have to develop the wisdom ourselves, do we not? We can't take a photocopy of the Buddha's wisdom and make it our own. Even if there is no 'self', we still have to have generated the cittas that will carry panna [if I'm using these ideas correctly...]...? > The only true source and guide we have for the accumulation of further > wisdom is the suttas, as amplified by the abhidhamma and the commentaries. > Once the Tipitaka and commentaries are gone, so will be all the knowledge > they 'contain' (again, this was explained by the Buddha before his death). I still don't understand how the Tipitaka will disappear. It seems to be available quite freely. Have parts already been lost? How would this occur? I don't mean to be dense, but it seems a lot of people have copies..... Or do you mean it in another way, that our understanding will diminish, even though the texts will continue to be there....? > So if at any time we become aware of instances in which our 'sense of > wisdom' is at odds with what is explained in the Tipitaka and > commentaries, this should give us cause to consider very carefully whether > our 'understanding' is indeed that and not our old friend wrong view. I only question whether our reading of the Tipitaka is correct. If we compare our view to a wrong view of the Suttas, which are not always easy to understand, then we will have a wrong view to compare our view to. We have to have panna to understand the Suttas and we have to have the Suttas to develop panna, this is a vicious cycle. Which is why I think that the direct seeing into realities, which all must practice in any case, must be a basis for reading the Suttas as well. The Suttas, read from the point of view of Ignorance, can be misleading, may they not? So we must have some independent insight through our own process of mindfulness and understanding, no? > I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest (if I read you correctly) that > the teachings are other than 'whole and complete', and so needing us to > 'milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves'. I would be > interested to hear examples of any areas where you see this as applying. My understanding, perhaps from the studies of philosophy I have done in the past, is that we never read anything directly. Our understanding of what we read is colored by our presuppositions and understandings that we bring to it. I see understanding Suttas as a process rather than a given. We may look back at a Sutta ten years from now, with more panna, and say 'Oh my God, I didn't understand this at all, it really meant *this*.' Without insight, reading in itself has no certainty. It is part of a process of growth in understanding in knowledge, which is the case in studying anything, not just the Suttas. We are human beings, and our pre-existing kandhas shape the impressions we get of everything. So the Suttas come in not seen directly, but distorted by defilements as well. So one has to come to wisdom in regard to the suttas just as much as regards any dharma. In my view, anyway. > > Anyway, I may prove to be off base, but that is the way it appears to > > me. > > Hope I'm not coming on too strong, considering I may not know what I'm > > talking > > about. > > Not at all, Rob (and anyway, who would I be to complain about someone > coming on too strong?!). Members are welcome to float their views here > (without fear of being jumped on, I hope); but they should be prepared to > be asked to back up any assertion made! Oh well, if I weren't challenged in turn, it wouldn't be any fun, would it? I hope my answers above at least clarify my view a bit more. I'll be happy to hear your response. Shall I brace myself?? :] Regards, Robert Ep. 8356 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 1:27am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis op 30-09-2001 09:16 schreef Sukinderpal Narula op : > My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises only > when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience. > When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from > fear of repercussions to cold indifference. > And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it > to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are dealing > purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the conceptual > level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop > until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that everytime > there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for example, > knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements, > and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be patient > towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can arise. > Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other > paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for patience > to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the development of > wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not > the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'. > A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with regard > to development of wisdom. > I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments from > anybody. > Dear Sukin, I appreciate your post on patience being conditioned and non-self, very much. We are inclined to think, I should be patient, and this is often not successful. I especially like your reminder that A. sujin encourages patience, bravery and cheerfulness, when developing satipatthana. Yes, I have often heard this from her (athaan rarung) and it is good to be reminded again. When people do not see any result in being aware of seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and all objects appearing through the six doors they become disheartened, they give up. But as I learnt from a text of the Mahaniddesa given by Jim about jhaayati, reflection, we have to examine realities closely, often, frequently, in various ways, continuously. Pa~n~naa has to go on discriminating nama and rupa, not once or twice. We also read in the teachings, that the Buddha inspired the monks, encouraged them, delighted them with Dhamma talk. I like the good cheer element, because if there is discouragement it shows our clinging to result. Why don't we live from moment to moment and forget about result, such as attaining vipassana ~n~nas. There is enough to be done right now, but it is not a self who develops. Sukin, if you and Amara can sometimes give us reminders you heard at the Foundation sessions, many people will be very grateful. Thank you again, Nina. 8357 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 7:40am Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Hi there, While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in the newspaper, radio and tv. And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is really quite absurd. With metta Herman --- claudia harris wrote: > North America's response to terrorism-- > metta for Bin Laden > Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > How big is your heart? > > Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut > down in pain or fear or anger? > > Will you be a vehicle for peace? > > > > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A > moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of > peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for > just one moment the cycle > > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace, > > something may shift in the human experience. And > > the > > world can be a safer place for all of us. > > Please help to spread the word about > metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2, > 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > Blessings, > Claudia > > "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate; > hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield > is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want > peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all > do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to > deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and > disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das > 8358 From: Jinavamsa Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 8:46am Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 hello Herman and all, yes, may all living beings in all worlds be happy, healthy, secure, and at peace. all. indeed. I have been thinking about some of the issues you raise in your suggestion about metta practice of US Gov't Foreign Policy (there is one?). Please give me one example of a country which does not see itself in the right in its thinking. I think that would be terrific to have to get us all clearer about what the alternative could be for governments. And may that example be an inspiration to all gov't types, so to speak. Still, to continue, I am not sure that this sort of issue is going to be solved on a nationalistic level of process/ consciousness. just a hunch. what do you think? in peace, jinavamsa ============= --- Herman wrote: > Hi there, > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > really quite absurd. > > With metta > > Herman > > --- claudia harris > wrote: > > North America's response to terrorism-- > > metta for Bin Laden > > Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > > > How big is your heart? > > > > Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut > > down in pain or fear or anger? > > > > Will you be a vehicle for peace? > > > > > > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A > > moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of > > peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for > > just one moment the cycle > > > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace, > > > something may shift in the human experience. And > > > the > > > world can be a safer place for all of us. > > > > Please help to spread the word about > > metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2, > > 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > > > Blessings, > > Claudia > > > > "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate; > > hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield > > is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want > > peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all > > do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to > > deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and > > disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das > > > > > > > > 8359 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 8:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Herman wrote: > Hi there, > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > the newspaper, radio and tv. Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were killed in one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants to destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of course, has some horrible aspects to it. 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the Palestinians to claim Palestine as their own. He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from the peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign policy by killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that doesn't mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies? Please answer. > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > really quite absurd. > > With metta > > Herman Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone. Robert 8360 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Hi, Rob - In a message dated 10/1/01 12:10:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I > think you > are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being > particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was > prescribed > for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm > remembering > wrong [which is very possible]. > ======================== I don't think it was I who said it. 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) 8361 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 9:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > In a message dated 10/1/01 12:10:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I > > think you > > are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being > > particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was > > prescribed > > for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm > > remembering > > wrong [which is very possible]. > > > ======================== > I don't think it was I who said it. No, now that I think of it, I think it was Robert. Robert Ep. 8362 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 10:10am Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Rob Ep., Yep, it was me who said that anapanasati requires special conditions including posture . This is indicated in the suttas and commentaries. robert k.--- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Rob - > > > > In a message dated 10/1/01 12:10:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > <> writes: > > > > > > > Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I > > > think you > > > are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being > > > particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was > > > prescribed > > > for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm > > > remembering > > > wrong [which is very possible]. > > > > > ======================== > > I don't think it was I who said it. > > No, now that I think of it, I think it was Robert. > > Robert Ep. > 8363 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 6:11am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Geez, Robert! are we *ever* going to disagree on *anything*?!! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/1/01 9:00:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > --- Herman wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were > killed in > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants > to > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of > course, > has some horrible aspects to it. > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have > U.S. > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the > Palestinians > to claim Palestine as their own. > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from > the > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign > policy by > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that > doesn't > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies? > Please answer. > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > really quite absurd. > > > > With metta > > > > Herman > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone. > > Robert > /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) 8364 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 10:26am Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Robert, So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media does, obviously. I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your sweeping statements, Robert. The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It is built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US as well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the dominant world power by being very nice to everybody. Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not go without consequences. Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am not selective about where I see these things happening. While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on these systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed as tacit approval? All the best Herman --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Herman wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were killed in > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants to > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of course, > has some horrible aspects to it. > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have U.S. > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the Palestinians > to claim Palestine as their own. > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from the > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign policy by > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that doesn't > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies? > Please answer. > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > really quite absurd. > > > > With metta > > > > Herman > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone. > > Robert > 8365 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 10:38am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Howard wrote: > Geez, Robert! are we *ever* going to disagree on *anything*?!! