8400 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 1:10pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2/Herman

 
  Dear Christine,
I read the whole article and found it very interesting and worthwhile.  Deep
listening to the world is most certainly something that Americans have been
lacking, as well as many citizens from other countries....perhaps everywhere.

A very potent Buddhist message from one of my favorite teachers....

Best,
Robert Ep.

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

--- Christine Forsyth  wrote:
> 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
> 
> 



 
8401 From: Sarah   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:19pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha

 
  Hi Howard,

I've really appreciated some of your responses recently, including this very
neat summary to Herman and your other responses to him and others as well.

I think it's clear in the Tipitaka that all Buddhas are male, but someone like
Rob K is much better on these details than I am. 

I've also greatly appreciated your correspondence with Jon on effort and
intention and your careful consideration as always. Please continue to
'challenge' him before he jets off to India.....;-))

Sarah

 --- Howard wrote
> ============================
>        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)                   
> 


 
8402 From: Sarah   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:25pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavangacitta - Nina

 
  Dear Nina,

Thank you for this helpful translation 'in one piece'. There is a lot of
interest in these 2 Ang Nik suttas and it's very helpful to be able to refer to
the commentary and sub-commentary. 

I know that you and Lodevick (yr husband) will be leaving in just a few days,
so may I wish you  safe flights and many opportunities in India for wise
reflection and sati.

We'll look forward to welcoming you back on your return.

Best wishes as always,

Sarah

 --- Nina van Gorkom  wrote: > 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.



 
8403 From: Sarah   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:55pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã - Kenneth

 
  Dear Kenneth,

 --- KennethOng  wrote: > 

> 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
....................

I understand all the suttas to be talking about bhavana (mental development),
either samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana or both. Vipassana means insight
and refers to the development of panna (wisdom). So whenever we read about the
development of understanding or about the realities which are to be known, we
are considering about vipassana. 

With regard to stages of vipassana and many, many details, these can be read in
the Visuddhimagga.

If you want specific references mentioning vipassana (as opposed to similar
words like panna) in the suttas, there are some I can think of in the Samyutta
Nikaya. I don't have the Pali but I'm pretty sure that it's vipassana referred
to in this Sutta description at SN 1V, Salayatanavagga, 194:

'Suppose, bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with strong ramparts, walls, and
arches, and with six gates.  The gatekeeper posted there would be wise,
competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out strangers and admits
acquaintances.  A swift pair of messengers would come from the east and ask the
gatekeeper: 'Where, good man, is the lord of this city?' He would reply: 'He is
sitting in the central square.'  Then the swift pair of messengers would
deliver a message of reality to the lord of the city and leave by the route by
which they had arrived.  Similarly, messengers would come from the west, from
the north, from the south, deliver their message, and leave by the route by
which they had arrived.

“I have made up this simile, bhikkkhu, in order to convey a meaning.  This is
the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation for this body consisting of
the four great elements....’The six gates’: this is a designation for the six
internal bases.  “The gatekeeper’: this is a designation for mindfulness.  ‘The
swift pair of messengers’:  this is a designation for serenity and insight
(vipassana). ‘The lord of the city’: this is a designation for consciousness.
‘The cenral square’: this is a designation for the four great elements .....’A
message of reality’: this is a designation for Nibbana.  ‘The route by which
they had arrived’:   this is a designation for the Noble Eightfold Path;  that
is, right view....right concentration.”

Hope this helps and thanks for your helpful questions and comments.

Sarah





 
8404 From: KennethOng   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 3:19pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Howard,
Thanks.  How then one differentiate between samatha and vipassana meditation.  What criterias are used to differentiate them?   Are the criteria set up by us or by Buddha.  To me if the method is beneficial to all beings, Buddha would have spoken about it and will not keep in confidential.  Since Vipassana is a major practise of attaining insight, why didn't Buddha speaks abt it in a sutra and emphasis it again and again just like non-self concept and mindfullness.  Sorry no offence here.  I really like to know the origination of vipassana meditation and why was it not said directly to everybody as in a sutra.
Just like when I look at Abidharma, I was thinking why Buddha did not develop this?  To me one the the weaknesses in Abidharma is because it will become very conceptual.  In my understanding, Buddha likes to keep things simple, for eg breathing sutra and mindfullness sutra.  I think the best is the Four Noble Truth, simple yet full of wisdom.  
When we talk abt kusala or askusala , or sanna, I only have one interpretation, it all surrounds a self.  All these are just different segregation of self.  Another interpretation that I read about citta, is that citta a series of cittas and occuring in such a rapid pace that we cannot detect the discrete occassions which are of diverse types.  Assuming we are able to detect all these discrete cittas, we are like jig saw puzzles pieces.  If all these pieces eventually are know, then what are we.  
Since all are in pieces, how are bhavanga citta going to brought forward our karma to our next life.  Just as Mike said that volition is impersonal or just momentary, then how does such momentary going to decide our karma in our next life.  Again since it is momentary, how does bhavanga citta going to bring forward all such momentary volitions into next life since bhavanga citta is also momentary.  
Maybe we could assume that bhavanga citta is like the black hole, able to carry on all such momentary volitions, but this is also wrong because citta is a series of cittas.  Then how does citta going to decide our future karma since citta is momentary.
There must be something all this depend on.  It cannot be citta as defined above.  It must be a consciouness that is not defined in Abidharma. 
These are all my assumptions and reservations and sincerely no offence.
Kind regards.
Kenneth Ong






 
8405 From: m. nease   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 8:22pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sanna and accumulations

 
  Dear Nina,

--- Nina van Gorkom  wrote

> Understanding
> of the level of
> patipatti can very gradually develop so that we do
> not get stuck at the
> level of theory. 

Thanks again for Ven. Nyanaponika's words and your own
comments.  Thanks also for the reminder not to get too
caught up in theory.  The little bit that's sunk in
from this exchange is that saññaa and what it 'marks'
are not the same thing--interesting.  More puzzle
pieces to come yet, I guess.  

> 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. 

Thanks--this is an important distintion I've
continually failed to make (by misinterpreting
'anusaya' AS accumulation, I think).

> 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. 

Another valuable reminder, thanks--I probably can't
hear this one often enough.

> 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. 

Yes!

> 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.

Yes--this sounds like memory, of a kind.  It is
clearly accumulated, but is not either saññaa or
anusaya, correct?

Thanks again, Nina,

mike


 
8406 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 10:32pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Right Effort as a co-arising factor?

 
  Rob Ep

--- Robert Epstein  wrote: > 
> --- 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?

I am impressed with the perceptive questions you have come up with.  I
will do my best to explain the position according to the texts, as I
understand them.

When talking about the realities of existence as found in the teachings,
we need to bear in mind that the terms used to denote those realities do
not of course carry the same meaning and implications as their
conventional counterparts.  We have to learn about each reality pretty
much from scratch, if we are to avoid having a mistaken view of it.

And there is much to be learnt.  Every mental factor (cetasika) that
arises with a mind-moment (citta) has its own particular characteristic,
performs a very specific function at the moment of its arising, and has a
particular manifestation and proximate cause.  (These of course should be
taken in the context of a mental factor arising together with a moment of
consciousness, despite what may sometimes appear to be reference to a
situation existing over a period of time as, for example, the reference to
'state' in the description below.)

In the case of the mental factor that is viriya (energy, effort), these
attributes are as follows (from the Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 137)--

Description:  Energy (viriya) is the state of one who, is vigorous (vira).
Characteristic:  Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). 
Function:  Its function is to consolidate conascent states (the
accompanying citta and cetasikas). 
Manifestation:  It is manifested as non-collapse. 
Proximate cause:  Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency;  or its
proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. 

We see from this that the function of viriya is to consolidate the citta
and cetasikas that it arises together with.  So it is not energy 'towards
something', or 'to do something', in the sense that we associate with the
conventional concept of energy.

Its proximate cause is a 'sense of urgency'.  This refers, in the case of
kusala energy, to the urgency of the need to develop kusala.  If we see
the value in kusala, that can be the condition (proximate cause) for the
arising of kusala energy, ie. the energy that accompanies kusala citta.

This is just a brief indication of the manner in which each of the various
mental factors needs to be considered.  Without this sort of detailed
study, it is too easy to make assumptions about realities, based on our
conventional knowledge, that are not accurate.  There is of course much
more to be known than is indicated above, and I would strongly recommend
Nina's 'Cetasikas' for further reading.  The section on viriya is quite
short and well worth a quick glance even for someone with as much homework
as you to catch up on, Rob (!).  This can be found in the second half of
Chapter 9, at the following link--
http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas11.html

This is not to say that I mind giving the information myself, in fact I am
delighted to, and to give references from the texts wherever possible,
too.  But, quite apart from the fact that Nina has already covered the
ground so excellently and with far better understanding of the detail than
I, the fact is I will be away for 2 weeks as from the end of next week,
and will have limited time before then to spend on the list.  (Looking
ahead to your blockbuster received earlier today, Rob, I may have to give
you some references to previous posts where these topics have been
discussed, although I will of course try to give a personal reply on each
point as far as I am able.  It's in the queue!)

Jon




 
8407 From: Sarah   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 11:40pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Dear Mike,

 --- "m. nease"  wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> 
> Some great citations here!

