8600 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:31pm Subject: 31 planes --- Gaga wrote: > S > > I still would like to hear from others what you make of the significance of > slicing up states of existence into 31 pieces all about, and then qualifying > them in terms of dualistic shadings. > > All the best, > > Gaga __________ Dear Gaga, Sometimes the buddha used conventional speech (vohara-sacca) and at other times he used speech that refers to actual realities (paramattha sacca). In conventional speech we are now alive and living on the human plane. We see other beings living on another plane - the animal plane. The other planes mentioned in the texts we do not usually see, hence some people believe that only the human and animal plane exist. However in the truest sense there are no humans, no animals no us even. But there are paramattha dhammas - evanescent, conditioned phenomena - arising and passing away. At this time, in this plane those streams of conditioned phenomena known conventionally as Gaga or robert include many pleasant moments (intermittently). In some planes pleasant moments are much more frequent and in others much less frequent. In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation) "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. There whatever form one sees with the eye is underdesirable, never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile object..whatever menatl phenomenon one cognises with the mind is undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote Now, in this plane, there are in reality no humans, computers, trees: these are only the shadows of the ultimate dhammas appearing. What appears to eyesense is different colours. Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma (good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object will be unpleasant to some degree. The same for the denizens of hell except that the eye conscious moments are the result of past akusala kamma and hence there is usually no opportunity for pleasant results. robert 8601 From: Ken Howard Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 9:34pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Hello Kenneth I wrote: My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered and taught the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the absolutely real way, not the conventionally real way. When he describes conventional wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta dhammas. Even if he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we shouldn't think for a moment that the conventional meaning of those conventional terms, forms a part of the Dhamma. Is that the way you see it? ____________ You wrote, "I think we should think of the difference in terms of beneficial and non-beneficial. I feel that to classify under conventional and absolute is like "enshrining" Buddha's teachings. To my understanding this "absolute" (mindfulness) has to be practise in "conventional" (daily) life activities, hence such classification might lead to confusions. For your comments please" ________________ Knowing the difference between conceptual reality and absolute reality is the starting point in Dhamma study. I think you are saying that we shouldn't let such classifications stand in the way of right understanding and right mindfulness. That is, by ignoring interpretations that amount to conventional wisdom, I might be `enshrining' the Dhamma in the sense of putting it out of my reach. Thank you for asking for my comments on this. I think we shouldn't worry about missing out on the benefits of any conventional wisdom that can be seen in the Pali Canon. There are friends, parents, school teachers, scientists etc., who can help with conventional wisdom when we need it. By studying the Dhamma, we hope to learn what these people can't teach us. Although I sound dogmatic on this, I appreciate that I may be mistaken and I will try to heed the warning you are giving. If I may borrow a wise remark you made a little while ago, `I am always happy to be proved wrong.' Kind regards Ken Howard 8602 From: Ken Howard Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 9:43pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Mike It was with encouragement from you, Sarah and others, that I began to post a little more regularly than before -- overcoming my inclination to wait until I knew what I was talking about. I hope you haven't created a monster! I wrote: . . . . However, it seems safe to say that you are suggesting the Buddha did sometimes teach conceptual truths (e.g., "its good to clean your teeth"). ___________ You wrote: Yes, that's what I was suggesting. ____________ I wrote: Wouldn't the teaching of conceptual truth amount to the teaching of absolute untruth? -- given that there are no teeth and no cleaning of teeth, that there is only the present, conditioned citta arising and immediately falling away? ____________ You wrote: Well, I don't THINK that anything but satipatthaana is 'absolutely untrue'. 