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard I doubt it! We're obviously in touch with the truth!!! :] Robert Ep. ==================== > In a message dated 10/1/01 9:00:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were > > killed in > > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants > > to > > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his > > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of > > course, > > has some horrible aspects to it. > > > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have > > U.S. > > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the > > Palestinians > > to claim Palestine as their own. > > > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and > > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from > > the > > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign > > policy by > > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that > > doesn't > > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to > > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies? > > Please answer. > > > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > > really quite absurd. > > > > > > With metta > > > > > > Herman > > > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone. > > > > Robert > > > > > > /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) > 8366 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 11:03am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Herman wrote: > Robert, > > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? > > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media > does, obviously. > > I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your sweeping > statements, Robert. > > The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It is > built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US as > well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the dominant > world power by being very nice to everybody. > > Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not go > without consequences. > > Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of > 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am not > selective about where I see these things happening. > > While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are > murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on these > systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed as > tacit approval? > > All the best > > > Herman Dear Herman, I am one of the people who care about people all around the world. I care about the teenagers forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia, Latin America and all around the world, the ten year olds working in shoe factories in Guatemala, and I care about the women who are beaten and killed and raped by their husbands legally under the Taliban, a Taliban that does not allow medical treatment for women, or a widow to work to get food for her children, a Taliban that can beat or kill someone if the 'police' suspect that they have trimmed their beard. I also care at this particular moment about something that happened just the other day: 7,000 people were killed in a holocaust, a single horrible act that left 7,000 families from 80 countries around the world in a sudden state of horrific grief. I don't just care about the Americans that were in that building, I care about all of them. I also care about the 300 some-odd firefighters and policemen who willingly ran into that building to save people and lost their own lives. Do I care about the people who were killed in that blaze, the hundreds who jumped out of 100 story windows to their death to avoid being burned up in superheated airplane fuel more than I care about the insanely fanatical hijackers who slit passengers throats and then propelled them to a fiery death? Yes, in fact I do care more about those victims. Does that make me less evolved on the path? If so, I don't mind waiting a bit to evolve further. When I turn into a mechanical path-dweller who can only wax philosophically about how all things are the same and that they are all empty, I will know I have gone down the wrong path and gone too far. There is a dual nature to human beings, they are inherently empty and fleeting beings, yet there is also suffering, happiness and beauty in our lives. There is also the arising of compassion. I think that it is appropriate when something horrifying is done to innocent people, without speculating on their karmic deserts, to say first how sad and mortified we are that this horror has taken place. Then you can go into your lecture about all the reasons why the U.S. is wrong and bad and evil. Why don't you save it for after you express your compassion for those burned and smashed and killed and turned into a mass of body parts mixed with steel and blood? To me, that would be a moment of real compassion, not a political statement, but a moment of being human, which is allowable and also necessary. As I have said one time before, if you do not mention how you feel about all the people who were killed, but just go straight into a political speech, I have no way of knowing that you care about these people. You actually need to say it, and express some feeling for them. They weren't 'Americans', they didn't represent a poitical structure or a country. They were people who suffered horribly and left behind more people who are suffering miserably. So give metta to them first. Let them have a bit of metta please, before you lecture their recently-departed kandhas. Yes, as I said, I know bin Laden is guilty because he has admitted it. There is also strong evidence from other sources in both the original World Trade Center bombing and the two U.S. embassies in Africa that were bombed. But that is besides the point. There is no doubt that there are terrorist camps in Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq. There is no doubt that the Taliban has committed thousands upon thousands of crimes against humanity against its own people. There is no doubt that the Taliban's single greatest supporter is bin Laden, who personally gave them three million to jump start them at their inception, and has supported them ever since as they support him. There is no doubt that Sudan and Pakistan has also formerly supported the Taliban. They have both now severed ties in the wake of this tragedy. To compare the current tragedy and the horrors of the Taliban to U.S. auto accidents seems very strange to me. The 'American way of Life' is represented by automobiles, which are the killers you want to attack? Personally I would rather die in an auto accident, than be beaten to death or have my throat cut in the public square, as happens in Afganistan every day. Now that I have said all that, let me say two things to give you an idea of how I feel about people. I am not a nationalist. I just think that Americans have a right to be considered people as much as anyone else. I have been writing to all my email groups and friends where anti-Arab sentiments are expressed, saying that anyone who harms an Islamic-American, as has happened several times, because of their beliefs or appearance, are as bad as the terrorists, and I mean that. I have nothing but respect for Muslims, and most Muslims are peace-loving people. I also wish I lived in a world where we cared as much about the million Rwandans killed in their holocaust as we do about those killed in Western countries, and I have said that as well. I do care about all people equally. But I will shed my tears for the victims first, and then the killers second. Robert Ep. =============================== > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should > perhaps > > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty > for > > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said > so in > > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who > were killed in > > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts > and wants to > > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has > stated his > > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, > which of course, > > has some horrible aspects to it. > > > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land > to have U.S. > > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow > the Palestinians > > to claim Palestine as their own. > > > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of > terrorism and > > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and > withdraw from the > > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. > foreign policy by > > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, > but that doesn't > > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing > suffering to > > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. > policies? > > Please answer. > > > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters > of > > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus > evil, > > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > > really quite absurd. > > > > > > With metta > > > > > > Herman > > > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as > anyone. > > > > Robert > > > 8367 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 8:25am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/1/01 10:29:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Herman writes: > The laws of karma apply to the US as > ========================= It's my understanding that kamma is an individual matter, as are the fruits of kamma. If people acted in similar volitional manners, then they may have similar kammic fruit. But nations having kamma is not a Buddhist notion to the best of my knowledge. 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) 8368 From: Moderators Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 1:17pm Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Dear All, May we ask everyone to keep comments on dsg to strictly dhamma ones rather than political ones. If you find it difficult to discuss this topic without getting political, may we suggest you continue the discussion off-list. Jon & Sarah --- Herman wrote: > Robert, > > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? > > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media > does, obviously. 8371 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 7:29am Subject: Samma-sambuddha Hi all, In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they become so by their own efforts. And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that means :-) How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist? All the best Herman 8372 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 3:46pm Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Howard, There being no self , what does kamma apply to? Namas and rupas, and so do the fruits. Volition applies to cittas only, as far as I know. Happy to be corrected, of course :-) All the best Herman --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 10/1/01 10:29:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Herman writes: > > > > The laws of karma apply to the US as > > > ========================= > It's my understanding that kamma is an individual matter, as are the > fruits of kamma. If people acted in similar volitional manners, then they may > have similar kammic fruit. But nations having kamma is not a Buddhist notion > to the best of my knowledge. > > 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) > > > > > 8373 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 3:55pm Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Robert, I will never make the diplomatic corps, I know, but you have written some things to a monster. And that monster is not me, but a projection of yours. So once you become aware of the high horse you are riding, and it looks as though you are responding to things I am actually writing, then we can perhaps keep communicating. All the best Herman --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Herman wrote: > > Robert, > > > > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? > > > > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media > > does, obviously. > > > > I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your sweeping > > statements, Robert. > > > > The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It is > > built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US as > > well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the dominant > > world power by being very nice to everybody. > > > > Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not go > > without consequences. > > > > Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of > > 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am not > > selective about where I see these things happening. > > > > While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are > > murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on these > > systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed as > > tacit approval? > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman > > Dear Herman, > I am one of the people who care about people all around the world. I care about > the teenagers forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia, Latin America and all > around the world, the ten year olds working in shoe factories in Guatemala, and I > care about the women who are beaten and killed and raped by their husbands legally > under the Taliban, a Taliban that does not allow medical treatment for women, or a > widow to work to get food for her children, a Taliban that can beat or kill > someone if the 'police' suspect that they have trimmed their beard. I also care > at this particular moment about something that happened just the other day: 7,000 > people were killed in a holocaust, a single horrible act that left 7,000 families > from 80 countries around the world in a sudden state of horrific grief. I don't > just care about the Americans that were in that building, I care about all of > them. I also care about the 300 some-odd firefighters and policemen who willingly > ran into that building to save people and lost their own lives. > > Do I care about the people who were killed in that blaze, the hundreds who jumped > out of 100 story windows to their death to avoid being burned up in superheated > airplane fuel more than I care about the insanely fanatical hijackers who slit > passengers throats and then propelled them to a fiery death? Yes, in fact I do > care more about those victims. Does that make me less evolved on the path? If > so, I don't mind waiting a bit to evolve further. When I turn into a mechanical > path-dweller who can only wax philosophically about how all things are the same > and that they are all empty, I will know I have gone down the wrong path and gone > too far. There is a dual nature to human beings, they are inherently empty and > fleeting beings, yet there is also suffering, happiness and beauty in our lives. > > There is also the arising of compassion. I think that it is appropriate when > something horrifying is done to innocent people, without speculating on their > karmic deserts, to say first how sad and mortified we are that this horror has > taken place. Then you can go into your lecture about all the reasons why the U.S. > is wrong and bad and evil. Why don't you save it for after you express your > compassion for those burned and smashed and killed and turned into a mass of body > parts mixed with steel and blood? To me, that would be a moment of real > compassion, not a political statement, but a moment of being human, which is > allowable and also necessary. > > As I have said one time before, if you do not mention how you feel about all the > people who were killed, but just go straight into a political speech, I have no > way of knowing that