Hope they were helpful.
> 
> > 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.

Rob Ep, please note;-))
> 
> 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.

So very many different conditions which help 'form up' the present citta -
accumulations, objects, preceding cittas, repetition, supports and so on and so
on.....It's useful to read and consider more about conditions because it helps
one understand how citta now could not be any other way and how very anatta it
is. Most valuable is a moment of awareness of this conditioned reality,
awareness of seeing or thinking or like or dislike, for example.

Anyway, I know you know all this, Mike. If there is something else in your
question I'm missing, please ask again and someone else (like Rob K or Kom )
may give a 'meatier' response or I'll try  a less meaty one if they're too
busy;-))

Best wishes for all your arrangements too.....seems like many dsg key members
are on the move these days....just hope I don't end up talking to myself;-(( 

Sarah




8408 From: Nina van Gorkom   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 1:14am
Subject: luminous mind

 
  Dear Sarah and Rob Ep and all, I gave the co. to the AN but not the sutta
and what I added, since Sarah had posted this before. In case you need it
again, I shall paste it now.
First a correction to be made on what I wrote about jhaayati, pajjhaayati, I
interpreted this as reflecting in a positive sense, but just now Jim gave me
the references so that I could look up the text, and it is used in a
negative sense, as brooding over, here: over methuna dhamma. It shows again
how careful we have to be, and I can imagine the sutta on the luminous mind
can mislead us if we are not careful. As Suan said: read the sutta, read the
commentary, read the subcommentary.
I cannot add anything more now, since I am busy before my departure to
India. The bhavanga-citta is compared to the moments of javana-cittas
experiencing objects that impinge on the six doors. We get so entangled as
soon as we experience objects. Only the arahat is no longer entangled. The
sutta shows actually the extent we are entangled in the objects that impinge
on the doorways. 

> 1. 6. 1.
> pabhassaramida.m bhikkhave citta.m ta~nca kho aagantukehi upakkilesehi
> upakkili.t.tha.m.
N: This consciousness, monks, is luminous, and it is indeed corrupted by
oncoming defilements.

>ta.m assutavaa puthujjano yathaabhuuta.m nappajaanaati.
N:The ordinary person who has not learned (the Dhamma, not listened to it)
does not understand it as it really is.
> tasmaa assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhaavanaa natthiiti vadaamiiti.
N:Therefore I say that for the ordinary person who has not listened there is
no mental development (literally. free: the ordinary person who has not
listened to the Dhamma has not developed the mind.)
 
> 1. 6. 2.
> pabhassaramida.m bhikkhave citta.m ta~nca kho aagantukehi upakkilesehi
> vippamutta.m. 
N: This consciousness, monks, is luminous, and it is indeed released from
oncoming defilements.
>ta.m sutavaa ariyasaavako yathaabhuuta.m pajaanaati.
N: The learned noble disciple understand it as it really is.
>tasma sutavato ariyasaavakassa cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti.
N: Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has developed the mind.

Remarks:The
upakilesas, defilements arising with the citta (different from the anusayas,
latent tendencies who do not arise with the akusala citta but can condition
akusala), are like visitors from outside. It seems disturbing, but we have
to note: the ariyan knows the citta as it really is: yathaabutta. One has to
know also akusala citta as it is, otherwise one cannot become an ariyan,
this is stressed in this short sutta.
Yathaabhuuta: bhuuta: that which has grown, is, exists, the truth.
yathaabhuuta: in its real essence, according to the truth.
vippamutta: pamu~ncati: to release.
  
The Atthasalini speaks about the bhavangacitta as being pure, using the word
pa.n.dara (I, Book I, Part IV, Ch II, 140) : "Mind also is said to be clear
in the sense of exceedingly pure with reference to the Bhavanga-citta." Now
I like to quote from Acharn's Survey of Paramattha dhammas where she
explains about the bhavanga-citta which is different from the cittas
experiencing objects impinging on the six doors. She explains that when one
is fast asleep one does not know who one is or where one is, one does not
experience the world. When one wakes up the world appears, one experiences
all the objects impinging on the six doors and then these objects give rise
to defilements. The bhavanga-citta, life-continuum, that has the function of
keeping continuity in the life of an individual, arises when fast asleep and
also in between the processes of cittas. Thus our life, consisting of an
uninterrupted series of cittas, goes on. The bhavanga-citta experiences the
same object as the rebirth-consciousness, and this object is like an echo of
the object experienced shortly before the dying-consciousness of the
previous life. This citta is pure, but it does not mean that there are no
latent tendencies of defilements, anusayas, which lie dormant in the citta.
It is called pure or luminous, because at that moment no defilements arise.
I quote:  
< The citta is pure only at the moment it does not experience an object
through the doors of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense or mind. Everybody
who is fast asleep looks innocent, pure, he does not experience like or
dislike, he is not jealous, stingy, conceited, he has no lovingkindness nor
compassion; thus, unwholesome or wholesome qualities do not arise because he
does not see, hear, experience tangible object or think. However, it should
be known that whenever the citta which arises experiences an object through
one of the six doors, citta is not pure. The reason is that many different
defilements have been accumulated in the citta and these condition the
arising of pleasure and attachment when one sees something pleasant, and the
arising of displeasure and annoyance when one sees something unpleasant.>

The person who is enlightened, the ariyasaavako, has eradicated anusayas by
the development of pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path. It is pa~n~naa which
knows realities as they are, yathaabhuuta, no other way. Anusayas are
eradicated at the different stages of enlightenment, and only the arahat is
freed from all defilements, he has no more latent tendencies of defilements,
no conditions for their arising. Nina.

 
8409 From: Sarah   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 1:34am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep

 
  Dear Rob Ep,

--- Robert Epstein  wrote:

> 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.  

I think so...hope I wasn’t too obtuse...;-))

 > 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?  

I wouldn’t use ‘sub-conscious’ to describe bhavanga. Actually I don’t use it at
all except when I’m quoting a translator. Either there is a bhavanga citta or
there isn’t. No lurking bhavangas.....;-)

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?

When I first started studying Buddhism and the abhidhamma in particular, it
provided all the answers to all the questions that western psychology had
failed (and still fails) to answer for me. Really for the last 25yrs or so,
everything I’ve learnt about people, the mind, memory, perception and so on,
has been gleened from Buddhism. 

As I mentioned to someone else, I don’t attempt to compare it to other systems,
teachings or philosophies because I find it so all-encompassing in itself (if
that makes sense). This doesn’t mean that the tools I’ve learnt from say,
psycholinguistics or educational psychology, are not of great benefit in my
work, but this is in the way that knowing how to drive and a little about
mechanics helps one on the road (but not the road to nibbana;-) In other words,
lots of helpful conceptual truths, but we need the Buddha’s teachings to learn
about absolute truths or realities. Funnily enough, I think this perspective
and 'healthy scepticism' about much of my original training, helps me do my job
a lot better.  I  also think any Buddhist understanding should help make any
aspect of our lives simpler and easier. 

> 
> 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.....

Yes it is fascinating and complicated!....Nina explains these details much more
carefully and precisely in that book I recommended for homework * After that,
there are the books of the Abhidhamma themselves, but some of the commentaries,
like the Atthasalani which I was quoting from to Mike before, are much more
readable (imho). Actually, it’s a very individual matter as to how much detail
is helpful and at what time. I’ve never been able to absorb too many technical
details at a time and I’ve appreciated that friends and teachers like K.Sujin
and Nina have always stressed the importance of understanding realities now.The
details are only for this purpose and not for the sake of mere book-learning,
as we all agree here. 

If you do start reading any of the details in these books, pls keep asking
questions or sharing your insights along the way.

> 
> 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.

I think it can be pretty hard to bravely question some of our deep-held beliefs
of an underlying soul, being, awareness, wisdom, consciousness, nibbana,
luminosity, small self, god or enlightened status.   I have the greatest
respect for those like yourself who are prepared to listen, consider, question,
challenge and review any of these. I’ve also found this to be one of the most
useful and pleasant exchanges I have had here.

 But I will look over your very interesting responses and
> see
> what I can come up with in the way of understanding.

Take your time...I’ll be around....;-))

this has been a bit of a rave (midnight which is v.late for me).