'All compounded phenomena are subject to decay', e.g., is a conceptual statement. I wouldn't say, though, that it's absolutely untrue. _____________ Good point. It's a conceptual statement of an absolute reality though, isn't it? I seem to remember reading about the various types of concept in AIDL, I'll look them up. The idea of conceptual truth equalling absolute untruth was my own creation and probably a little excessive. The thinking behind it is that the Dhamma is literally like no other teaching. I like to think that, if I am hearing the Dhamma in such a way that it sounds the same as other teachings, then I am hearing it in a wrong way. If I think the Buddha is telling me to do something in the conventional sense (of doing), I should think again -- remembering there is no ME that can do anything. ____________ After some points of general agreement, you wrote: Certainly some of his audiences were capable of understanding fairly advanced concepts (or even of being encouraged to direct insight), while others were not. To the latter, my reading of the Dhammavinaya suggests that he spoke of concepts comprehensible to them, leading in the right direction obviously ________________ Its quite possible that I am trying to express a point that you have been taking as a given all along. Right understanding comes first. Only a being who can understand that there is no `being,' can see the Middle Way. We worldlings can't see it because we have the ridiculous belief that there is a self who can see not-self. Only by accepting that we don't understand, can we move ever so slightly closer to the Middle Way. When the Buddha employs a concept, we are to see it for what it is. If the concept is, for a silly example, "jump," then we are to see that there is no us who can jump, there is no action, jumping. Until then, we would be ill advised to jump. ________________ You wrote: Would you like some examples of expressions by the Buddha that I take to be 'prescribed courses of action'? By the way, I wouldn't exactly call them 'prescribed'--he more often simply explains that one course of action will lead to bad results and that others will lead to good results ______________ Yes please, but are we talking about the same thing? `Prescribed' would refer to a course of action the Buddha directs us Dhamma students to take. So if a worldling were to take "be mindful" as a prescription, it might lead to some kind of formal practice verging on rite and ritual. `Described' would mean what you have referred to -- something, e.g., a course of action, that is explained. In that way, "be mindful" remains an instruction but something that has to be, above all else, understood. Thanks for helping me with this Kind regards Ken Howard p.s. My apologies to you and to Kenneth for the delay in responding. I have been on a Dhamma discussion weekend with friends whom I hadn't seen for a couple of years. I gave a talk on the Abhidhamma, a topic even newer to them than to me. The talk went quite well, but as you can imagine, the questions that followed had me floundering 8603 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 7:10 am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Hi Ken Howard I always puzzling by this, why is there a need to make a difference in absolute reality and conceptual reality. I thought the gist in seeing the nature of reality is in our every moment of our life. If it is absolute how does conventional pple like us learn this absolute. What makes us think that this is absolute and that is not absolute. Do we mean that daily life events is not absolute, not worth our time in being absolute. Or do we mean that every day when pple talk to us and teach us the conventional wisdom is not absolute dhamma. When there is right understanding, every conventional dhamma is absolute. Do we need to classify right understanding as absolute. If it is absolute, we would never able to learn right understanding. Dhamma can be learn but it is not absolute, when it is practise and thus understand then it becomes absolute :) Cheers :) My kindest regards Kenneth Ong > > Knowing the difference between conceptual reality and absolute > reality is the starting point in Dhamma study. I think you are > saying that we shouldn't let such classifications stand in the way of > right understanding and right mindfulness. That is, by ignoring > interpretations that amount to conventional wisdom, I might be > `enshrining' the Dhamma in the sense of putting it out of my reach. > Thank you for asking for my comments on this. I think we > shouldn't worry about missing out on the benefits of any > conventional wisdom that can be seen in the Pali Canon. There are > friends, parents, school teachers, scientists etc., who can help with > conventional wisdom when we need it. By studying the Dhamma, > we hope to learn what these people can't teach us. > Although I sound dogmatic on this, I appreciate that I may be > mistaken and I will try to heed the warning you are giving. If I may > borrow a wise remark you made a little while ago, `I am always > happy to be proved wrong.' > > Kind regards > Ken Howard 8604 From: robertkirkpatrick@r... Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 7:30 am Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. -- Dear Ken H., Your way of presenting Dhamma reminds me of one of my dearest friends -Ivan- a longtime student of Sujin's who lives in Bangkok. Understanding the difference between concept and reality is where it starts and, I guess, ends. Do you have a copy of Realities and Concepts? Write off-list if you want one. Man, we have got to get together with Ivan and Sukin and a few others, and hit the town (that is: somewhere comfortable where we can relax with friendly discussions). Are you going to visit thailand in the near future? robert p.s sarah, I forget to mention I'm back in Nippon, and well in the working grove again. Might be having a long stay in Thailand from mid 2002 courtesy of the Japanese government. - In dhammastudygroup@y..., khow14@h... wrote: > Hello Kenneth > > I wrote: > My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered and taught > the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the absolutely real way, > not the conventionally real way. When he describes conventional > wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta dhammas. Even if > he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we shouldn't think for > a moment that the conventional meaning of those conventional > terms, forms a part of the Dhamma. Is that the way you see it? > ____________ > > You wrote, > "I think we should think of the difference in terms of beneficial and > non-beneficial. I feel that to classify under conventional and > absolute is like "enshrining" Buddha's teachings. To my > understanding this "absolute" (mindfulness) has to be practise in > "conventional" (daily) life activities, hence such classification > might lead to confusions. > For your comments please" > ________________ > > Knowing the difference between conceptual reality and absolute > reality is the starting point in Dhamma study. I think you are > saying that we shouldn't let such classifications stand in the way of > right understanding and right mindfulness. That is, by ignoring > interpretations that amount to conventional wisdom, I might be > `enshrining' the Dhamma in the sense of putting it out of my reach. > > Thank you for asking for my comments on this. I think we > shouldn't worry about missing out on the benefits of any > conventional wisdom that can be seen in the Pali Canon. There are > friends, parents, school teachers, scientists etc., who can help with > conventional wisdom when we need it. By studying the Dhamma, > we hope to learn what these people can't teach us. > Although I sound dogmatic on this, I appreciate that I may be > mistaken and I will try to heed the warning you are giving. If I may > borrow a wise remark you made a little while ago, `I am always > happy to be proved wrong.' > > Kind regards > Ken Howard 8605 From: m. nease Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 11:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] cheerfulness with Dhamma. Hi Sukin, --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > The conceptual mind is happy with > explanations, otherwise > it will keep on doubting till it finds what it is > looking for. In its search > it misses what is essential, namely what is > appearing through the > six sense doors at this moment. > Sorry for the rambling, this is just my experience, > the recurring traps > I am constantly falling into. Pretty good rambling if you ask me, sir... mike 8606 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 5:53am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E) Hi Ken O & all, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > Thanks for your kind patience in explaining dukkha, could you point to a > link or would you like to write more on Sankhara-dukkhata. You may find it useful to read the following translation from one of K.Sujin’s talks in Cambodia which Rob K posted before. (Sorry, the full translation is only in draft and not on the web as yet. Also,some of the Pali words are coming out a little strangely here and also the line breaks....) The following is all quoted, so I’ll sign off for now, Sarah There are three kinds of dukkha: dukkha-dukkha (intrinsic suffering), vipari?Œma dukkha (suffering in change) and sa˜khŒra-dukkha (suffering inherent in conditioned realities). As regards dukkha-dukkha, this is bodily pain and mental affliction that everybody experiences. This does not mean that people who know these kinds of dukkha are already ariyans. Everybody knows these kinds of dukkha in daily life. There is another kind of dukkha which is vipari?Œma dukkha, dukkha because of change. This kind of dukkha occurs when happiness changes, when it does not last. Everybody looks for happiness and wants to experience happiness, but when one has acquired it, it changes again, it does not last. What causes happiness is susceptible to change and then one looks again for something else that can bring happiness. For example, people wish to acquire a particular thing, but when they have acquired it, it can only bring happiness for a moment, and therefore, they wish to acquire something else again that can bring happiness. Thus, happiness which changes and does not last is a kind of dukkha, suffering. Everybody has to experience dukkha, each day, but one does not feel that there is dukkha because of the fact that everything arises and then falls away, that everything changes very rapidly. One does not realize the dukkha inherent in all conditioned dhammas, sa˜khŒra dhammas, which are impermanent. The Buddha explained the characteristics of the three kinds of dukkha by way of feelings. As to dukkha-dukkha, this is bodily pain and unpleasant mental feeling, domanassa vedanŒ, which is mental pain. Thus, when dukkha-dukkha is classified by way of feelings, it includes the painful feeling which accompanies body-consciousness and the unpleasant mental feeling which accompanies the citta with aversion. Happy feeling, sukha vedanŒ, is a cause for suffering when it changes, and one looks for another object that can bring happiness; thus, it is suffering in change, vipari?