you care about these people. You actually need to say it, and > express some feeling for them. They weren't 'Americans', they didn't represent a > poitical structure or a country. They were people who suffered horribly and left > behind more people who are suffering miserably. So give metta to them first. Let > them have a bit of metta please, before you lecture their recently- departed > kandhas. > > Yes, as I said, I know bin Laden is guilty because he has admitted it. There is > also strong evidence from other sources in both the original World Trade Center > bombing and the two U.S. embassies in Africa that were bombed. But that is > besides the point. There is no doubt that there are terrorist camps in > Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq. There is no doubt that the Taliban has committed > thousands upon thousands of crimes against humanity against its own people. There > is no doubt that the Taliban's single greatest supporter is bin Laden, who > personally gave them three million to jump start them at their inception, and has > supported them ever since as they support him. There is no doubt that Sudan and > Pakistan has also formerly supported the Taliban. They have both now severed ties > in the wake of this tragedy. > > To compare the current tragedy and the horrors of the Taliban to U.S. auto > accidents seems very strange to me. The 'American way of Life' is represented by > automobiles, which are the killers you want to attack? Personally I would rather > die in an auto accident, than be beaten to death or have my throat cut in the > public square, as happens in Afganistan every day. > > Now that I have said all that, let me say two things to give you an idea of how I > feel about people. I am not a nationalist. I just think that Americans have a > right to be considered people as much as anyone else. I have been writing to all > my email groups and friends where anti-Arab sentiments are expressed, saying that > anyone who harms an Islamic-American, as has happened several times, because of > their beliefs or appearance, are as bad as the terrorists, and I mean that. I > have nothing but respect for Muslims, and most Muslims are peace- loving people. > > I also wish I lived in a world where we cared as much about the million Rwandans > killed in their holocaust as we do about those killed in Western countries, and I > have said that as well. I do care about all people equally. But I will shed my > tears for the victims first, and then the killers second. > > Robert Ep. > > =============================== > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should > > perhaps > > > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty > > for > > > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said > > so in > > > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > > > > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > > > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who > > were killed in > > > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > > > > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts > > and wants to > > > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has > > stated his > > > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, > > which of course, > > > has some horrible aspects to it. > > > > > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land > > to have U.S. > > > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > > > > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow > > the Palestinians > > > to claim Palestine as their own. > > > > > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of > > terrorism and > > > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and > > withdraw from the > > > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. > > foreign policy by > > > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, > > but that doesn't > > > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing > > suffering to > > > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. > > policies? > > > Please answer. > > > > > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters > > of > > > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus > > evil, > > > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > > > really quite absurd. > > > > > > > > With metta > > > > > > > > Herman > > > > > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as > > anyone. > > > > > > Robert > > > > > 8374 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 4:16pm Subject: Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep Dear Rob Ep, Thank you for all your excellent comments and questions. I’m also finding it interesting and helpful to consider these lines in depth. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from > > without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that > come > > from without.’ > > Well, here is where translation is important, because if the original really > says > 'this' mind, and then 'that' mind, as two different arising cittas, then it > would > point in the direction of saying that some cittas are defied and some > undefiled, > and that they arise and pass away, rather than being a continuous underlying > 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed from them. > > However, I still have some questions: > > If the bhavanga cittas are luminous, and they are thus freed from > defilements, why > are they spoken of as being defiled? -------------------- Good question. I understand the stanza to mean that the bhavanga cittas are luminous in the sense of undefiled and the following cittas (as soon as there are experiences through the sense doors and mind door) to be defiled, i.e. akusala cittas, accompanied by akusala mental factors during the javana process. (Of course even when the bhavanga cittas are considered luminous or pure, it doesn’t mean there are not the latent tendencies or anusayas which lie dormant with each citta). This interpretation is not only supported by the abhidhamma, but also by this extract from the Commentary to the Sutta: -------------------- 'dampi nirupakkilesataaya parisuddhanti pabhassara.m. ta~nca khoti ta.m bhava"ngacitta.m. Jim: "It is also pure because it is unsoiled (by defilements); thus 'luminous'." Nirupakkilesataa is lit. 'a state of without defilement(s)'. ' 'aagantukehiiti asahajaatehi pacchaa javanakkha.ne uppajjanakehi. Jim: 'by the oncoming ': by the non-conascent, by the arising at the moment of impulsion (javana) afterwards.' 'upakkilesehiiti raagaadiihi upakkili.t.thattaa upakkili.t.tha.m naamaati vuccati. Nina: by defilements. By being soiled by desire etc. it is indeed called defiled.' --------------------- Rob, I don’t have a full translation of the commentary and sub-comentary and don’t believe there is a published one in English. Nina and Jim have been working on it out of personal interest and I hope they will kindly post a copy here when they have finished all or part. In the extract I’ve quoted , please note the ‘non-conascent’, i.e.the defilements are not arising at the same time as the luminous cittas, but during the javana process afterwards during the sense door or mind door ‘activity’. -------------------- > > The idea that the underlying bhavanga cittas that give continuity to the flow > of > life are inherently luminous, but not continuous, is fine in itself, but it > is the > luminous mind that is said to be 'defiled by taints that come from without.' > Why > would the luminous mind, which you have said is 'freed from taints' because > it is > the result of a previous life, be spoken of as being defiled 'from without'? -------------------- This is the same question. Let me put it this way from an abhidhamma perspective: The bhavanga cittas are vipaka cittas (result of kamma). In a sesnse-door process, they are followed by 1) sense-door adverting consciousness 2) sense-consciousness, e.g seeing or hearing 3) receiving-cnsciousness 4) investigating consciousness 5) determining consciousness 6) 7 javana cittas which in the case of the non-arahat are kusala or akusala cittas; 7) 2 registering consciousness When it mentions ‘defiled from without’, it is referring, as indicated in the Com notes to the javana cittas. -------------------- > > It seems to me that this is still different from your explanation. Please > forgive > me for being so blunt, but I am really interested in getting to the bottom of > this. Hope you don't mind! -------------------- If it still seems different, please be even blunter;-)) I’m equally interested in trying to clarify (and learn). -------------------- >.....It is luminous, but has been cleansed of taints. Note that it doesn't say > 'absent' of taints or 'doesn't have any' taints, but that it is cleansed. I > don't > see any way to interpret cleansed other than to say 'it was once dirty, but > it has > been made clean through a cleansing process'. That would have to refer to > something that lasts longer than a moment, more than one citta in other > words, > either a structure of mind or a process of mind that continues beyond a > moment or > two. -------------------- Again, by ‘cleansed’ it is referring to the kusala cittas and cetasikas which arise in the javana process following the bhavanga cittas. As discussed, I believe the sutta is referring to the importance of understanding the nature of unwholsesome states and of skilful states: ‘The learned noble disciple (ariyasaavakassa) understands it (citta) as it really is (yathaabhuutam). Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has developed the mind (cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti).’ The stress in this sutta is on the fact that the noble disciple has to know cittas as they are, both wholesome and unwholesome cittas. Isn’t it true that as soon objects are experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense and mind, that attachment and aversion, impatience, jealousy and all the other defilements arise? When we are asleep (without dreaming) where are the stories about terrorists, New York and all the other concepts we find so important? We can see that most of the time we live in a world of concepts and there is very little understanding of the realities appearing through the senses and mind. -------------------- > > Putting these two statements together, it still seems more logical to me that > they > are referring to a process in which the process of mind which is inherently > luminous takes on defilements from without, and then is cleansed by a process > of > purification. > If I am right about this, which is highly doubtful , then my next question > would be whether this interpretation can in any way reconciled with > Abdhidhamma? > Again, I speak as one who is only very gradually getting more familiar with > this > area, but I would initially and boldly say 'yes'. > > The reason I have some hope that this is possible is because I assume that > the > perceptual and thought process of a more advanced person on the path is > indeed > more 'pure' and freer of defilements than someone who has not had any insight > into > the true structure of realities. Since kusala and panna are accumulated > [both?] > and passed down through successive cittas, and since akusala is gradually > eliminated, one could say that the path of wisdom is also a path of purifying > defilements. ------------------- I think I’ve answered the first part. Certainly it’s true that the more pa~n~na is developed and accumulated, the more ‘pure’ and freer of defilements the cittas will be. I also agree with your last statement about the gradual elimination of defilements. It is not so much that these are purified as that there are fewer and fewer conditions for them to arise during those javana processes. Remember each citta falls away completely. An unwholesome citta can never be purified and vice versa. However wholesome cittas can arise in a process following unwholesome cittas. Indeed it is only pa~n~na that can see the realities as they are (yathaabhuuta) and only the development of this panna that can lead to enlightenment. -------------------- > > What if Buddha is referring to this process of arisings, continuities and > passing > of accumulations of more pure and wise cittas as 'mind'? If this were so, > the > statement in the sutra would make sense as one of process, without every > establishing an underlying 'mind' that is always there and stays the same. > What > is the 'luminosity' that might be revealed by the purification of > 'defilements' > from outside? > > As the cittas become more aware of the true nature of things, they gain more > panna. So my question is: would it make sense to say that panna is > luminous, in > the same sense that the bhavanga cittas are said to be luminous in your > explanation? -------------------- It is true that similar words are sometimes used to describe panna.(I’m not sure if ‘pabhassaramidam-luminous’ is itself ever used, though) I do remember panna being described as ‘illuminating’ like a light in darkness and in the Atthasalani it says ‘there is no illumination equal to the illumination of understanding’ and so on. Jim or Nina may give more detail on the different pali words, but I’ll try not to further sidetrack now. The reasons why I’m pretty sure the sutta is referring to bhavanga cittas and not panna when it mentions ‘luminous’ are: 1) the Ang nik com unequivocally states this and who am I to argue with the ancient com of the arahats (as I understand)? 2) the Atthasalani supports the com in this. 3) The explanation as I’ve discussed in detail is fully supported by the Abhidhamma 4) the theory of an inherent panna arising to be revealed with the removal of defilements is not supported anywhere in the (Pali canon) Tipitaka as far as I’m aware. I’ll glad look at any other references to this. The common state is rather one of ignorance. Even when there are no defilements, there are not necessarily moments of panna at all. At moments of seeing and hearing , for example, there can never be panna. Unless panna is being developed, there may be moments of wholesomeness such as when we give or are friendly to others, but not necessarily at all with panna. -------------------- I think this is a very interesting discussion and I’ll look forward to hearing back from you too. I know many others share your interpretations and will be following with keen attention. Jim or Nina (who have studied these passages in far more detail than I have) may also add any other helpful notes. Sarah 8375 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 4:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Volition and Self [To Jon] Howard Many thanks for this interesting overview of our discussions to date on this very important aspect of the teachings. I appreciate your sincere and constructive comments. At last I know where I stand on the subject! (And I am relieved to know you think, as I do, that we are not at opposite extremes.) Your post is in the queue for a reply, and hope to get back to you a bit later with a proper response. Jon --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > With regard to volition/intention, I think there is a range of > view in > which we both occupy middle positions, with you slightly towards what I > think > of as the "left" extreme and with me slightly towards the "right" > extreme, > with both extremes constituting forms of wrong view. > It seems to me that volition/intention is a phenomenon which, > when > wrongly understood, is a factor in the formation of the view of 'person' > or > 'self'. In fact, intention is a completely impersonal phenomenon arising > > automatically when the conditions for it to do so are in place. But when > that > intention or volition is seen, even subliminally, as personal, as the > intervention of an alleged "self" in the causal flow, ignorance is > active and > growing. This is one extreme. It is the extreme I need to guard against. > > As I see it, the other extreme, the "left-hand" error, is to see > intention, at least at a subliminal level of awareness, as almost > illusory, > as being a superfluous step in the chain of causality, so that it > appears > that there is no effective volition at all, with everything that occurs > being > either random, in one form of the error, or as fated, in another, but, > in > either case, leading to a kind of hopelessness, a sense of *total* lack > of > control, a kind of nihilistic despair. I think that you may need to > guard > against movement towards that extreme, though, of course, you are far, > far > away from it. If anything, I see you as quite possibly being closer to > the > "truthful center" than I. I talk only about tendencies here, tendencies > to be > closely watched. > > 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) > > > 8376 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:36pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Mike (and Howard) (This is a re-post of a message I sent before but which has not shown up on the list. Apologies if it results in any duplication.) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon and Howard, > > This pinpoints a question I've had in a vague sort of > way for some time: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: Howard > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by > > the intention to have > > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, > > effort, kusala citta chain. > > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally > > conceived of, but the > > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions > > for things. So while > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of > > kusala, in the sense > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala > > moment, it is not > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala > > moment. > > If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying that > right effort is a co-arising factor but not a > precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which > concurs with my understanding. Yes, that is my reading of the texts. > What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a > path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with > every citta, with the function of 'willing' only in > kusala and akusala moments. We all know > (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that it's > impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a > moment of right effort, as well as a present factor? > > I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right > effort will occur when the conditions for it are > present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it (for > example a moment of akusala followed by a moment of > understanding of the previous moment--here no kusala > cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately). This is how I would understand it, too. I'm sure we can all bring to mind from our own experience instances when kusala has arisen spontaneously and without any 'intention' on our part, or when kusala and akusala moments have arisen intermingled (eg. 'mixed' feelings of wanting to help/hesitating to do so, gladness for another's success/envy at that person) > If so, > then kusala intention-kusala effort-kusala vitakka(?) > might arise sequentially, but without each being > dependent on the previous. The intention -> effort -> kusala citta sequence that I gave in an earlier post was meant to be a summary, in conventional terms, of one particular view of the 'practice' of the teachings. It is said that if the mind-state is, for example, akusala then by means of deliberate intention and effort the mind-state can become kusala. It seems to me that, in terms of moments of consciousness, any such intention and effort are simply aspects of thinking of one kind or other and likely, by our nature, to be motivated by a subtle desire for more kusala. Certainly they could not themselves necessarily be kusala moments, since that would mean that kusala was simply a matter of being 'willed' up. Nor does the context suggest that they are particularly likely to be kusala (as has been noted before, sincerity of intentions does not a kusala citta make). When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his listeners to exert effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of kusala citta -- it would make a mockery of the teachings to read these passages as otherwise. As we have seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here purely from my own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. That's why I have been at some pains lately to stress the difference between the two. > Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think > of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and > subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there > a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'? You have raised another aspect of this approach to the 'practice' that could be discussed further. The moments of thinking that direct the mind to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen object etc are, in terms of individual mind-moments, by no means single moments or anything like it but in fact substantial periods of thinking. I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of is intended to be a reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is akusala. This of course is true but, to my understanding, the idea that such reminders will make any real difference in this respect is misconceived. > Thanks in advance, > > mike And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points up. Jon PS I notice on reading through this post that I have been quite direct (perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I should expect some pretty direct responses from others ….. 8377 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > I'd like to add just a couple points to my post copied below. One > > thing is that the Buddha taught anapanasati as a method of implementing > satipatthana (please see the Anapanasati Sutta). The breath is the > "anchor" > there. The other point is with regard to intentional effort during > meditation. When sitting for meditation on the breath, why is it that it > is > the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, for example, sounds? > The > answer is that one intentionally directs attention to the breath. If one > did > not, then, most likely, one would not be attending to it. I'd like to suggest a somewhat different perspective on suttas that deal with mindfulness of breathing. Breath is an aspect of our body. As with everything else about the body it is, in the ultimate analysis, an assemblage of different rupas. For this reason breathing is given in the Body section of the Satipatthana Sutta as one of the possible objects of attention. Whenever there is a moment of awareness of a rupa that we take for breath, this is a moment of awareness of breathing (anapanasati -- satipatthana with breath as object). So anapanasati is, I would say, an *aspect of* satipatthana, rather than being a *method of implementing* satipatthana. Breath can also be an object of samatha bhavana (samatha is the development of tranquillity by suppression of akusala). Somewhat confusingly, such development is also called anapanasati. Now at the advanced levels of samatha bhavana, a single object (in this case, the breath) becomes the object of citta for an extended period. This is not, however, a particular feature of satipatthana. The context of a sutta has of course a considerable bearing on it's true meaning. If the audience of a particular sutta is a group of monks all of whom have attained high levels of samatha with breath as object, then there would be no particular significance for us in the fact that the Buddha chose to talk about breath in particular as an object of satipatthana. Jon 8378 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 6:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Dear Nina, I am so happy that you appreciated my post, eventhough( was kindly reminded by Mike in a private letter), I misquoted Jonothan in 'patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other paramis"' when it should have been 'wisdom' and not 'patience'. Regarding reminders from A. Sujin, I am one of those persons who never take notes and have a rather bad memory too. But in the future I will remember you and I hope this will condition more attentiveness and memory would function better. Personally I too have come to see the value of reminders more and more, infact I think being reminded of the teachings is key to patipatti. Than Acharn has a way of reminding us, I guess that is because she really *knows* what she is talking about, the rest of us are only talking *about* things. This is not to undervalue what I read here and your books, everyday I look forward to opening my mailbox and I read the mails as if it was 'tonic'. I think I am gaining much from having you all as my kalyanamitr and I hope things remain this way till the day my vipaka for this lifetime runs out. Metta, Sukin. > Dear Sukin, I appreciate your post on patience being conditioned and > non-self, very much. We are inclined to think, I should be patient, and this > is often not successful. I especially like your reminder that A. sujin > encourages patience, bravery and cheerfulness, when developing satipatthana. > Yes, I have often heard this from her (athaan rarung) and it is good to be > reminded again. When people do not see any result in being aware of seeing, > visible object, hearing, sound and all objects appearing through the six > doors they become disheartened, they give up. But as I learnt from a text of > the Mahaniddesa given by Jim about jhaayati, reflection, we have to examine > realities closely, often, frequently, in various ways, continuously. > Pa~n~naa has to go on discriminating nama and rupa, not once or twice. We > also read in the teachings, that the Buddha inspired the monks, encouraged > them, delighted them with Dhamma talk. I like the good cheer element, > because if there is discouragement it shows our clinging to result. Why > don't we live from moment to moment and forget about result, such as > attaining vipassana ~n~nas. There is enough to be done right now, but it is > not a self who develops. > Sukin, if you and Amara can sometimes give us reminders you heard at the > Foundation sessions, many people will be very grateful. Thank you again, > Nina. > > > 8379 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 7:22pm Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2/Herman Hi Herman, You may be interested in reading the article that this excerpt is from: http://www.buddhistnews.tv/ "If I were given the opportunity to be face to face with Osama bin Laden, the first thing I would do is listen. I would try to understand why he had acted in that cruel way. I would try to understand all of the suffering that had led him to violence. It might not be easy to listen in that way, so I would have to remain calm and lucid. I would need several friends with me, who are strong in the practice of deep listening, listening without reacting, without judging and blaming. In this way, an atmosphere of support would be created for this person and those connected so that they could share completely, trust that they are really being heard." -- Thich Nhat Hahn metta, May all be safe and protected, May all be healthy and strong, May all be happy of heart and mind, May all live with ease and wellbeing. Christine 8380 From: KennethOng Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 9:11pm Subject: Vipassanã Hi all, As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say about this and to who did he say this. Many thanks and kind regards Kenneth Ong 8381 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/2/01 2:31:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Herman writes: > Hi all, > > In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever > seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they > become so by their own efforts. > > And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that > means :-) > > How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist? > > All the best > > > Herman > ============================ Here's my understanding on this. A person becomes fully enlightened at a time at which the Dhamma is unknown. Moreover, over countless aeons that person has mastered the perfections and myriads of skillful means so that he (or she - I won't debate that point) is in a position to reintroduce the Dhamma to the world as its perfect teacher. Such a person has become a Buddha. Now, I understand a Buddha to be "self-enlightened" only in the sense that the Dhamma was unknown in his/her lifetime prior to his enlightenment. However, this does not imply that a Buddha did not learn Dhamma in a previous life. In fact, it is said that the Buddha of the current dispensation *had* learned the Dhamma in a previous life, and, thus, his "self-enlightenment" is a fact only in a limited sense. Now, all the foregoing discussion involves conventional notions. As far as the relation between self-realization and anatta, there really is none. The notions of 'self-realization' and 'anatta' are conventional and ultimate notions, respectively. Being self-realized is a conventional notion. It is a mere manner of speaking. No one can enlighten another. This is true. It is *conventionally* true. The reality is that there *is* no "one" to become enlightened and no "one" to be a giver of enlightenment. The statement "No one can enlighten another.", in its conventional meaning, when properly understood, is merely a fa'con de parler, which calls for "unpacking" and explanation. It is metaphorical. If taken *literally*, which would be the incorrect way of understanding it, the statement would be false. That is, from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca), it is a falsity in that there is no self at all. 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) 8382 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/2/01 3:47:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Herman writes: > Howard, > > There being no self , what does kamma apply to? Namas and rupas, and > so do the fruits. Volition applies to cittas only, as far as I know. > > Happy to be corrected, of course :-) > > All the best > > Herman > ============================= It seems you have answered your own question. Intention is a mental concomitant arising along with cittas, and kammic fruit is passed along. No real person involved at all, just a conditioned flow of discernment. 