Sarah




 
8410 From: Howard 
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 6:05am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 10/3/01 3:20:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> 
> Howard,
> Thanks.  How then one differentiate between samatha and vipassana 
> meditation.
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental 
one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details 
of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all 
aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye 
to observing all the details, and  especially the impermanence, unworthiness, 
impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) 
phenomena.
-----------------------------------------------------
>  What criterias are used to differentiate them?   Are the criteria set up 
by us or by 
>   Buddha.  To me if the method is beneficial to all beings, Buddha would 
have  
    > about it and will not keep in confidential.  Since Vipassana is a 
> major practise of attaining insight, why didn't Buddha speaks abt it in a 
> sutra and emphasis it again and again just like non-self concept and 
> mindfullness.  Sorry no offence here.  I really like to know the 
> origination of vipassana meditation and why was it not said directly to 
> everybody as in a sutra.
> 
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       The Buddha *did* teach vipassana bhavana, especially in the 
Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. But only so much can be done in a 
general way. Direct meditation instruction, such as was given by the Buddha 
and his followers in the Sangha to both monks, nuns,and laypersons, is the 
best way to go. This remains the case in all branches of Buddhism. One cannot 
adequately learn meditating from book, sutta, or sutra.
----------------------------------------------------------

> Just like when I look at Abidharma, I was thinking why Buddha did not 
> develop this?
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Well, "orthodox" Theravadins do maintain that the Abhidhamma is a 
creation of the Buddha, whereas many other Theravadins do not claim this. 
Inasmuch as I am notan Abhidhammika, I will refrain from saying any more on 
this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------
   To me one the the weaknesses in Abidharma is because it will become very 
> conceptual.  In my understanding, Buddha likes to keep things simple, for eg 
> breathing sutra and mindfullness sutra.  I think the best is the Four Noble 
> Truth, simple yet full of wisdom.  
> When we talk abt kusala or askusala , or sanna, I only have one 
> interpretation, it all surrounds a self.  All these are just different 
> segregation of self.  Another interpretation that I read about citta, is 
> that citta a series of cittas and occuring in such a rapid pace that we 
> cannot detect the discrete occassions which are of diverse types.  Assuming 
> we are able to detect all these discrete cittas, we are like jig saw 
> puzzles pieces.  If all these pieces eventually are know, then what are we. 
>  
> Since all are in pieces, how are bhavanga citta going to brought forward 
> our karma to our next life.  Just as Mike said that volition is impersonal 
> or just momentary, then how does such momentary going to decide our karma 
> in our next life.  Again since it is momentary, how does bhavanga citta 
> going to bring forward all such momentary volitions into next life since 
> bhavanga citta is also momentary.  
> Maybe we could assume that bhavanga citta is like the black hole, able to 
> carry on all such momentary volitions, but this is also wrong because citta 
> is a series of cittas.  Then how does citta going to decide our future 
> karma since citta is momentary.
> There must be something all this depend on.  It cannot be citta as defined 
> above.  It must be a consciouness that is not defined in Abidharma. 
> These are all my assumptions and reservations and sincerely no offence.
> Kind regards.
> Kenneth Ong
> 
> 
=============================
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)                    
            
                                         



 
8411 From: KennethOng   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 11:04am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Howard,
Many thousand thanks and I sincerely appreciate your patience and kindness in replying my difficult questions.  
===================================================
Howard:
I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental 
one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details 
of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all 
aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye 
to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, unworthiness, 
impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) 
phenomena.
=================================================
Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is actually a vipassana meditation.  This means  Vipassana should be practise all through our waking moments be it when we are eating or sitting and not just when we are sitting down and meditate.  
Another question, when we  observe the phenomena, is there a citta involved during this observation.  Since citta is temporal, how could a temporal observe another temporal.  
Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved.  Does this means that there is an intention to observe or this implies that thoughts are use as labels or objects of meditation.  What happens if there are no thoughts, where is the concentration hedge on.  We cannot practise meditation without hedging on something. In my interpretation, Vipassana is hedging on thoughts as labels or objects for discernment.  Hence we could say that  meditation on the breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is use as an object, and breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we seldom notice it thats all.
To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation but to me just because we have been practise this for many generations, we take it as it is.  Simply speaking, Vipassana is just our reflections of thoughts and such practise should not confine to just meditation.  it should be practise in every moments of our lifes.  
The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and other religious practise is that we  learn to be detach from such reflections.  We reflect feelings as feelings, consciouness as consciouness, no more or no less.  My interpretation in mindfullness sutra is that eventually those difference in pleasant and unpleasand feelings is just know as feelings (this is also written in the sutra).  there is no differentiating thoughts.  See things as it is.  With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go.  there is no longer a you or me.  
But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on its own right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands years and benefitted countless human beings.  Once again Howard, many thanks for your patience and kindness in answering my questions.
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
P.S.  Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous email about citta.  Thanks
 
 
  Howard wrote: Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 10/3/01 3:20:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> 
> Howard,
> Thanks. How then one differentiate between samatha and vipassana 
> meditation.
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental 
one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details 
of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all 
aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye 
to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, unworthiness, 
impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) 
phenomena.
-----------------------------------------------------
> What criterias are used to differentiate them? Are the criteria set up 
by us or by 
> Buddha. To me if the method is beneficial to all beings, Buddha would 
have 
> about it and will not keep in confidential. Since Vipassana is a 
> major practise of attaining insight, why didn't Buddha speaks abt it in a 
> sutra and emphasis it again and again just like non-self concept and 
> mindfullness. Sorry no offence here. I really like to know the 
> origination of vipassana meditation and why was it not said directly to 
> everybody as in a sutra.
> 
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
The Buddha *did* teach vipassana bhavana, especially in the 
Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. But only so much can be done in a 
general way. Direct meditation instruction, such as was given by the Buddha 
and his followers in the Sangha to both monks, nuns,and laypersons, is the 
best way to go. This remains the case in all branches of Buddhism. One cannot 
adequately learn meditating from book, sutta, or sutra.
----------------------------------------------------------

> Just like when I look at Abidharma, I was thinking why Buddha did not 
> develop this?
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Well, "orthodox" Theravadins do maintain that the Abhidhamma is a 
creation of the Buddha, whereas many other Theravadins do not claim this. 
Inasmuch as I am notan Abhidhammika, I will refrain from saying any more on 
this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------
To me one the the weaknesses in Abidharma is because it will become very 
> conceptual. In my understanding, Buddha likes to keep things simple, for eg 
> breathing sutra and mindfullness sutra. I think the best is the Four Noble 
> Truth, simple yet full of wisdom. 
> When we talk abt kusala or askusala , or sanna, I only have one 
> interpretation, it all surrounds a self. All these are just different 
> segregation of self. Another interpretation that I read about citta, is 
> that citta a series of cittas and occuring in such a rapid pace that we 
> cannot detect the discrete occassions which are of diverse types. Assuming 
> we are able to detect all these discrete cittas, we are like jig saw 
> puzzles pieces. If all these pieces eventually are know, then what are we. 
> 
> Since all are in pieces, how are bhavanga citta going to brought forward 
> our karma to our next life. Just as Mike said that volition is impersonal 
> or just momentary, then how does such momentary going to decide our karma 
> in our next life. Again since it is momentary, how does bhavanga citta 
> going to bring forward all such momentary volitions into next life since 
> bhavanga citta is also momentary. 
> Maybe we could assume that bhavanga citta is like the black hole, able to 
> carry on all such momentary volitions, but this is also wrong because citta 
> is a series of cittas. Then how does citta going to decide our future 
> karma since citta is momentary.
> There must be something all this depend on. It cannot be citta as defined 
> above. It must be a consciouness that is not defined in Abidharma. 
> These are all my assumptions and reservations and sincerely no offence.
> Kind regards.
> Kenneth Ong
> 
> 
=============================
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) 







 
8412 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 11:57am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Right Effort as a co-arising factor?

 
  --- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> Rob Ep
> 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote: > 
> > --- 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?
> 
> I am impressed with the perceptive questions you have come up with.  I
> will do my best to explain the position according to the texts, as I
> understand them.
> 
> When talking about the realities of existence as found in the teachings,
> we need to bear in mind that the terms used to denote those realities do
> not of course carry the same meaning and implications as their
> conventional counterparts.  We have to learn about each reality pretty
> much from scratch, if we are to avoid having a mistaken view of it.
> 
> And there is much to be learnt.  Every mental factor (cetasika) that
> arises with a mind-moment (citta) has its own particular characteristic,
> performs a very specific function at the moment of its arising, and has a
> particular manifestation and proximate cause.  (These of course should be
> taken in the context of a mental factor arising together with a moment of
> consciousness, despite what may sometimes appear to be reference to a
> situation existing over a period of time as, for example, the reference to
> 'state' in the description below.)
> 
> In the case of the mental factor that is viriya (energy, effort), these
> attributes are as follows (from the Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 137)--
> 
> Description:  Energy (viriya) is the state of one who, is vigorous (vira).
> Characteristic:  Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). 
> Function:  Its function is to consolidate conascent states (the
> accompanying citta and cetasikas). 
> Manifestation:  It is manifested as non-collapse. 
> Proximate cause:  Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency;  or its
> proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. 
> 
> We see from this that the function of viriya is to consolidate the citta
> and cetasikas that it arises together with.  So it is not energy 'towards
> something', or 'to do something', in the sense that we associate with the
> conventional concept of energy.
> 
> Its proximate cause is a 'sense of urgency'.  This refers, in the case of
> kusala energy, to the urgency of the need to develop kusala.  If we see
> the value in kusala, that can be the condition (proximate cause) for the
> arising of kusala energy, ie. the energy that accompanies kusala citta.
> 
> This is just a brief indication of the manner in which each of the various
> mental factors needs to be considered.  Without this sort of detailed
> study, it is too easy to make assumptions about realities, based on our
> conventional knowledge, that are not accurate.  There is of course much
> more to be known than is indicated above, and I would strongly recommend
> Nina's 'Cetasikas' for further reading.  The section on viriya is quite
> short and well worth a quick glance even for someone with as much homework
> as you to catch up on, Rob (!).  This can be found in the second half of
> Chapter 9, at the following link--
> http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas11.html
> 
> This is not to say that I mind giving the information myself, in fact I am
> delighted to, and to give references from the texts wherever possible,
> too.  But, quite apart from the fact that Nina has already covered the
> ground so excellently and with far better understanding of the detail than
> I, the fact is I will be away for 2 weeks as from the end of next week,
> and will have limited time before then to spend on the list.  (Looking
> ahead to your blockbuster received earlier today, Rob, I may have to give
> you some references to previous posts where these topics have been
> discussed, although I will of course try to give a personal reply on each
> point as far as I am able.  It's in the queue!)
> 
> Jon

Thanks for the link, Jon, and your detailed example of 'Energy'. I hope you have a
great trip.  If you do have a chance to respond to my other post, that will be
great.  If not, well, I have to admit I will be slightly relieved!  <g>  But of
course, I am looking forward to your comments.