Œma dukkha. Indifferent feeling, feeling that is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, and also all other dhammas which arise and fall away, which are impermanent, are sa˜khŒra dukkha. People may well know bodily suffering and mental suffering, and they may well realize that even pleasant feeling is suffering, since it is susceptable to change, but this does not mean that they are ariyans. They cannot become enlightened until they realize the kind of dukkha which is sa˜khŒra-dukkha, dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities. Is there anybody among you while you are sitting here who really knows to what extent there is dukkha? Everything arises and the falls away extremely rapidly. People who have studied the Dhamma know that a moment of seeing is different from a moment of hearing and that therefore seeing has to fall away before the reality of hearing can arise. Everybody can know through the study of Dhamma that the arising and falling away is dukkha, but this is understanding of the level of theoretical knowledge, pariyatti. This is different from the direct realization of the truth that the dhammas which arise and then fall away are dukkha. We read in the Tipi“aka that people of other beliefs asked the monks for what reason they were ordained in accordance with the Dhamma and the Vinaya. The monks answered that the reason was practising with the purpose of realizing dukkha. Thus we see that the understanding of dukkha has several degrees. There is not merely the degree of knowledge stemming from listening. People who have not developed panna, right understanding, may understand in theory, because they listened to the Dhamma, that the citta which sees falls away. However, they do not realize that the impermanence of realities is dukkha. As soon as one kind of citta falls away it is succeeded by another kind of citta which arises. One kind of dhamma arises and falls away and then another dhamma arises succeeding it, but they are not ready to see dukkha, that is, the arising and falling away of dhammas. The arising and falling away of dhammas occurs extremely rapidly and therefore people believe that these dhammas are a self who is there all the time. Therefore, they are not affected by the arising and falling away of the dhammas that see or hear. They take dhammas for permanent and self, until they know the true nature of the dhammas and do not take them for self any more. The understanding which is the study of dhammas should be developed gradually, stage by stage. One cannot forego any stage of development, and therefore, it is not possible to realize immediately the arising and falling away of realities. It is necessary to know first the characteristic of nŒma which is non-self, and the characteristic of rœpa which is non-self. We have discussed this subject here only for a little while and therefore you may not be able to realize already the characteristic of nama dhamma and of rœpa dhamma. We should continue to discuss this subject for a long time. Buddhism does not teach only about dukkha, it also teaches about the cause of the arising of dukkha, the dhamma which is the cessation of dukkha and the way of the development of panna that leads to the complete cessation of dukkha, so that it does not arise again. 8607 From: m. nease Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 7:31am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Ken, Very briefly: May I flounder half as well(!). If we've created a monster in you as a correspondent, I wlecome my piece of the blame. This post is a dandy and I do look forward to responding in detail. mike --- Ken Howard wrote: > Mike > > It was with encouragement from you, Sarah and > others, that I began > to post a little more regularly than before -- > overcoming my > inclination to wait until I knew what I was talking > about. I hope > you haven't created a monster! > > I wrote: > . . . . However, it seems safe to say that you are > suggesting the > Buddha did sometimes teach conceptual truths (e.g., > "its good to > clean your teeth"). > ___________ > > You wrote: > Yes, that's what I was suggesting. > ____________ > > I wrote: > Wouldn't the teaching of conceptual truth amount to > the teaching of > absolute untruth? -- given that there are no teeth > and no cleaning of > teeth, that there is only the present, conditioned > citta arising and > immediately falling away? > ____________ > > You wrote: > Well, I don't THINK that anything but satipatthaana > is 'absolutely > untrue'. 