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) 8383 From: KennethOng Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 9:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Hi Jon "Let me see if I have understood. You are suggesting, I think, that developing kusala does not necessarily help to reduce our attachment to an idea of a self. Have I got it right?" (In my personal experience we should be more aware of kusala because they make us feel good abt it and this is also attachment. Good attachments are harder to notice than aversive ones) "Would you like to say more about how the idea of self can be overcome (or, as you put it, 'let go of')?" (let go could be equated to the opposite of attachment (to be detach). All dharmas are of the same essence and without difference. It is only our self view that thinks that all they are different. In Mahayana philisophy, there is nothing to destroy or created because if there is a creation, there will be a destruction as they are condition by each other. Since we cannot destroy anything, we could only let go. Similarly self cannot be eliminated, it can only be let go. In the Thervada tradition, when Buddha talk about the five aggregates and the mindfulness method, he was teaching us to be detach to a self or let go of our view of a self. That is why the last few remarks are "there is a body", "there is a feeling".... Personally, this method has assisted me to be more detach, less attached to a self. ) "By the way, I think the distinction between prompted an unprompted kusala cittas is still a useful one. It helps us to understand the conditioned nature of these moments, and also the value of useful reminders given by ourselves or others. I would be interested to know whether this distinction is meaningful to you, the way it is described in the Visuddhimagga (in my earlier post). By that I mean, are you able to relate it to your own experience?" (The distinction between prompted and unprompted kusala is not the significance, it is the origination of such prompting action (or intentions) is the impt factor. It is definitely good to have such a difference and I personally think that unprompted kusala is better than prompted. Why? Because unprompted means that we have the habit inbuilt in us of doing kusala. It has become a "natural" process. There is no need to prompt. Kusala definitely needs prompted because only through continuous prompting, it will slowly becomes more and more unprompted) Jon With kind regards Kenneth Ong 8384 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 1:59am Subject: sanna and accumulations Dear Mike, last week I took up Ven. Nyanaponika's Abhdiamma Studies and read about sa~n~na. I thought of you and meant to write to you but I am so busy finishing a wrok load before India. You are always interested in sa~n~naa, I quote now. Ven. Nyanaponika explains about sa~n~naa , that it makes marks in order to remember and recognizes. I quote: End quote. A great deal more is explained, but I leave it at that. This is theory, pariyatti, it is important that there also be understanding of the level of patipatti, practice, namely, satipatthana. Then the understanding will be so much clearer. We, and while writing I also have to remind myself, should consider and investigate sa~n~naa now. It is translated by perception or remembrance, but the word we use does not matter, we should not cling to words and terms. We should know the reality. When we close our eyes and then open them, we see, and immediately sa~n~naa performs its function, we recognize colours, shape and form. We hear, and recognize. We listen to Bach¹s music and remember that this is Bach, not Beethoven. But, this is important, we have to realize that it is not self who recognizes. Not a self recognizes Bach, only a kind of naama. Understanding of the level of patipatti can very gradually develop so that we do not get stuck at the level of theory. While typing letters, we remember immediately the different letters and words, and the way of forming sentences, drawing conclusions. Sa~n~naa, not me or you. When taking a step, left or right, going somewhere, not self, sa~n~naa remembers. We should not try to make it into an object of awareness, but understanding more does help. You are also interested in accumulations. We can use it in a very wide sense, then we do not only think of the seven anusayas, latent tendencies that are akusala. Also good inclinations are accumulated in each citta, and actually all your experiences, but not all is remembered. It is not so that accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass on because each citta conditions the next one by way of contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. I was also surprised when I heard about the endless amount of accumulations in one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is citta, mentality, it is not like a room that is limited in what it can contain. Now here also, if we get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. We should consider our own life. We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there lobha for this particular object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past that have been accumulated. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not only sa~n~naa, it is more complex than that. But it is best to understand our life right now. In Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read about the bhikkhu who was not successful with the foulness meditation subject. The Buddha gave him a golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and enlightenment. He had been a goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how experiences of particular objects are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the past to the present life. You will become a monk, that is also conditioned by past accumulations, it is not a self. Tadao mentioned that it is a very lonely life, and that is what I noticed from Alan Driver when he was a bhikkhu. it was most difficult for him to find the right temple with pure Vinaya and satipatthana, because these two should not be separated. Lonely life? But when there are only nama and rupa we are alone with nama and rupa, no people around. Only when a monk has becaome a sotapanna he will never leave the order anymore. That is because of satipatthana which has been developed and become firmly established, so that enlightenment could be attained. Finally, all my good wishes to you for your new life as a bhikkhu, and I wish that you will be near good friends in the Dhamma. Anumodana to you, and also anumodana to Sukin who sponsors you, he is so kind. Best wishes, Nina. 8385 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 7:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Mike (and Howard) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon and Howard, > > This pinpoints a question I've had in a vague sort of > way for some time: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Howard: > > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms > > > large in this regard. > > > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by > > the intention to have > > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, > > effort, kusala citta chain. > > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally > > conceived of, but the > > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions > > for things. So while > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of > > kusala, in the sense > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala > > moment, it is not > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala > > moment. > > If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying that > right effort is a co-arising factor but not a > precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which > concurs with my understanding. Yes, that is my reading of the texts. > What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a > path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with > every citta, with the function of 'willing' only in > kusala and akusala moments. We all know > (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that it's > impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a > moment of right effort, as well as a present factor? > > I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right > effort will occur when the conditions for it are > present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it (for > example a moment of akusala followed by a moment of > understanding of the previous moment--here no kusala > cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately). This is how I would understand it, too. I'm sure we can all bring to mind from our own experience instances when kusala has arisen spontaneously and without any 'intention' on our part, or when kusala and akusala moments have arisen intermingled (eg. 'mixed' feelings of wanting to help/wondering if we should, gladness for another's success/envy at that person) > If so, > then kusala intention-kusala effort-kusala vitakka(?) > might arise sequentially, but without each being > dependent on the previous. The intention -> effort -> kusala citta sequence that I gave in an earlier post was meant as a summary, in conventional terms, of one particular view of the 'practice' of the teachings. It is said that if, for example, the mind-state is akusala then by means of deliberate intention and effort the mind-state can become kusala. In terms of moments of consciousness, it seems to me that any such moments of intention and effort are simply aspects of thinking of some kind or other and likely, by our nature, to be motivated by a subtle desire for more kusala. They certainly are not necessarily kusala moments since, as has been noted before, sincerity of intentions does not a kusala citta make. When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his listeners to exert effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of kusala citta -- it would make a mockery of the teachings to read these passages as otherwise. As we have seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here purely from my own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. So the 'effort' to be exerted which the Buddha refers to is the effort (ie. energy mental factor -- viriya) that arises with kusala citta. > Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think > of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and > subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there > a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'? You have raised another aspect of this approach to the 'practice' that could be discussed further. The moments of thinking that direct the mind to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen object etc are, in terms of individual mind-moments, by no means single moments or anything like it but in fact substantial periods of thinking. I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of is intended to be a reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is akusala. This of course is true. To my understanding, however, the idea that such reminders will make any real difference in this respect is misconceived. > Thanks in advance, > > mike And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points up. Jon PS I notice on reading through this post that I have been quite direct (perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I should expect some pretty direct responses from others ….. 8386 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:42am Subject: bhavangacitta Dear Sarah and Robert Ep, I am translating the commentary about the bhavangacitta with Jim, but I shall send part now, because the rest has not been corrected. 49. navame pabhassaranti pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti bhava"ngacitta.m. ki.m pana cittassa va.n.no naama atthiiti? natthi. N: As to the ninth (?),² luminous². Luminous is clear, pure. citta is the life-continuum. But how does there exist indeed a colour of citta? No, it does not. niilaadiina~nhi a~n~natarava.n.na.m vaa hotu ava.n.na.m vaa ya.mki~nci parisuddhataaya ``pabhassara''nti vuccati. N: For anything which may be a certain colour, beginning with blue, or without colour, is called luminous because of its purity. idampi nirupakkilesataaya parisuddhanti pabhassara.m. ta~nca khoti ta.m bhava"ngacitta.m. N: It is also pure, because it is unsoiled (by defilements); thus luminous. That indeed, meaning, that life-continuum. aagantukehiiti asahajaatehi pacchaa javanakkha.ne uppajjanakehi. N: ³ by oncoming ³(defilements). by those that are not conascent with it, but arise later at the moment of impulsion (javana). upakkilesehiiti raagaadiihi upakkili.t.thattaa upakkili.t.tha.m naamaati vuccati. N: ³by defilements². By being soiled by desire etc. it is indeed called defiled. katha.m? yathaa hi siilavantaa aacaarasampannaa maataapitaro vaa aacariyupajjhaayaa vaa dussiilaana.m duraacaaraana.m avattasampannaana.m puttaana~nceva antevaasikasaddhivihaarikaana~nca vasena ``attano putte vaa antevaasikasaddhivihaarike vaa na tajjenti na sikkhaapenti na ovadanti naanusaasantii''ti ava.n.na.m akitti.m labhanti, eva.msampadamida.m veditabba.m. N: How is that so? For, as parents, teachers or preceptors, of good conduct, possessed of good behaviour, because of the children, pupils or co-residents of bad conduct, misbehhaved, disobedient, receive dispraise or disapproval thus, ³ they neither instill awe to, nor discipline, admonish or exhort their own children, their pupils, their co-residents², evenso should this (bhavangacitta) having a similar consequence be understood. aacaarasampannaa maataapitaro viya ca aacariyupajjhaayaa viya ca bhava"ngacitta.m da.t.thabba.m, N: Just as parents, teachers, preceptors, who are of good conduct, evenso the life-continuum should be seen, puttaadiina.m vasena tesa.m akittilaabho viya javanakkha.ne rajjanadussanamuyhanasabhaavaana.m lobhasahagataadiina.m cittaana.m vasena uppannehi aagantukehi upakkilesehi pakatiparisuddhampi bhava"ngacitta.m upakkili.t.tha.m naama hotiiti. N: Just as the acquirement of a bad name for them, through the children etc., evenso, because of the cittas that are of a nature of being passionate, hateful, or deluded, accompanied by desire and so on, arising at the moments of impulsion, evenso is also the life-continuum, that is by nature pure, indeed soiled, by the oncoming defilements that have arisen. ***** 50. dasamepi bhava"ngacittameva citta.m. N: With reference to the tenth, consciousness is also the life-continuum. vippamuttanti javanakkha.ne arajjamaana.m adussamaana.m amuyhamaana.m tihetuka~naa.nasampayuttaadikusalavasena uppajjamaana.m aagantukehi upakkilesehi vippamutta.m naama hoti. N: ³Freed²: because of wholesomeness arising at the time of impulsion, without being passionate, hateful or deluded, and because consciousness is accompanied by three wholesome roots, accompanied by wisdom, and thus it is indeed freed of the arising of oncoming defilements. idhaapi yathaa siilavantaana.m aacaarasampannaana.m puttaadiina.m vasena maataadayo ``sobhanaa eteyeva attano puttakaadayo sikkhaapenti ovadanti anusaasantii''ti va.n.nakittilaabhino honti, eva.m javanakkha.ne uppannakusalacittavasena ida.m bhava"ngacitta.m aagantukehi upakkilesehi vippamuttanti vuccatiiti. N: Here also, just as parents etc., with virtuous conduct, possessed with good behaviour, because of their children, etc. , acquire praise and approval, thus, ² they train, encourage, admonish their own children that these things are indeed wholesome ³, evenso because of the arising of wholesome consciousness at the time of impulsion, that life-continuum is said to be freed of oncoming defilements. ******* The last two par. are not yet corrected by Jim. Nina. 8387 From: Num Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 1:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sanna and accumulations Dear Nina, Mike and everyone, First of all let me express my appreciation and anumodhana with Mike for entering Bhikkhu life. > You are also interested in accumulations. We can use it in a very wide > sense, then we do not only think of the seven anusayas, latent tendencies > that are akusala. Also good inclinations are accumulated in each citta, and > actually all your experiences, but not all is remembered. It is not so that > accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass on because each citta > conditions the next one by way of contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. I > was also surprised when I heard about the endless amount of accumulations in > one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is citta, mentality, it is > not like a room that is limited in what it can contain. Now here also, if we > get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. We should consider our own life. > We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there lobha for this particular > object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past that have been > accumulated. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not only sa~n~naa, it is > more complex than that. But it is best to understand our life right now. In > Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read about the bhikkhu who was > not successful with the foulness meditation subject. The Buddha gave him a > golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and enlightenment. He had been a > goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how experiences of particular objects > are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the past to the present life. > You will become a monk, that is also conditioned by past accumulations, it > is not a self. Tadao mentioned that it is a very lonely life, and that is > what I noticed from Alan Driver when he was a bhikkhu. it was most difficult > for him to find the right temple with pure Vinaya and satipatthana, because > these two should not be separated. Lonely life? But when there are only nama > and rupa we are alone with nama and rupa, no people around. Only when a monk > has becaome a sotapanna he will never leave the order anymore. That is > because of satipatthana which has been developed and become firmly > established, so that enlightenment could be attained. Finally, all my good > wishes to you for your new life as a bhikkhu, and I wish that you will be > near good friends in the Dhamma. Anumodana to you, and also anumodana to > Sukin who sponsors you, he is so kind. Best wishes, Nina. > Nina, let me ask you about Pakatupanissaya paccaya a little bit. I have been very busy lately. I listen to A.Santi CD. Couple things I would like to clarify. If you can give some comments, I would be greatly appreciate. 