Robert Ep

 


 
8413 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 0:39pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep

 
  --- Sarah  wrote:
> Dear Rob Ep,
> 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote:
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> I think so...hope I wasn’t too obtuse...;-))
> 
>  > 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?  
> 
> I wouldn’t use ‘sub-conscious’ to describe bhavanga. Actually I don’t use it at
> all except when I’m quoting a translator. Either there is a bhavanga citta or
> there isn’t. No lurking bhavangas.....;-)
> 
> 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?
> 
> When I first started studying Buddhism and the abhidhamma in particular, it
> provided all the answers to all the questions that western psychology had
> failed (and still fails) to answer for me. Really for the last 25yrs or so,
> everything I’ve learnt about people, the mind, memory, perception and so on,
> has been gleened from Buddhism. 
> 
> As I mentioned to someone else, I don’t attempt to compare it to other systems,
> teachings or philosophies because I find it so all-encompassing in itself (if
> that makes sense). This doesn’t mean that the tools I’ve learnt from say,
> psycholinguistics or educational psychology, are not of great benefit in my
> work, but this is in the way that knowing how to drive and a little about
> mechanics helps one on the road (but not the road to nibbana;-) In other words,
> lots of helpful conceptual truths, but we need the Buddha’s teachings to learn
> about absolute truths or realities. Funnily enough, I think this perspective
> and 'healthy scepticism' about much of my original training, helps me do my job
> a lot better.  I  also think any Buddhist understanding should help make any
> aspect of our lives simpler and easier. 
> 
> > 
> > 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.....
> 
> Yes it is fascinating and complicated!....Nina explains these details much more
> carefully and precisely in that book I recommended for homework * After that,
> there are the books of the Abhidhamma themselves, but some of the commentaries,
> like the Atthasalani which I was quoting from to Mike before, are much more
> readable (imho). Actually, it’s a very individual matter as to how much detail
> is helpful and at what time. I’ve never been able to absorb too many technical
> details at a time and I’ve appreciated that friends and teachers like K.Sujin
> and Nina have always stressed the importance of understanding realities now.The
> details are only for this purpose and not for the sake of mere book-learning,
> as we all agree here. 
> 
> If you do start reading any of the details in these books, pls keep asking
> questions or sharing your insights along the way.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> I think it can be pretty hard to bravely question some of our deep-held beliefs
> of an underlying soul, being, awareness, wisdom, consciousness, nibbana,
> luminosity, small self, god or enlightened status.   I have the greatest
> respect for those like yourself who are prepared to listen, consider, question,
> challenge and review any of these. I’ve also found this to be one of the most
> useful and pleasant exchanges I have had here.
> 
>  But I will look over your very interesting responses and
> > see
> > what I can come up with in the way of understanding.
> 
> Take your time...I’ll be around....;-))
> 
> this has been a bit of a rave (midnight which is v.late for me).
> 
> Sarah

Dear Sarah,
Thanks for your reply.  I have admire those of you have settled in for the long
haul and made this your 'vehicle'.  It is a long trip, is it not?  But it must be
nice to feel that you have set out in the right direction and can keep enjoying
the unfolding of understanding.

It is certainly fascinating looking at how realities unfold.  Whatever part of
Buddhism we are most drawn to, the essential teachings of anatta, anicca and
dukkha really give one a perspective that gradually allows the letting go of the
idea that there is a self or an object to hold onto.  That in itself is a bit of a
relief, after all the clinging and disappointment when treasured objects are
relinquished, as they must be.  To know that this is the true nature of things
erases a lot of regret, and points one in a different direction.

Thanks for your kind personal notes.  I have been enjoying this exchange very
much, and I learn a little bit more about how things are put together every time. 
Your response to my questions was quite clear and helpful.  The idea that bhavanga
cittas are also momentary and do not form an underlying continuum, but arise when
they do as part of the pattern of arising cittas and cetasikas is consistent and
makes sense.  Although I was secretly hoping for a subconscious field of awareness
somewhere in there, it would have been contradictory if it had turned out to be
that way.  It is a science in a way, isn't it?  And gradually becomes a little
clearer. 

I have bookmarked Nina's Cetasikas book and will try to look at it soon.  If I get
in trouble by not completing my homeworks, I'm sure you'll forgive me, but I will
try to do it.  I've been very bad about my reading list.  I think my wife is going
to make it a choice between me and my unread books any day now.  Or perhaps she'll
throw out my computer.   

Anyway, that's enough frivolity for now.  Again, I appreciate the exchanges and
I'm very glad that you find them worthwhile as well.   That is very kind of you.  

Take care,
Robert Ep.
   


8415 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 2:03pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  --- I
dear kenneth,
I think you realise the extreme profundity of the buddha's Dhamma. It 
is not easily grasped and the longer we learn the deeper it appears.
There are 84,000 teachings and 60,000 ways by which beings penetrate 
nibbana - this is in the Theravada. Hence it is unwise to take just a 
few suttas and base our understanding on this. Vipassana is not a 
technique - it is understanding itself, advanced wisdom. As you say 
this type of wisdom can be developed anytime, anywhere. The objects 
for vipassana are ANY paramattha dhammas (absolute realities - which 
are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality). 
Vipassana sees that what we have taken to be beings, people, man, 
woman, self are just concepts with no reality. The development of 
vipassana breaks down the "whole" and thus the evanescent, 
conditioned nature of namas and rupas is understood. this insight - 
by its nature- leads to ever increasing detachment from all these 
dhammas - from samsara, from dukkha, from life. 
When we first learn the Dhamma it appeals at whatever level is 
appopriate. As insight increases we see more. 
Some suttas have extremely deep meaning but all suttas are deep. even 
the Jataka stories show us the way conditions and kamma reveal 
themselves in the world of concepts. they too show anatta, and 
support vipassana insight.
The netti-ppakaranam (170) notes that "when one dhamma is mentioned, 
all dhammas of like characteristic are mentioned too...when certain 
ideas have a single common characteristic, then when one of those 
ideas is stated, the rest of those ideas is stated" for example
(174) "so when mindfulness occupied with the body is stated 
[eg. 'they whose mindfulness of body is constantly well 
instigated ..ever do what should be done -Dh 293;pe91], the 
mindfulness of feeling and that occupied with citta and that occupied 
with mindobjects is stated." end quote. This all means that when the 
Buddha promoted mindfulness of the body he is referring to all the 
foundations of mindfulness (in this example). 
The correct development of mindfulness is not easy and is not to be 
had just by directing attention to the body or feelings or thoughts 
or mindstates. It is only mindfulness - in the buddhist sense- if it 
is substituting wrong ideas (such as this is my body, my feelings, my 
thoughts, etc) with right understanding of the way things really are 
(that is just conditioned fleeting, insignificant, alien phenomemena).
Cittas change rapidly. For example, one series of cittas may be 
genuinely insighting some object (a paramattha dhamma); the next 
series may have the same object (or seem to be the same), the feeling 
may seem the same but the cittas may be rooted in attachment or 
subtle wrongview. 
if you would like to follow this up more I will reply.
best wishes
robert


 KennethOng  wrote:
> 
>  Howard,
> Many thousand thanks and I sincerely appreciate your patience and 
kindness in replying my difficult questions.  
> ===================================================
> Howard:
> I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
> bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, 
often a mental 
> one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various 
details 
> of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly 
examine all 
> aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, 
with an eye 
> to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, 
unworthiness, 
> impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and 
ceasing) 
> phenomena.
> =================================================
> Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is 
actually a vipassana meditation.  This means  Vipassana should be 
practise all through our waking moments be it when we are eating or 
sitting and not just when we are sitting down and meditate.  
> Another question, when we  observe the phenomena, is there a citta 
involved during this observation.  Since citta is temporal, how could 
a temporal observe another temporal.  
> Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved.  
Does this means that there is an intention to observe or this implies 
that thoughts are use as labels or objects of meditation.  What 
happens if there are no thoughts, where is the concentration hedge 
on.  We cannot practise meditation without hedging on something. In 
my interpretation, Vipassana is hedging on thoughts as labels or 
objects for discernment.  Hence we could say that  meditation on the 
breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is use as an object, and 
breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we seldom notice 
it thats all.
> To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation 
but to me just because we have been practise this for many 
generations, we take it as it is.  Simply speaking, Vipassana is just 
our reflections of thoughts and such practise should not confine to 
just meditation.  it should be practise in every moments of our 
lifes.  
> The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and 
other religious practise is that we  learn to be detach from such 
reflections.  We reflect feelings as feelings, consciouness as 
consciouness, no more or no less.  My interpretation in mindfullness 
sutra is that eventually those difference in pleasant and unpleasand 
feelings is just know as feelings (this is also written in the 
sutra).  there is no differentiating thoughts.  See things as it is.  
With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go.  there is 
no longer a you or me.  
> But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on 
its own right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands 
years and benefitted countless human beings.  Once again Howard, many 
thanks for your patience and kindness in answering my questions.
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
> P.S.  Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous 
email about citta.  Thanks
>  
>  