1st. He mentioned about paccaya for seeing: 1.cakkhupasada, 2.ruparammana, 3. light and 4.dvaravajjana-citta. He said that light is a pakatupanissaya paccaya for cakkhu-vinnanna to being able to see rupa. 2nd. Someone asked him about how alcohol affects the mind and behavior as well some people need to be on psychotropic medication for treatment of psychiatric disorder otherwise they cannot acting or thinking right. He also said that both are pakatupanissaya paccaya. We can do reckless and stupid things under influence of alcohol. He also mentioned that if someone drinks and then drives or rides a motorcycle, that will facilitate vipakka paccaya, interesting. As in your post, accumulation both good and bad, depends on multiple paccaya e.g. sanna cetasika, anantara, asevana, pakatupanissaya, adhipati, kamma, arammana paccaya..... and a whole lot more paccaya directly and indirectly. Hope you and everyone on India trip have a good time and great opportunity to study and discuss Dhamma. Bon voyager, Num 8388 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 11:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã Vipasana is found in the Mahayana tradition as well. As a word it sounds the same in Skt. as well as Pali. Vipasana requires Samatha, too, i.e., "insight" requires that we master "concentration". Check these out: http://www.flamingjewel.org/teachings/shine-lathong.html http://www.people.virginia.edu/~am2zb/tibet/programa/intro/intro_vip.htm http://www.rinpoche.com/tapes.htm http://www.tibethouse.org/programs/meditation.html http://www.philashambhala.org/public_html/initialmed.shtml Good luck! With Metta, Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo ----- Original Message ----- From: "KennethOng" Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:11 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã > > Hi all, > As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say about this and to who did he say this. > Many thanks and kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > > 8389 From: m. nease Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 6:04am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sanna and accumulations Dear Nina, Thanks for taking the time out of your busy preparations for this really useful response. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Mike, last week I took up Ven. Nyanaponika's > Abhdiamma Studies and read > about sa~n~na. I thought of you and meant to write > to you but I am so busy > finishing a wrok load before India. You are always > interested in sa~n~naa, I > quote now. > > Ven. Nyanaponika explains about sa~n~naa , that it > makes marks in order to > remember and recognizes. I quote: > > is that some features of > the object (sometimes only a single striking one) > are selected. The mental > note made of that perception is closely associated > with those selected > features, that is, we attach, as it were, a tag to > the object, or make a > mark on it as woodcutters do on trees. So far, every > perception is ³a making > of marks² (nimitta-kara.na). I had read about sa~n~naa 'marking' before, and had sort of written it off as a synonym of 'remarking' (in its transitive sense, 'to take notice of : OBSERVE'. This was because I couldn't think what sa~n~naa could be 'marking' in the sense of 'tagging'--obviously I was wrong. > In order to understand > how ³remembering² or > ³recognizing², too, is implied in every act of > perception we should mention > that according to the deeply penetrative analysis of > the Abhidhamma the > apparently simple act, for example, of seeing a > rose, is in reality a very > complex process composed of different phases, each > consisting of numerous > smaller combinations of conscious processes > (citta-viithi) which again are > made up of several single moments of consciousness > (citta-kkha.na) following > each other in a definite sequence of diverse > functions. Among these phases > there is one that connects the present perception of > a rose with a previous > one, and there is another that attaches to the > present perception the name > ³rose², remembered from previous experience. Not > only in relation to similar > experiences in a relatively distant past, but also > in between those > infinitesimal brief single phases and successive > processes the connecting > function of rudimentary ³memory² must be assumed to > operate, because each > phase and each lesser successive state has to > ³remember² the previous one- a > process called by the later Abhidhammikas ³grasping > the past² This I understand, though crudely no doubt. > (atiita-gghahana). Finally, the individual > contributions of all those > different perceptual processes have to be remembered > and co-cordinated in > order to form the final and complete perception of a > rose. > Understood also. > End quote. > A great deal more is explained, but I leave it at > that. This is theory, > pariyatti, it is important that there also be > understanding of the level of > patipatti, practice, namely, satipatthana. Then the > understanding will be so > much clearer. We, and while writing I also have to > remind myself, should > consider and investigate sa~n~naa now. Yes, a kind of dhammanusati, I think? It does seem possible to know that recognition doesn't always occur immediately with a sense impression, or that some aspects of a familiar concept are recognized more quickly than others (a face before a name, e.g.). Not satipatthaana, I suppose, but maybe leading in that direction? > It is > translated by perception or > remembrance, but the word we use does not matter, we > should not cling to > words and terms. We should know the reality. When we > close our eyes and then > open them, we see, and immediately sa~n~naa performs > its function, we > recognize colours, shape and form. We hear, and > recognize. We listen to > Bach¹s music and remember that this is Bach, not > Beethoven. But, this is > important, we have to realize that it is not self > who recognizes. Not a self > recognizes Bach, only a kind of naama. Understanding > of the level of > patipatti can very gradually develop so that we do > not get stuck at the > level of theory. While typing letters, we remember > immediately the different > letters and words, and the way of forming sentences, > drawing conclusions. > Sa~n~naa, not me or you. When taking a step, left or > right, going somewhere, > not self, sa~n~naa remembers. We should not try to > make it into an object of > awareness, but understanding more does help. I'm afraid I can't help it, nearly anything I can remember the Buddha having described as an object of awareness seems to condition this kind of effort, from time to time, when it's present (or recently past). I suppose trying NOT to wouldn't be much better. Anatta seems natural to this kind of reflection, but I do understand that it's key to remember that it's just sa~n~naa, not your or me. Thank you so much again, more later...mike > You are also interested in accumulations. We can use > it in a very wide > sense, then we do not only think of the seven > anusayas, latent tendencies > that are akusala. Also good inclinations are > accumulated in each citta, and > actually all your experiences, but not all is > remembered. It is not so that > accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass > on because each citta > conditions the next one by way of > contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. I > was also surprised when I heard about the endless > amount of accumulations in > one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is > citta, mentality, it is > not like a room that is limited in what it can > contain. Now here also, if we > get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. We should > consider our own life. > We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there > lobha for this particular > object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past > that have been > accumulated. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not > only sa~n~naa, it is > more complex than that. But it is best to understand > our life right now. In > Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read > about the bhikkhu who was > not successful with the foulness meditation subject. > The Buddha gave him a > golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and > enlightenment. He had been a > goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how > experiences of particular objects > are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the > past to the present life. > You will become a monk, that is also conditioned by > past accumulations, it > is not a self. Tadao mentioned that it is a very > lonely life, and that is > what I noticed from Alan Driver when he was a > bhikkhu. it was most difficult > for him to find the right temple with pure Vinaya > and satipatthana, because > these two should not be separated. Lonely life? But > when there are only nama > and rupa we are alone with nama and rupa, no people > around. Only when a monk > has becaome a sotapanna he will never leave the > order anymore. That is > because of satipatthana which has been developed and > become firmly > established, so that enlightenment could be > attained. Finally, all my good > wishes to you for your new life as a bhikkhu, and I > wish that you will be > near good friends in the Dhamma. Anumodana to you, > and also anumodana to > Sukin who sponsors you, he is so kind. Best wishes, > Nina. > > 8390 From: KennethOng Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 8:22am Subject: Re:_[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Sorry this is not what I looking for. Because I need to know whether Vipasana is infer or interpreted by later practitioners or Buddha has spoken about it in his sutra. Just like Abidharma, I believe it was interpreted, infer and compiled by practitioners and Buddha did not say a sutra about it. Sincerely no offence here, I really need to know. Kind regards Kenneth Ong "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" wrote: Vipasana is found in the Mahayana tradition as well. As a word it sounds the same in Skt. as well as Pali. Vipasana requires Samatha, too, i.e., "insight" requires that we master "concentration". Check these out: http://www.flamingjewel.org/teachings/shine-lathong.html http://www.people.virginia.edu/~am2zb/tibet/programa/intro/intro_vip.htm http://www.rinpoche.com/tapes.htm http://www.tibethouse.org/programs/meditation.html http://www.philashambhala.org/public_html/initialmed.shtml Good luck! With Metta, Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo ----- Original Message ----- From: "KennethOng" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:11 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã > > Hi all, > As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say about this and to who did he say this. > Many thanks and kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > 8391 From: Howard Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 4:49am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/2/01 8:25:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Sorry this is not what I looking for. Because I need to know whether > Vipasana is infer or interpreted by later practitioners or Buddha has > spoken about it in his sutra. Just like Abidharma, I believe it was > interpreted, infer and compiled by practitioners and Buddha did not say a > sutra about it. Sincerely no offence here, I really need to know. > Kind regards > =========================== Generally, the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta are taken to be the canionical presentations of vipassana bhavana to the best of my knowledge. Of course, detailed instruction is optimally given person to person. 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) 8392 From: KennethOng Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 10:07am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Howard, thanks, does this mean that vipasana meditation has inferred and interpreted by pactitioners and not said by Budha. When you said that detail instructions was from person to person, why is it so, why was not it say by Buddha. Why keep it confidential. Did Buddha said these instructions. Kind regards Kenneth Ong Howard wrote: Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/2/01 8:25:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Sorry this is not what I looking for. Because I need to know whether > Vipasana is infer or interpreted by later practitioners or Buddha has > spoken about it in his sutra. Just like Abidharma, I believe it was > interpreted, infer and compiled by practitioners and Buddha did not say a > sutra about it. Sincerely no offence here, I really need to know. > Kind regards > =========================== Generally, the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta are taken to be the canionical presentations of vipassana bhavana to the best of my knowledge. Of course, detailed instruction is optimally given person to person. 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) 8393 From: Howard Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 6:48am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/2/01 10:09:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Howard, > thanks, does this mean that vipasana meditation has inferred and > interpreted by pactitioners and not said by Budha. When you said that > detail instructions was from person to person, why is it so, why was not it > say by Buddha. Why keep it confidential. Did Buddha said these > instructions. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > ========================= From my reading, what was recorded in the tipitaka with regard to meditation instructions was somewhat general, even to some extent in the two suttas I mentioned, although if one searches with sufficient effort, and collects material from a wide varity of suttas, I suppose that a good deal of information on the details of meditating, of both the samatha and vipassana variety, can be obtained. I imagine that the reason that there are not detailed meditation manuals to be found within the tipitaka is that the suttas spoken by the Buddha and his chief disciples were, by in large, public lectures on major topics, the detailed meditation instruction being given directly and personally (by the Buddha and senior monks and nuns), and tailored to the needs of the individual bhikkhus and bhikkhunis being instructed. By the time the tipitaka was recorded, there were already well established schools teaching various methods of meditative technique. These techniques were described in some detail in the Theravadin commentaries, and especially in the Vimuttimagga and the Visudhimagga. But even there only a modicum of detail really had to be recorded, because the precise details were still provided by direct person-to-person instruction tailored to the needs of the student. Or so it seems to me. Having said this, let me also say that there are others on this list who could give a *far* more definitive response than I, and I welcome their corrections. 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) 8394 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 11:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Nina (and Sukin) I agree with your observations about discouragement. And there are other kinds of aversion that may arise in connection with 'our practice' -- annoyance at our views being questioned, at being disturbed or interrupted etc (in one who follows a formal practice) -- that likewise are indicators of clinging in one aspect or another. If the practice is correct, it should not be a condition for aversion to arise in any respect. Very useful reminders, thank you. Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)? Thanks. Jon --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 30-09-2001 09:16 schreef Sukinderpal Narula op : > > > My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises > only > > when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience. > > When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from > > fear of repercussions to cold indifference. > > And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it > > to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are > dealing > > purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the > conceptual > > level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop > > until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that > everytime > > there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for > example, > > knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements, > > and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be > patient > > towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can > arise. > > Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the > other > > paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for > patience > > to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the > development of > > wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not > > the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'. > > A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with > regard > > to development of wisdom. > > I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments > from > > anybody. > > > Dear Sukin, I appreciate your post on patience being conditioned and > non-self, very much. We are inclined to think, I should be patient, and > this > is often not successful. I especially like your reminder that A. sujin > encourages patience, bravery and cheerfulness, when developing > satipatthana. > Yes, I have often heard this from her (athaan rarung) and it is good to > be > reminded again. When people do not see any result in being aware of > seeing, > visible object, hearing, sound and all objects appearing through the six > doors they become disheartened, they give up. But as I learnt from a > text of > the Mahaniddesa given by Jim about jhaayati, reflection, we have to > examine > realities closely, often, frequently, in various ways, continuously. > Pa~n~naa has to go on discriminating nama and rupa, not once or twice. > We > also read in the teachings, that the Buddha inspired the monks, > encouraged > them, delighted them with Dhamma talk. I like the good cheer element, > because if there is discouragement it shows our clinging to result. Why > don't we live from moment to moment and forget about result, such as > attaining vipassana ~n~nas. There is enough to be done right now, but it > is > not a self who develops. > Sukin, if you and Amara can sometimes give us reminders you heard at the > Foundation sessions, many people will be very grateful. Thank you again, > Nina. 8395 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his listeners to exert > effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of kusala citta -- it > would make a mockery of the teachings to read these passages as otherwise. > As we have seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself > necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here purely from my > own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. So the 'effort' to be > exerted which the Buddha refers to is the effort (ie. energy mental factor > -- viriya) that arises with kusala citta. Dear Jon, I take your words at the end of your post as an invitation to be direct. I have to state once again that I am not conversant enough with Abhidhamma to make any claims about it at all, so I will be happy to have your corrections on that score, if there are some factors I am not taking into account. However, with that said, I want to recall that you said in recent posts that the Suttas were complete and should not be subject to undue interpretation. Correct me if I don't understand your point of view here adequately. Yet we see a number of different types of interpretation taking place to give the Buddha's words an appropriate context for understanding. For instance, we are to take it that his words to ordinary people about developing ethics and virtues and about the eightfold path were told in a way that was not totally accurate, but was geared to their level of understanding. So the Buddha leaves the impression that there is volition, that we should strive to do virtuous and spiritual actions and efforts, and that we should avoid actions and internal states that produce further negative kamma and suffering. But in truth, none of these is volitional, they are dependent upon the concordance of favorable conditions, which are accumulated in a snowball sort of effect from other positive causes. Next, although I do not understand it thoroughly, we have the view of the Abhidhamma that the eightfold path is not a sequence of separate factors to be practiced, which will lead to wisdom and ultimately to Nibbana, but that there is a mundane path leading to super-mundane path factors arising spontaneously and simeoltaneously, and that this is the true meaning of the eightfold path. I have heard some discussions of this on this list, but have not seen suttas in which the Buddha explains it to be the case. Are there sections of the Abhidhamma in which the Buddha himself makes clear that the eightfold path refers to an advanced state in which these factors arise in quick succession just prior to Nibbana? If not, I would propose that this interpretation of the eightfold path is not based directly on the Buddha's words, and in fact contradicts his words in other suttas. But I will be happy to see direct references to what the Buddha said on this matter. Finally, you interpret the Buddha's teachings on Right Effort and Letting Go as factors that are not volitional and not dependent on any exertion of will. Are there direct statements on the part of the Buddha which supports this interpretation, or are you taking the Buddha's statements in the light of the philosophy of Abhidhamma, and thus giving them a particular slant not obvious in the words themselves? If this is the case, I would say that there is a particular act of interpretation taking place to make the argument that these factors arise merely as the result of the appropriate factors being in place. It seems to me that the Buddha would not have used the term 'Right Effort' if in fact there was no effort involved. He would not have used the word 'Intention' if in fact no intention was necessary, and he would not have referred to 'Letting Go' if no letting go was necessary. You say that the idea of letting go is probably a 'reminder' that clinging is akusala. In other words, it is not a call to a kind of action of letting go, but is just another prompt to understanding. I am not aware of the Buddha saying anything of this kind, and I assume this is your interpretation of the idea of letting go, which the Buddha has placed at the very end of the path of liberation, a most advanced factor. To say that Right Effort is in fact not Right Effort but is non-Effort, seems to me to flatly contradict the Buddha's teaching on Right Effort. Again, I apologize for being so blunt, but I want to reach some understanding on this view. So I would be grateful if you can quote the Buddha himself on this interpretation of Right Effort. I can theoretically understand the possibility that Right Thinking or Right Concentration could be the result of arising factors of insight and wisdom, but I find it impossible to define Effort of any kind as a factor that actually arises by itself, and actually involves no effort at all. If this interpretation of Right Effort is not a contradiction of the Buddha's words, I will be very happy to hear how this can be so. > > Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think > > of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and > > subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there > > a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'? > > You have raised another aspect of this approach to the 'practice' that > could be discussed further. The moments of thinking that direct the mind > to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen object etc are, in terms of > individual mind-moments, by no means single moments or anything like it > but in fact substantial periods of thinking. > > I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of is intended to be a > reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is akusala. This of course > is true. To my understanding, however, the idea that such reminders will > make any real difference in this respect is misconceived. Buddha never referred to letting go as a reminder that grasping is akusala. He referred to it as one of the advanced factors of awakening. After Liberation, one lets go of all illusory objects to enter the state of Equanimity. This is I think a fairly straightforward rendering of this idea from the Anapanasati Sutta. > > Thanks in advance, > > > > mike > > And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points up. > > Jon > > PS I notice on reading through this post that I have been quite direct > (perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I should expect some > pretty direct responses from others ….. I think I've been even more direct than you, Jon. Considering my spotty knowledge of the Suttas, I apologize for seeming like I'm more sure of my views than I am. My intention is to confront some important issues, and if my ideas are refuted in the process, that's okay with me. : ) Best Regards, Robert Ep. 8396 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha --- Herman wrote: > Hi all, > > In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever > seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they > become so by their own efforts. > > And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that > means :-) > > How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist? > > All the best > > > Herman That is a very good question Herman. I'd like to sign on to that one myself. Robert 8397 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Herman wrote: > Howard, > > There being no self , what does kamma apply to? Namas and rupas, and > so do the fruits. Volition applies to cittas only, as far as I know. > > Happy to be corrected, of course :-) > > All the best > > Herman On the other hand, Buddha spoke of liberating 'sentient beings', not countries or dharmas. Why would he speak of beings if there were no beings to liberate? Why would he not grant equal status to 'dharmas' and living beings if these beings were really nothing but 'kandhas' and of the same status as objects? In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha says something to the effect that the correct understanding should be that 'when all sentient beings are thus liberated, no beings have actually been liberated'. so how does this contradiction work? My sense of this is that while there are no beings ultimately, the provisional minds and bodies which engage the concepts of being an entity or self, do experience suffering and various thoughts and feelings that impinge on that sense of self. That sense of self is illusory, but while that illusion is being held it is a source of suffering. So to 'liberate all sentient beings' is to remove the illusion of self from these bodies and minds. Countries don't exist. A country is a concept. It cannot entertain a concept of self or experience suffering. Neither can objects. Cittas are the only thing capable of experiencing suffering and while cittas are carrying the idea of self, they carry experiences of fear, anxiety, anger and hatred, and the sense of protecting and promoting the desires of that seeming self. It is thus those cittas, the consciousness that is related to the body and mind, that must be liberated from the false idea of self, and all the attendant akusala experiences that accompany the concept of self-entity. It is this sense, I think, that kamma applies to individuals. The body and mind within which the cittas of self and suffering arise are the individuals that must be liberated. No other factors of the manifest universe require awakening and liberation. Only consciousness. Robert Ep. ================================ > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Herman - > > > > In a message dated 10/1/01 10:29:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Herman writes: > > > > > > > The laws of karma apply to the US as > > > > > ========================= > > It's my understanding that kamma is an individual matter, as > are the > > fruits of kamma. If people acted in similar volitional manners, > then they may > > have similar kammic fruit. But nations having kamma is not a > Buddhist notion > > to the best of my knowledge. > > > > 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) > > 8398 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Herman wrote: > Robert, > > I will never make the diplomatic corps, I know, but you have written > some things to a monster. And that monster is not me, but a > projection of yours. > > So once you become aware of the high horse you are riding, and it > looks as though you are responding to things I am actually writing, > then we can perhaps keep communicating. > > All the best > > Herman Dear Herman, If you wish to respond to any of the specific things I said, I will be happy to correspond with you on these subjects off-list. It took some effort to make all of my points, so I don't really envision trying to start from scratch and revising my statement. I don't see you as a monster by any means, and you are putting words in my mouth by saying so. However, I do think some of what you said was insensitive in light of current circumstances, but that's as far as I would go. If you prefer not to continue the discussion in response to my answer, as mine was in response to your statement, I will be happy to drop the subject and go back to talking about the Dhamma as we know and understand it. Or in my case, misunderstand it......just my feeble attempt at a joke....... Regards, Robert Ep. ========================== > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > Robert, > > > > > > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? > > > > > > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US > media > > > does, obviously. > > > > > > I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your > sweeping > > > statements, Robert. > > > > > > The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It > is > > > built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US > as > > > well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the > dominant > > > world power by being very nice to everybody. > > > > > > Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not > go > > > without consequences. > > > > > > Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of > > > 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am > not > > > selective about where I see these things happening. > > > > > > While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are > > > murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on > these > > > systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed > as > > > tacit approval? > > > > > > All the best > > > > > > > > > Herman > > > > Dear Herman, > > I am one of the people who care about people all around the world. > I care about > > the teenagers forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia, Latin > America and all > > around the world, the ten year olds working in shoe factories in > Guatemala, and I > > care about the women who are beaten and killed and raped by their > husbands legally > > under the Taliban, a Taliban that does not allow medical treatment > for women, or a > > widow to work to get food for her children, a Taliban that can beat > or kill > > someone if the 'police' suspect that they have trimmed their > beard. I also care > > at this particular moment about something that happened just the > other day: 7,000 > > people were killed in a holocaust, a single horrible act that left > 7,000 families > > from 80 countries around the world in a sudden state of horrific > grief. I don't > > just care about the Americans that were in that building, I care > about all of > > them. I also care about the 300 some-odd firefighters and > policemen who