 
8416 From: KennethOng   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 5:16pm
Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Robert,
I definitely agreed with Dhamma is profound and there are many methods.  And by no means I am not here to discourage anyone to stop any method of practise or say any method of practise is wrong.  I just here to point my reservation and I ever willing to be corrected by anyone.  Sincerely I am very glad that I got this opportunity to ask here, as pple here are objective and more willingly to accept radical ideas. If it is on another list, i would have not ask such questions. Really thanks for this opportunity and I promise not to misuse it (the scout salute, iIi )
In the Chinese thoughts (I hope i dont  sound  racial here).  there are 84, 000 methods.  The chinese Mahayana prefer simplicity.  If you understand one, you understand all (chinese literal translation).  Hence sometimes simplicty has its advantages but there is nothing wrong with complexity as some pple would prefer this method.
Robert, if Vipassana is an advance wisdom Buddha would have talk abt it again and again, just like the emptiness concept which is considered advanced wisdom in Mahayana Sutra is said again and again by Buddha in Mahayana Sutras.  I more incline to believe, it is us that put it under advance wisdom and classified it as Vipassana.    This is why I ask, why  Buddha did not say about Vipassana meditation if it is so impt again and again like non self, impermanent and mindfullness.  I more incline to believe again that it is us who infer and interpreted it.

(absolute realities - which are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality)),  On what ground are we saying these are absolute realities.  As I said before, just because it was written for many generations, it does not mean that we got to believe in it. We got to ask and be corrected and honestly speaking I am very willingly to be corrected.

As I said earlier mindfullness is a very straight forward method.  to me mindfullness is very fundamental to Buddhist practise as it is the middle way.  It is not nihilist because it knows there is an existence, hence the words, there is feeling.  it is not eternalist, because it understands there is feeling as feeling.  No more and no less.  Mindfullness method lead us to understand things as it is. That is the beautiful part, able to observe thoughts detachly.   When we practise the mindfullness to let go of self, its idea is to realise that the self is just make up of the five aggregates but it does not disacknowledge these existences of this five aggregates.  To aim is to see self as five different parts and not to reject existence.  We can never reject existence because we are infact exist, just that now our view of our existence are only being clouded.  Hence Vipassana from what you written is similiar to Mindfullness the goal is to observe things detachly, letting go of our attachement to ideas, feelings etc.. .  Seeing things as it is.  this is my understanding of mindfullness.  Furthermore, from my own experience, when we become more mindful of our thoughts, we become sharper and sharper at our thoughts, esp subtle thoughts.  
What I more inclined to think is that if we break down into smaller and smaller parts, we become obesse into breaking, attaching to minutes details. Such is also attachments.  it could lead to attachment to investigation.  We are no longer detach.  There is desire to investigate as we investigate more and more.  Furthermore, in a sense such investigation would make the mind noisy.

When the dharma list talking abt citta, I would like to ask how do citta who is itself temporal knows another citta who is also temporal.  If it is temporal, how is it going to bring our karma to our next life.  how is this cittas going to determine the other cittas next time in our next rebirth.  If cittas is temporal, how we are going to practise since cittas are inherent temporal.
Robert honestly thanks for the explaining.  I sincerely welcome you or anyone in the list to correct me and I feel good to be corrected.   Sometimes, I think I am a radical. :) Cheers.

Kind regards

Kenneth Ong  

 
  <> wrote: --- I
dear kenneth,
I think you realise the extreme profundity of the buddha's Dhamma. It 
is not easily grasped and the longer we learn the deeper it appears.
There are 84,000 teachings and 60,000 ways by which beings penetrate 
nibbana - this is in the Theravada. Hence it is unwise to take just a 
few suttas and base our understanding on this. Vipassana is not a 
technique - it is understanding itself, advanced wisdom. As you say 
this type of wisdom can be developed anytime, anywhere. The objects 
for vipassana are ANY paramattha dhammas (absolute realities - which 
are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality). 
Vipassana sees that what we have taken to be beings, people, man, 
woman, self are just concepts with no reality. The development of 
vipassana breaks down the "whole" and thus the evanescent, 
conditioned nature of namas and rupas is understood. this insight - 
by its nature- leads to ever increasing detachment from all these 
dhammas - from samsara, from dukkha, from life. 
When we first learn the Dhamma it appeals at whatever level is 
appopriate. As insight increases we see more. 
Some suttas have extremely deep meaning but all suttas are deep. even 
the Jataka stories show us the way conditions and kamma reveal 
themselves in the world of concepts. they too show anatta, and 
support vipassana insight.
The netti-ppakaranam (170) notes that "when one dhamma is mentioned, 
all dhammas of like characteristic are mentioned too...when certain 
ideas have a single common characteristic, then when one of those 
ideas is stated, the rest of those ideas is stated" for example
(174) "so when mindfulness occupied with the body is stated 
[eg. 'they whose mindfulness of body is constantly well 
instigated ..ever do what should be done -Dh 293;pe91], the 
mindfulness of feeling and that occupied with citta and that occupied 
with mindobjects is stated." end quote. This all means that when the 
Buddha promoted mindfulness of the body he is referring to all the 
foundations of mindfulness (in this example). 
The correct development of mindfulness is not easy and is not to be 
had just by directing attention to the body or feelings or thoughts 
or mindstates. It is only mindfulness - in the buddhist sense- if it 
is substituting wrong ideas (such as this is my body, my feelings, my 
thoughts, etc) with right understanding of the way things really are 
(that is just conditioned fleeting, insignificant, alien phenomemena).
Cittas change rapidly. For example, one series of cittas may be 
genuinely insighting some object (a paramattha dhamma); the next 
series may have the same object (or seem to be the same), the feeling 
may seem the same but the cittas may be rooted in attachment or 
subtle wrongview. 
if you would like to follow this up more I will reply.
best wishes
robert


 KennethOng wrote:
> 
> Howard,
> Many thousand thanks and I sincerely appreciate your patience and 
kindness in replying my difficult questions. 
> ===================================================
> Howard:
> I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
> bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, 
often a mental 
> one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various 
details 
> of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly 
examine all 
> aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, 
with an eye 
> to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, 
unworthiness, 
> impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and 
ceasing) 
> phenomena.
> =================================================
> Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is 
actually a vipassana meditation. This means Vipassana should be 
practise all through our waking moments be it when we are eating or 
sitting and not just when we are sitting down and meditate. 
> Another question, when we observe the phenomena, is there a citta 
involved during this observation. Since citta is temporal, how could 
a temporal observe another temporal. 
> Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved. 
Does this means that there is an intention to observe or this implies 
that thoughts are use as labels or objects of meditation. What 
happens if there are no thoughts, where is the concentration hedge 
on. We cannot practise meditation without hedging on something. In 
my interpretation, Vipassana is hedging on thoughts as labels or 
objects for discernment. Hence we could say that meditation on the 
breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is use as an object, and 
breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we seldom notice 
it thats all.
> To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation 
but to me just because we have been practise this for many 
generations, we take it as it is. Simply speaking, Vipassana is just 
our reflections of thoughts and such practise should not confine to 
just meditation. it should be practise in every moments of our 
lifes. 
> The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and 
other religious practise is that we learn to be detach from such 
reflections. We reflect feelings as feelings, consciouness as 
consciouness, no more or no less. My interpretation in mindfullness 
sutra is that eventually those difference in pleasant and unpleasand 
feelings is just know as feelings (this is also written in the 
sutra). there is no differentiating thoughts. See things as it is. 
With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go. there is 
no longer a you or me. 
> But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on 
its own right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands 
years and benefitted countless human beings. Once again Howard, many 
thanks for your patience and kindness in answering my questions.
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
> P.S. Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous 
email about citta. Thanks
> 
> 



 
8417 From: Sukinderpal Narula   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 7:54pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis

 
  Dear Jonothan,

> Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the
> positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)?  Thanks.

I am not confident about my understading here, I have a feeling that I do not
understand
the real meaning behind this reminder (athaan rarueng). But I will relay my
experience
of this morning and wait for you or anyone to comment.
This morning I was feeling dosa towards myself and my particular circumstance.
I was
lamenting the fact that I allow weeks to go by without ever considering the
teachings
in daily life, that I was stuck only on the theoretical level and that too, I
have very little
knowledge of. I started blaming my kids, wife, work and monetary status and
this made
things even worse. I then remembered 'athaan rarueng' and the fact that all
realities arise
because of conditions. I was reminded that even in the midst of what seems
like a long
stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. I noticed
that
thinking each time about 'athaan rarueng' there follows a degree of 'letting
go'.
I also reflected later that my dosa comes much in part from expectations I
have about
my progress. Eventhough I ended up still explaining my way out of the
situation, but I
was also  left with some  breathing space and this itself was condition for
some good cheer.
Hope I go it correct, if not let me know.

Sukin.

 
8418 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 9:06pm
Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  --Dear kenneth,
I have no doubt about your sincerity to learn- that is why I find it 
worthwhile replying to your earlier posts and this one.
if you have time I'd like to exchange several posts on this. I am a 
still a little uncertain about your doubts and so, if you don't mind, 
I would ask some questions. 
 KennethOng  wrote:
> In the Chinese thoughts (I hope i dont  sound  racial here).  there 
are 84, 000 methods.  The chinese Mahayana prefer simplicity.  If you 
understand one, you understand all (chinese literal translation).  
Hence sometimes simplicty has its advantages but there is nothing 
wrong with complexity as some pple would prefer this method.
_______
So this all agrees with Theravada.
______
> Robert, if Vipassana is an advance wisdom Buddha would have talk 
abt it again and again, just like the emptiness concept which is 
considered advanced wisdom in Mahayana Sutra is said again and again 
by Buddha in Mahayana Sutras.  I more incline to believe, it is us 
that put it under advance wisdom and classified it as Vipassana.  

  This is why I ask, why  Buddha did not say about Vipassana 
meditation if it is so impt again and again like non self, 
impermanent and mindfullness.  I more incline to believe again that 
it is us who infer and interpreted it.

_________
Robert k.:Vipassana means nothing other than insight into nonself and 
impermanent (and dukkha). This is the way it is always explained in 
the texts. If you don't like the word "vipassana" we can 
say 'understanding anatta"- would that be more suitable? It really 
makes no difference. 
> ___________________________
> (absolute realities - which are divided in to either nama or rupa 
(mentality and materiality)),  On what ground are we saying these are 
absolute realities.  As I said before, just because it was written 
for many generations, it does not mean that we got to believe in it. 
We got to ask and be corrected and honestly speaking I am very 
willingly to be corrected.
______
Robert k.:Before I answer. Could you describe what these realities 
are? You have doubts about nama and rupa but I am not sure if you 
really know what it is you are doubting.
_______
> 
> As I said earlier mindfullness is a very straight forward method.  
to me mindfullness is very fundamental to Buddhist practise as it is 
the middle way.  It is not nihilist because it knows there is an 
existence, hence the words, there is feeling.  it is not eternalist, 
because it understands there is feeling as feeling.  No more and no 
less.  Mindfullness method lead us to understand things as it is. 
That is the beautiful part, able to observe thoughts detachly.   When 
we practise the mindfullness to let go of self, its idea is to 
realise that the self is just make up of the five aggregates but it 
does not disacknowledge these existences of this five aggregates.  To 
aim is to see self as five different parts and not to reject 
existence.  We can never reject existence because we are infact 
exist, just that now our view of our existence are only being 
clouded.  Hence Vipassana from what you written is similiar to 
Mindfullness the goal is to observe things detachly, letting go of 
our attachement to ideas, feelings etc.. .  Seeing things as it is.  
this is my understanding of mindfullness. 

_______
Ok this sounds along the right lines. 
_______
 Furthermore, from my own experience, when we become more mindful of 
our thoughts, we become sharper and sharper at our thoughts, esp 
subtle thoughts.  
> What I more inclined to think is that if we break down into smaller 
and smaller parts, we become obesse into breaking, attaching to 
minutes details. Such is also attachments.  it could lead to 
attachment to investigation.  We are no longer detach.  There is 
desire to investigate as we investigate more and more.  Furthermore, 
in a sense such investigation would make the mind noisy.
_______
You are  pointing out an extreme that one can slip into. whenever 
there is attachment there is no mindfulness - it is as simple as 
that. Attachment can come in at any time. Thus we have to know , by 
experience, what sati (mindfulness) really is.
______
________
> 
> When the dharma list talking abt citta, I would like to ask how do 
citta who is itself temporal knows another citta who is also 
temporal.  If it is temporal, how is it going to bring our karma to 
our next life.  how is this cittas going to determine the other 
cittas next time in our next rebirth.  If cittas is temporal, how we 
are going to practise since cittas are inherent temporal.

--_______
We have written so much about these matters on dsg and you will find 
much in the archives. Start with these at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts

I feel you are defintely headed in the right direction kenneth. both 
you and Robert Ep. ask intelligent questions and make useful comments 
please keep it up.
best wishes
robert k.

 
8419 From: Howard 
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 7:33pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 10/3/01 11:10:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:

                                              <snip>

> Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is actually a 
> vipassana meditation.
> 
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Some people use the terms 'vipassana meditation'/'insight meditation' 
and 'mindfulness meditation' interchangeably, but I think that to use 
'mindfulness' as a name for it isn't good. Mindfulness certainly is a leading 
factor in the cultivation of insight, but not the only one.
--------------------------------------------------------
  This means  Vipassana should be practise all through our waking moments be 
it 
> when we are eating or sitting and not just when we are sitting down and 
> meditate. 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I think that what you mean here is correct. Literally, one shouldn't 
speak of vipassana being practiced, but of it being cultivated. It is a goal. 
And, yes, mindfulness, concentration, and clear comprehension should be in 
place, optimally, at all times and in all positions. As far as *this* list is 
concerned, I think that more important than pointing *this* out, which I 
think is well undrstood here, is to point out the importance of not excluding 
*formal* meditation (in the traditional walking and sitting positions) from 
one's practice, because in formal meditation, by restricting the range of 
observed phenomena, it is possible to increase the level and intensity of 
concentration and calm, as well as the other factors.
----------------------------------------------------
 

> Another question, when we  observe the phenomena, is there a citta involved 
> during this observation.  Since citta is temporal, how could a temporal 
> observe another temporal.  
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close to nil, a 
citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning a visual, 
auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied by a large 
variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its namarupic object 
co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and there 
is no discernment without its object. The relation between vi~n~nana/citta 
and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of reeds (I 
think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each other. 
If either bundle falls, so does the other. Likewise, with the advent of 
nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind is 
freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite 
illumination encountering no obstacles.
-------------------------------------------------------------

> Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved.  Does this 
> means that there is an intention to observe or this implies that thoughts 
> are use as labels or objects of meditation.  What happens if there are no 
> thoughts, where is the concentration hedge on.  We cannot practise 
> meditation without hedging on something. In my interpretation, Vipassana is 
> hedging on thoughts as labels or objects for discernment.  Hence we could 
> say that  meditation on the breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is 
> use as an object, and breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we 
> seldom notice it thats all.
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Meditation on the breath can be used as samatha bhavana, as vipassana 
bhavana, or as both.
-----------------------------------------------------------

> To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation but to 
> me just because we have been practise this for many generations, we take it 
> as it is.  Simply speaking, Vipassana is just our reflections of thoughts 
> and such practise should not confine to just meditation.
> 
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Well, this depends on what you mean by "thoughts". During vipassana 
meditation, attention is paid to all arising (and ceasing) dhammas. It 
primarily involves direct observation, not reflective contemplation, not 
engaging in "thinking about".
----------------------------------------------------------
>   it should be practise in every moments of our lifes.
>  The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and other 
religious 
> practise is that we  learn to be detach from such reflections.  We reflect 
> feelings as feelings, consciouness as consciouness, no more or no less.  My 
> interpretation in mindfullness sutra is that eventually those difference in 
> pleasant and unpleasand feelings is just know as feelings (this is also 
> written in the sutra).  there is no differentiating thoughts.  See things 
> as it is.
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Yes. We agree.
-------------------------------------------------------------
  With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go.  there is no 
longer a 
> you or me.  
> But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on its own 
> right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands years and 
> benefitted countless human beings.  Once again Howard, many thanks for your 
> patience and kindness in answering my questions.
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
> P.S.  Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous email 
> about citta.  Thanks
> 
> 
================================
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)                    
            
                                         



 
8420 From: Nina van Gorkom   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 1:08am
Subject: cheerfulness of Dhamma

 
  Dear Jon, I meant to be lurking these days, but cannot resist this one:
adding something to the cheerful aspect of Dhamma. You always stimulate
others and bring up good points.
A. Sujin said that we have to be glad and courageous as regards
satipatthana. We begin to be mindful of nama and rupa, such as hardness,
visible object, sound. At that very short moment: no worry in the world,
there is no world, only that characteristic. There is no anxiety about the
weakness of panna, the lack of sati. But of course, the moments of sati are
brief, and rare, and then there can be worry about ourselves, this or that
person, this or that situation. The courage comes in when there is a sense
of urgency to be mindful again and again, because life is too short, and now
is the time that we still have the opportunity to hear Dhamma and practise
it. I am glad you brought this up, because I shall need to be reminded by
you of what I am saying now, during our trip. The endless busrides,
especially to Kosambi, the hardship, the very large group, and my worry:
will there be enough occasions to hear A.Sujin? But we can learn to accept
that whatever happens is conditioned, always and everywhere, see Ken's
mantra. Nina.