willingly > > ran into that building to save people and lost their own lives. > > > > Do I care about the people who were killed in that blaze, the > hundreds who jumped > > out of 100 story windows to their death to avoid being burned up in > superheated > > airplane fuel more than I care about the insanely fanatical > hijackers who slit > > passengers throats and then propelled them to a fiery death? Yes, > in fact I do > > care more about those victims. Does that make me less evolved on > the path? If > > so, I don't mind waiting a bit to evolve further. When I turn into > a mechanical > > path-dweller who can only wax philosophically about how all things > are the same > > and that they are all empty, I will know I have gone down the wrong > path and gone > > too far. There is a dual nature to human beings, they are > inherently empty and > > fleeting beings, yet there is also suffering, happiness and beauty > in our lives. > > > > There is also the arising of compassion. I think that it is > appropriate when > > something horrifying is done to innocent people, without > speculating on their > > karmic deserts, to say first how sad and mortified we are that this > horror has > > taken place. Then you can go into your lecture about all the > reasons why the U.S. > > is wrong and bad and evil. Why don't you save it for after you > express your > > compassion for those burned and smashed and killed and turned into > a mass of body > > parts mixed with steel and blood? To me, that would be a moment of > real > > compassion, not a political statement, but a moment of being human, > which is > > allowable and also necessary. > > > > As I have said one time before, if you do not mention how you feel > about all the > > people who were killed, but just go straight into a political > speech, I have no > > way of knowing that you care about these people. You actually need > to say it, and > > express some feeling for them. They weren't 'Americans', they > didn't represent a > > poitical structure or a country. They were people who suffered > horribly and left > > behind more people who are suffering miserably. So give metta to > them first. Let > > them have a bit of metta please, before you lecture their recently- > departed > > kandhas. > > > > Yes, as I said, I know bin Laden is guilty because he has admitted > it. There is > > also strong evidence from other sources in both the original World > Trade Center > > bombing and the two U.S. embassies in Africa that were bombed. But > that is > > besides the point. There is no doubt that there are terrorist > camps in > > Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq. There is no doubt that the > Taliban has committed > > thousands upon thousands of crimes against humanity against its own > people. There > > is no doubt that the Taliban's single greatest supporter is bin > Laden, who > > personally gave them three million to jump start them at their > inception, and has > > supported them ever since as they support him. There is no doubt > that Sudan and > > Pakistan has also formerly supported the Taliban. They have both > now severed ties > > in the wake of this tragedy. > > > > To compare the current tragedy and the horrors of the Taliban to > U.S. auto > > accidents seems very strange to me. The 'American way of Life' is > represented by > > automobiles, which are the killers you want to attack? Personally > I would rather > > die in an auto accident, than be beaten to death or have my throat > cut in the > > public square, as happens in Afganistan every day. > > > > Now that I have said all that, let me say two things to give you an > idea of how I > > feel about people. I am not a nationalist. I just think that > Americans have a > > right to be considered people as much as anyone else. I have been > writing to all > > my email groups and friends where anti-Arab sentiments are > expressed, saying that > > anyone who harms an Islamic-American, as has happened several > times, because of > > their beliefs or appearance, are as bad as the terrorists, and I > mean that. I > > have nothing but respect for Muslims, and most Muslims are peace- > loving people. > > > > I also wish I lived in a world where we cared as much about the > million Rwandans > > killed in their holocaust as we do about those killed in Western > countries, and I > > have said that as well. I do care about all people equally. But I > will shed my > > tears for the victims first, and then the killers second. > > > > Robert Ep. > > > > =============================== > > > > 8399 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep Dear Sarah, Thanks for your responses. I will have to re-read some of this before I can answer intelligently. It's very interesting in any case. There are two areas where you might help my understanding along a little bit. I am fascinated with the idea of the bhavanga cittas, and especially the idea that these are 'subconscious'. Where and how does 'subconscious continuity' come into the scheme of things? This seems quite modern in a way, and makes sense of the statement I have often heard that Buddhism provided the earliest and most thorough psychological science. I believe you have mentioned that you have a psychology background and I wonder if you find this as fascinating as I do? I was also fascinated by your quick list of the consciousnesses or mental factors that intercede between a moment of contact with sense-object and its 'processing' into a percept and concept. How those factors of consciousness arise and coordinate would be very interesting, but I'm sure it's a complicated discussion..... It may be that I need to understand the nature and relative status of the bhavanga cittas and the arising of kusala and panna before I can really add a lot more to this discussion. But I will look over your very interesting responses and see what I can come up with in the way of understanding. Best Regards, Robert ========================= --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > Thank you for all your excellent comments and questions. I’m also finding it > interesting and helpful to consider these lines in depth. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from > > > without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that > > come > > > from without.’ > > > > Well, here is where translation is important, because if the original really > > says > > 'this' mind, and then 'that' mind, as two different arising cittas, then it > > would > > point in the direction of saying that some cittas are defied and some > > undefiled, > > and that they arise and pass away, rather than being a continuous underlying > > 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed from them. > > > > However, I still have some questions: > > > > If the bhavanga cittas are luminous, and they are thus freed from > > defilements, why > > are they spoken of as being defiled? > -------------------- > > Good question. I understand the stanza to mean that the bhavanga cittas are > luminous in the sense of undefiled and the following cittas (as soon as there > are experiences through the sense doors and mind door) to be defiled, i.e. > akusala cittas, accompanied by akusala mental factors during the javana > process. (Of course even when the bhavanga cittas are considered luminous or > pure, it doesn’t mean there are not the latent tendencies or anusayas which lie > dormant with each citta). > > This interpretation is not only supported by the abhidhamma, but also by this > extract from the Commentary to the Sutta: > -------------------- > > 'dampi nirupakkilesataaya parisuddhanti pabhassara.m. ta~nca khoti ta.m > bhava"ngacitta.m. > > Jim: "It is also pure because it is > unsoiled (by defilements); thus 'luminous'." Nirupakkilesataa is lit. 'a > state of without defilement(s)'. ' > > 'aagantukehiiti asahajaatehi pacchaa javanakkha.ne uppajjanakehi. > > Jim: 'by the oncoming ': by the non-conascent, by the arising at > the moment of impulsion (javana) afterwards.' > > 'upakkilesehiiti raagaadiihi upakkili.t.thattaa upakkili.t.tha.m naamaati > vuccati. > > Nina: by defilements. By being soiled by desire etc. it is indeed called > defiled.' > --------------------- > > Rob, I don’t have a full translation of the commentary and sub-comentary and > don’t believe there is a published one in English. Nina and Jim have been > working on it out of personal interest and I hope they will kindly post a copy > here when they have finished all or part. In the extract I’ve quoted , please > note the ‘non-conascent’, i.e.the defilements are not arising at the same time > as the luminous cittas, but during the javana process afterwards during the > sense door or mind door ‘activity’. > -------------------- > > > > The idea that the underlying bhavanga cittas that give continuity to the flow > > of > > life are inherently luminous, but not continuous, is fine in itself, but it > > is the > > luminous mind that is said to be 'defiled by taints that come from without.' > > Why > > would the luminous mind, which you have said is 'freed from taints' because > > it is > > the result of a previous life, be spoken of as being defiled 'from without'? > -------------------- > > This is the same question. Let me put it this way from an abhidhamma > perspective: > > The bhavanga cittas are vipaka cittas (result of kamma). In a sesnse-door > process, they are followed by 1) sense-door adverting consciousness 2) > sense-consciousness, e.g seeing or hearing 3) receiving-cnsciousness 4) > investigating consciousness 5) determining consciousness 6) 7 javana cittas > which in the case of the non-arahat are kusala or akusala cittas; 7) 2 > registering consciousness > > When it mentions ‘defiled from without’, it is referring, as indicated in the > Com notes to the javana cittas. > -------------------- > > > > It seems to me that this is still different from your explanation. Please > > forgive > > me for being so blunt, but I am really interested in getting to the bottom of > > this. Hope you don't mind! > -------------------- > > If it still seems different, please be even blunter;-)) I’m equally interested > in trying to clarify (and learn). > -------------------- > > >.....It is luminous, but has been cleansed of taints. Note that it doesn't > say > > 'absent' of taints or 'doesn't have any' taints, but that it is cleansed. I > > don't > > see any way to interpret cleansed other than to say 'it was once dirty, but > > it has > > been made clean through a cleansing process'. That would have to refer to > > something that lasts longer than a moment, more than one citta in other > > words, > > either a structure of mind or a process of mind that continues beyond a > > moment or > > two. > -------------------- > > Again, by ‘cleansed’ it is referring to the kusala cittas and cetasikas which > arise in the javana process following the bhavanga cittas. As discussed, I > believe the sutta is referring to the importance of understanding the nature of > unwholsesome states and of skilful states: > > ‘The learned noble disciple (ariyasaavakassa) understands it (citta) as it > really is (yathaabhuutam). Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has > developed the mind (cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti).’ > > The stress in this sutta is on the fact that the noble disciple has to know > cittas as they are, both wholesome and unwholesome cittas. Isn’t it true that > as soon objects are experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense > and mind, that attachment and aversion, impatience, jealousy and all the other > defilements arise? When we are asleep (without dreaming) where are the stories > about terrorists, New York and all the other concepts we find so important? We > can see that most of the time we live in a world of concepts and there is very > little understanding of the realities appearing through the senses and mind. > -------------------- > > > > Putting these two statements together, it still seems more logical to me that > > they > > are referring to a process in which the process of mind which is inherently > > luminous takes on defilements from without, and then is cleansed by a process > > of > > purification. > > > If I am right about this, which is highly doubtful , then my next question > > would be whether this interpretation can in any way reconciled with > > Abdhidhamma? > > Again, I speak as one who is only very gradually getting more familiar with > > this > > area, but I would initially and boldly say 'yes'. > > > > The reason I have some hope that this is possible is because I assume that > > the > > perceptual and thought process of a more advanced person on the path is > > indeed > > more 'pure' and freer of defilements than someone who has not had any insight > > into > > the true structure of realities. Since kusala and panna are accumulated > > [both?] > > and passed down through successive cittas, and since akusala is gradually > > eliminated, one could say that the path of wisdom is also a path of purifying > > defilements. > ------------------- > > I think I’ve answered the first part. Certainly it’s true that the more pa~n~na > is developed and accumulated, the more ‘pure’ and freer of defilements the > cittas will be. I also agree with your last statement about the gradual > elimination of defilements. It is not so much that these are purified as that > there are fewer and fewer conditions for them to arise during those javana > processes. Remember each citta falls away completely. An unwholesome citta can > never be purified and vice versa. However wholesome cittas can arise in a > process following unwholesome cittas. Indeed it is only pa~n~na that can see > the realities as they are (yathaabhuuta) and only the development of this panna > that can lead to enlightenment. > -------------------- > > > > What if Buddha is referring to this process of arisings, continuities and > > passing > > of accumulations of more pure and wise cittas as 'mind'? If this were so, > > the > > statement in the sutra would make sense as one of process, without every > > establishing an underlying 'mind' that is always there and stays the same. > > What > > is the 'luminosity' that might be revealed by the purification of > > 'defilements' > > from outside? > > > > As the cittas become more aware of the true nature of things, they gain more > > panna. So my question is: would it make sense to say that panna is > > luminous, in > > the same sense that the bhavanga cittas are said to be luminous in your > > explanation? > -------------------- > > It is true that similar words are sometimes used to describe panna.(I’m not > sure if ‘pabhassaramidam-luminous’ is itself ever used, though) I do remember > panna being described as ‘illuminating’ like a light in darkness and in the > Atthasalani it says ‘there is no illumination equal to the illumination of > understanding’ and so on. > > Jim or Nina may give more detail on the different pali words, but I’ll try not > to further sidetrack now. > > The reasons why I’m pretty sure the sutta is referring to bhavanga cittas and > not panna when it mentions ‘luminous’ are: > > 1) the Ang nik com unequivocally states this and who am I to argue with the > ancient com of the arahats (as I understand)? > > 2) the Atthasalani supports the com in this. > > 3) The explanation as I’ve discussed in detail is fully supported by the > Abhidhamma > > 4) the theory of an inherent panna arising to be revealed with the removal of > defilements is not supported anywhere in the (Pali canon) Tipitaka as far as > I’m aware. I’ll glad look at any other references to this. The common state is > rather one of ignorance. Even when there are no defilements, there are not > necessarily moments of panna at all. At moments of seeing and hearing , for > example, there can never be panna. Unless panna is being developed, there may > be moments of wholesomeness such as when we give or are friendly to others, but > not necessarily at all with panna. > -------------------- > > I think this is a very interesting discussion and I’ll look forward to hearing > back from you too. I know many others share your interpretations and will be > following with keen attention. Jim or Nina (who have studied these passages in > far more detail than I have) may also add any other helpful notes. > > Sarah