 
8421 From: Nina van Gorkom   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 1:08am
Subject: upanissaya paccaya

 
  Dear Num, I have to put off answering you until after India. I am always
glad to hear from you, missed you when you were so busy. Nina.

 
8422 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 6:59am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma

 
  Dear Nina,

I particularly liked this post and thought I might
wait till after India to respond.  Please don't feel
pressed to reply before your trip.

I was particularly interested in the phrase, 'indriya
samvara sila, the guarding of the six doors'.  Indriya
(controlling factor?), samvara (restraint) and sila
(moral practice).  I've often heard the phrase,
'guarding the sense doors' before and have always
taken it to refer to awareness of the six sixes as
explained in the Chachakka Sutta.  Is this correct
and, if so, how does it relate to the words indriya,
samvara and sila?

Thanks in advance and have a great trip (conditions
permitting).

mike  

--- Nina van Gorkom  wrote:
> 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 thd benefit of
> >> kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Moral
> shame, hiri, and fear of
> >> blame, ottappa, perform their functions when one
> sees the disadvantage
> >> of
> >> akusala.  Again, the purpose is not the theory,
> but the practice. Now I
> >> quote:  
> >> 
> >> <The purpose of listening to the Dhamma should
> not merely be theoretical
> >> understanding  of realities, but it should be the
> practice, that is the
> >> development of paññå according to the method of
> the Suttanta, of the
> >> Abhidhamma and of the Vinaya, the Book of
> Discipline for the monks .
> >> 
> >> Question: In which way is the practice according
> to those three methods
> >> different?
> >> 
> >> Sujin: They are different methods. The Vinaya
> deals with conduct through
> >> body and speech. When we study the Vinaya we know
> that wholesome conduct
> >> through body and speech is developed by kusala
> citta. An example of this
> >> is
> >> the case of a monk who entered a house and sat
> down without having been
> >> invited by the owner of the house. When the
> Buddha heard of this he laid
> >> down a rule that only when the owner of a place
> had invited the monk he
> >> could sit down. Thus, when the monk goes to
> 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.


 
8423 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 7:45am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Hi Robert,

Sorry I'm so far behind in my replies.

--- Robert Epstein  wrote:

> Even if there *is* an 'original luminosity' of
> Awareness that exists in Nibbana
> after the defilements are gone, 

Do you mean after parinibbaana?  I don't have a
problem with luminous cittas arising after
nibbaana--just after parinibbaana.

> it is neither a
> possession or a self.

Of course.

> 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.  

Even if the quotation in question may be read as an
exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of other
possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of 'one's
pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find
elsewhere in the Pali canon?  I think this is true.  I
don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though
I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could
possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's
pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it
with me.  The idea just isn't there, by my reading. 
If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana (and
found evidence of it in your own experience), do you
think you would have found it (or even looked for it)
in the Theravada?

> The
> transparent ground of being could not be personal or
> objectified.  

As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if the
Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware of
it.

> 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...

Yes, I think I know what you're getting at.

> very
> difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.

I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
it is an error (please pardon my bluntness).  The
Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and
delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions
of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses
of Ch'an and Zen, and so on.  The idea isn't difficult
even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
we can't describe it.  Surely it would have been
child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
his understanding.

mike


 
8424 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 8:00am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Hello Again, Howard,

--- Howard wrote:

>
-----------------------------------------------------
> > > 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.
>
---------------------------------------------------------

I don't think so either.  In fact, near as I can tell,
the main difference between us on the subject of
effort is our way of speaking of it.  You don't think
it's personal any more than I do.  I don't feel I'm
disagreeing either with you or with Jon--though maybe
I'm missing something.

Best wishes, sir...

mike


 
8425 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 9:34am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Dear Jon,

--- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:

> > 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)

> 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.

I do understand and agree.  There are instances in the
Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly encourages
effort in the conventional sense we've talked about
recently, e.g.  

"There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts --
connected with desire, aversion, or delusion -- arise
in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a
particular theme. He should attend to another theme,
apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.
When he is attending to this other theme, apart from
that one, connected with what is skillful, then those
evil, unskillful thoughts -- connected with desire,
aversion, or delusion -- are abandoned and subside.
With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right
within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

I think the 'He should' establishes this as
'prescriptive' rather than 'descriptive' (assuming Ven
T.'s translation is sound).  What's significant about
this to me is this: In all the instances that come to
mind of the Buddha expressly encouraging conventional
effort, he's either encouraging conventional morality,
jhaana cultivation (as in this example) or heedfulness
(as in his final words).  This seems to me to suggest
that the Buddha did find a place for conventional
effort in most aspects of the teaching.  If this is
true then some of the differences between some of us
on the list may have more to do with altitude than
with attitude.  If 'one' can strive for mere morality,
jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' to
strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of
ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' discarded
as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the
abhidhamma floors?

Please excuse a terribly strained metaphor and a weird
flight of fancy.

mike  

> 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.

I have to agree. As long as mind is 'darting among
unrealities', what can be accomplished?  On the other
hand, when mind is said to 'turn away' from 

> > 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 …..


 
8426 From: KennethOng   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 11:50am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Dear Robert and Mike,
  "m. nease"  wrote: 
Hi Robert,

Sorry I'm so far behind in my replies.

--- Robert Epstein wrote:

> Even if there *is* an 'original luminosity' of
> Awareness that exists in Nibbana
> after the defilements are gone, 

Do you mean after parinibbaana? I don't have a
problem with luminous cittas arising after
nibbaana--just after parinibbaana.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Robert, 

Defilements are never gone, it is still there.  Buddha nature is the same essence as defilements as described in Mahayana doctrines.  If defilements are gone, it will be an extreme left view. 


> it is neither a
> possession or a self.

Of course.


++++++++++

Definitely how do we possess something that is inherent the same as us.  It is already inside us, we do not need to possess it.  

++++++++++
> 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. 

Even if the quotation in question may be read as an
exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of other
possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of 'one's
pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find
elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I
don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though
I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could
possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's
pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it
with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. 
If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana (and
found evidence of it in your own experience), do you
think you would have found it (or even looked for it)
in the Theravada?


+++++++++++++++++++

Luminious mind is the Buddha Nature, is the same essence of all dharmas.  it would only be show by the manifestation of kusala or askusala cittas or in fact any cittas.  Just like wind is manifestated by its "blowing" but we cannot see wind.  Furthermore this essence is not defile by such manfestation of cittas.  it is the same as the sun rays that shine on every things but it is not affected by whether comes into its way, for eg dust particles in the sun rays.  The particles showed the rays but the ray is not defile by the dust particles.

Luminious mind is all emcompassing and all embracing as it is the same essence in all dharmas. All our cittas (be it good or bad) since countless lives are all emcompass inside, in fact all future countless lives cittas are also  emcompassed inside it.  Luminious mind  is only realized not by removal of delifements or practising good virtues (technical speaking as such removal is extreme left view).  It is by settling down all our kusala or akusala or all kinds of cittas, then it could be seen.  It is the calm after the storm.  

> The
> transparent ground of being could not be personal or
> objectified. 

As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if the
Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware of
it.

> 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...

Yes, I think I know what you're getting at.

> very
> difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.

I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The
Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and
delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions
of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses
of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't difficult
even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
we can't describe it. Surely it would have been
child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
his understanding.

+++++++++++++++++

Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for Buddha to describe luminious mind as words could not adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only be experience and not describe.  Just like watching the sunset, it is difficult to describe the sunset in words.  


Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe it adequately.  

 

Kind regards

Kenneth Ong


 
8427 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 0:02pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Hi Kenneth,

--- KennethOng  wrote:

> Dear Robert, 
> 
> Defilements are never gone, it is still there. 
> Buddha nature is the same essence as defilements as
> described in Mahayana doctrines.  If defilements are
> gone, it will be an extreme left view. 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you're responding to
my comments?
 
> > it is neither a
> > possession or a self.
> 
> Of course.

 ++++++++++
> 
> Definitely how do we possess something that is
> inherent the same as us.  It is already inside us,
> we do not need to possess it.  
> 
> ++++++++++

What is the 'us' that it's inside?  In which khandha
is this 'us'?

> > 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. 
> 
> Even if the quotation in question may be read as an
> exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of
> other
> possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of
> 'one's
> pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find
> elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I
> don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though
> I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could
> possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's
> pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it
> with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. 
> If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana
> (and
> found evidence of it in your own experience), do you
> think you would have found it (or even looked for
> it)
> in the Theravada?
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Luminious mind is the Buddha Nature, is the same
> essence of all dharmas.  it would only be show by
> the manifestation of kusala or askusala cittas or in
> fact any cittas.  Just like wind is manifestated by
> its "blowing" but we cannot see wind.  Furthermore
> this essence is not defile by such manfestation of
> cittas.  it is the same as the sun rays that shine
> on every things but it is not affected by whether
> comes into its way, for eg dust particles in the sun
> rays.  The particles showed the rays but the ray is
> not defile by the dust particles.
> 
> Luminious mind is all emcompassing and all embracing
> as it is the same essence in all dharmas. All our
> cittas (be it good or bad) since countless lives are
> all emcompass inside, in fact all future countless
> lives cittas are also  emcompassed inside it. 
> Luminious mind  is only realized not by removal of
> delifements or practising good virtues (technical
> speaking as such removal is extreme left view).  It
> is by settling down all our kusala or akusala or all
> kinds of cittas, then it could be seen.  It is the
> calm after the storm.  

Kenneth, I do understand what you're talking about.  I
was quite devoted to this view for decades.  I'm not
questioning the nature of 'original mind'.  What I'm
questioning is whether or not the 'original mind'
concept existed in the Theravada, before the Mahayana.

> > The
> > transparent ground of being could not be personal
> or
> > objectified. 
> 
> As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if
> the
> Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware
> of
> it.
> 
> > 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...
> 
> Yes, I think I know what you're getting at.
> 
> > very
> > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.
> 
> I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
> the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
> it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The
> Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic
> and
> delicate non-descriptions, evocations,
> circumlocutions
> of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
> brilliant philosophers of North India and the
> geniuses
> of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't
> difficult
> even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
> we can't describe it. Surely it would have been
> child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
> his understanding.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++
> 
> Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for
> Buddha to describe luminious mind as words could not
> adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only
> be experience and not describe.  Just like watching
> the sunset, it is difficult to describe the sunset
> in words.  
> 
> Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe
> it adequately.  

Well, maybe not, Kenneth.  But you just used a fairly
commonplace simile--could not the Buddha have done
likewise?  So far as I know he did not, in the Pali
canon.
 
Best wishes, Sir,

mike


 
8428 From: KennethOng   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 1:45pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Hi Mike
Regarding whether luminious mind is found in Pali, is a very good and beneficial question and I think I could understand your intention.  I could not comment at present because I am not good in Thervada.  It starts to interest me when pple talk abt Vipassana and Abidharma.  Actually my initial interest to learn Vipassana and Abidharma is embarassing because it started when somebody keep insisting that other type of methods are wrong only Vipassana is correct.  Hehe, that makes me angry (gosh akusala citta).  One of the area that I would like to study is the similarity between Abidharma and Mahayana doctrines esp the Surangama Sutra.  
But now I am limited by the availability of resources in the country I am staying now.  Maybe when I back to Singapore, presently I have only one book of Abidharama without commentaries but I would buy more books on Abidharama and the Path to liberation (Visuddhimagga).  Do you or anyone here have any good recommendation of books or websites that I could access.
Mike, sorry, 'us' is used as a technical speech. All the khandas are the same in essence same as luminious mind.  There is why in Mahayana doctrine there is always these words,  Buddha is found in defilements, and they are of the same essence.
Words do have limitation to express luminious mind.  Take another example, when we tell a computer sugar taste sweet. The computer does not know the actual experience of "sweet" but it will know the description of sweets. Similar to luminious mind, it can only be experience and not decribed fully.
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
 
  
  "m. nease"  wrote: Hi Kenneth,

--- KennethOng wrote:

> Dear Robert, 
> 
> Defilements are never gone, it is still there. 
> Buddha nature is the same essence as defilements as
> described in Mahayana doctrines. If defilements are
> gone, it will be an extreme left view. 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you're responding to
my comments?

> > it is neither a
> > possession or a self.
> 
> Of course.

++++++++++
> 
> Definitely how do we possess something that is
> inherent the same as us. It is already inside us,
> we do not need to possess it. 
> 
> ++++++++++

What is the 'us' that it's inside? In which khandha
is this 'us'?

> > 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. 
> 
> Even if the quotation in question may be read as an
> exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of
> other
> possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of
> 'one's
> pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find
> elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I
> don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though
> I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could
> possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's
> pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it
> with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. 
> If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana
> (and
> found evidence of it in your own experience), do you
> think you would have found it (or even looked for
> it)
> in the Theravada?
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Luminious mind is the Buddha Nature, is the same
> essence of all dharmas. it would only be show by
> the manifestation of kusala or askusala cittas or in
> fact any cittas. Just like wind is manifestated by
> its "blowing" but we cannot see wind. Furthermore
> this essence is not defile by such manfestation of
> cittas. it is the same as the sun rays that shine
> on every things but it is not affected by whether
> comes into its way, for eg dust particles in the sun
> rays. The particles showed the rays but the ray is
> not defile by the dust particles.
> 
> Luminious mind is all emcompassing and all embracing
> as it is the same essence in all dharmas. All our
> cittas (be it good or bad) since countless lives are
> all emcompass inside, in fact all future countless
> lives cittas are also emcompassed inside it. 
> Luminious mind is only realized not by removal of
> delifements or practising good virtues (technical
> speaking as such removal is extreme left view). It
> is by settling down all our kusala or akusala or all
> kinds of cittas, then it could be seen. It is the
> calm after the storm. 

Kenneth, I do understand what you're talking about. I
was quite devoted to this view for decades. I'm not
questioning the nature of 'original mind'. What I'm
questioning is whether or not the 'original mind'
concept existed in the Theravada, before the Mahayana.

> > The
> > transparent ground of being could not be personal
> or
> > objectified. 
> 
> As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if
> the
> Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware
> of
> it.
> 
> > 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...
> 
> Yes, I think I know what you're getting at.
> 
> > very
> > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.
> 
> I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
> the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
> it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The
> Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic
> and
> delicate non-descriptions, evocations,
> circumlocutions
> of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
> brilliant philosophers of North India and the
> geniuses
> of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't
> difficult
> even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
> we can't describe it. Surely it would have been
> child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
> his understanding.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++
> 
> Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for
> Buddha to describe luminious mind as words could not
> adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only
> be experience and not describe. Just like watching
> the sunset, it is difficult to describe the sunset
> in words. 
> 
> Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe
> it adequately. 

Well, maybe not, Kenneth. But you just used a fairly
commonplace simile--could not the Buddha have done
likewise? So far as I know he did not, in the Pali
canon.

Best wishes, Sir,

mike




 
8429 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:42pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  --- "m. nease"  wrote:
 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote:

> > very
> > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.
> 
> I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
> the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
> it is an error (please pardon my bluntness).  The
> Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and
> delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions
> of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
> brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses
> of Ch'an and Zen, and so on.  The idea isn't difficult
> even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
> we can't describe it.  Surely it would have been
> child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
> his understanding.

Well, Mike, I'm slightly speechless.  You may be right that Buddha didn't speak
explicitly about a primordial mind or luminous awareness because there is no such
thing.  I tend to suspect that it is part of the great care he took not to
establish any concept of a self or soul.  

When he does from time to time say something like the sutra we've been discussing:
 'This mind is luminous and it is defiled by defilements from without'  I accept
the possibility, as Sarah has very helpfully described, that this is referring to
arising cittas rather than a stable continuous awareness of any kind.  But I don't
think you can say that this is 'settled' and that there is a definitive
interpretation that eliminates the possibility that the Buddha meant what those
words sound like they are saying.  It is, in other words, in my opinion, subject
to interpretation.  

Are there other passages where the Buddha makes this kind of statement?  I don't
know the Pali canon well enough to have examples of this at my disposal.  I do
know that the 'luminous mind' is the subject of some controversy.

Here is one example of a review of a book on Buddhism:

<<...Now this is one point concerning which I am not
entirely happy with the author's presentation. He refers to this process as the
elimination of the stains that "corrupt the mind's natural luminosity" (102).
Not that this is factually incorrect, but the meaning of "luminous mind" has so
often been misunderstood and misused that I think it is best avoided except
in strictly technical discussions of psychological processes as explained by the
Buddha. The problem, briefly, is that the Buddha's original matter?of?fact
reference to pabhassara citta (bright, or shining mind) was made in a simply
practical context,1 when he was explaining the continual arising and passing
away of mind factors and the need to clean the mind of impurities in order to make
progress in meditation. This, however, was blown up by later Buddhist
thinkers (more concerned, one fears, with speculation than with meditation) into a
sort of transcendent entity. So that using the term "luminous mind" can
easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in our Western culture, still
haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into equating it with an immortal soul,
thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory conception of "self." >>

Just to be nice, I've given a quote that falls on your side of the argument, but
it shows that there are differences of interpretation of this passage.

Now, outside of the Abhidhamma, Buddha does often speak of mind as if it is
'real'.  He doesn't speak of it as if it is merely a series of rapidly arising and
dissolving thoughts.

From the Dhammapada:


       Chapter Three - The Mind  

Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft,
even so the discerning man straightens his mind
 so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard. 

 As a fish when pulled out of water and cast
   on land throbs and quivers, even so is
     this mind agitated. Hence should
      one abandon the realm of Mara. 

     Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue
      the mind, so difficult to subdue,
 ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires.
     A tamed mind brings happiness. 

  Let the discerning man guard the mind,
  so difficult to detect and extremely subtle,
        seizing whatever it desires.
    A guarded mind brings happiness. 

Buddha talks about the subtlety of the mind and the difficulty in detecting it. 
He doesn't speak of individual thoughts or mind-moments.

now I have no doubt that he does speak this way in other suttas, as he does speak
in a more specific way in many Mahayana texts, such as the Lankavatara Sutra.

But if he speaks more specifically in one part of the Pali Canon, and less
specifically in another part, does that make the more specific part invalid
because it seems to be contradicted by a more general description somewhere else? 
Of course not.

Neither should we dismiss the Mahayana assertions as invalid merely on the b