'All compounded phenomena are subject to > decay', e.g., is a > conceptual statement. I wouldn't say, though, that > it's absolutely > untrue. > _____________ > > Good point. It's a conceptual statement of an > absolute reality > though, isn't it? I seem to remember reading about > the various > types of concept in AIDL, I'll look them up. > The idea of conceptual truth equalling absolute > untruth was my > own creation and probably a little excessive. The > thinking behind it > is that the Dhamma is literally like no other > teaching. I like to > think > that, if I am hearing the Dhamma in such a way that > it sounds the > same as other teachings, then I am hearing it in a > wrong way. If I > think the Buddha is telling me to do something in > the conventional > sense (of doing), I should think again -- > remembering there is no > ME that can do anything. > ____________ > > After some points of general agreement, you wrote: > Certainly some of his audiences were capable > of understanding fairly advanced concepts (or even > of > being encouraged to direct insight), while others > were > not. To the latter, my reading of the Dhammavinaya > suggests that he spoke of concepts comprehensible to > them, leading in the right direction obviously > ________________ > > Its quite possible that I am trying to express a > point that you have > been taking as a given all along. > > Right understanding comes first. Only a being who > can understand > that there is no `being,' can see the Middle Way. > We worldlings > can't see it because we have the ridiculous belief > that there is a > self who can see not-self. Only by accepting that we > don't understand, > can we move ever so slightly closer to the Middle > Way. When the > Buddha employs a concept, we are to see it for what > it is. If the > concept is, for a silly example, "jump," then we are > to see that there > is no us who can jump, there is no action, jumping. > Until then, we > would be ill advised to jump. > ________________ > > You wrote: > Would you like some examples of expressions by the > Buddha that I > take to be 'prescribed courses of action'? By the > way, I wouldn't > exactly call them 'prescribed'--he more often simply > explains that > one course of action will lead to bad results and > that others will > lead to good results > ______________ > > Yes please, but are we talking about the same thing? > `Prescribed' > would refer to a course of action the Buddha directs > us Dhamma > students to take. So if a worldling were to take > "be mindful" as a > prescription, it might lead to some kind of formal > practice verging > on rite and ritual. `Described' would mean what you > have referred > to -- something, e.g., a course of action, that is > explained. In that > way, "be mindful" remains an instruction but > something that has to > be, above all else, understood. > > Thanks for helping me with this > > Kind regards > > Ken Howard > > p.s. My apologies to you and to Kenneth for the > delay in > responding. I have been on a Dhamma discussion > weekend with > friends whom I hadn't seen for a couple of years. I > gave a talk on > the Abhidhamma, a topic even newer to them than to > me. The talk > went quite well, but as you can imagine, the > questions that followed > had me floundering 8608 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence Hi, Gaga - In a message dated Sun, 14 Oct 2001 9:36:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Gaga writes: > Much thanks for your analogy to flipping channels for tackling this notion of > 31 planes Howard. In essence then there is no moral or ethical ramification (a > good or bad!) then to be at any plane-- some might be "hot", others "sensual", > and so on and so forth... --------------------------- Howard: Well, I wouldn't say *that*. What realm of experience one goes to is kammically determined. --------------------------- > > A naive question as a follow up: is there a cosmology from whence Gotama > derived these planes, or did he envision these through insight alone? In other > words, on what basis are these 31 planes identified and characterized? ---------------------- Howard: I'm no expert on this topic. As far as i know, these "planes" were already recognized prior to the Buddha, and, in addition, the Buddha was able to directly experience them. ---------------------- > > May you be well, > > Gaga ====================== With metta, Howard > > > > > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Gaga (and Christine) - > > > > In a message dated 10/14/01 1:20:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, David P > > writes: > > > > > > > Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query. > > > > > > Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa. Then what exists in the > > > 31 > > > planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane? > > > > > ====================== > > How's this for a possibility?: There *is* no "it" which moves > > anywhere; there is just some channel flipping (to use a modern metaphor) - > > each plane being a different channel, a different mode of experience. > > > > 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) > > 8609 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 5:52am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Howard, > I think there might be a sutta where the Buddha explains that he > teaches Dukkha and the cause of dukkha and the way to the cessation > of dukkha. The cessation of dukkha is parinibbana. Dukkha is all > conditioned dhammas - i.e the five aggregates, the ayatanas, the > dhatus. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: It has been my understanding that there is a distinction between the five khandhas and the five-khandhas-afflicted-by-clinging. The Buddha was beyond dukkha when still alive, was he not? (Not beyond physical pain, but beyond mental pain.) ------------------------------------------------ > e can say the buddha teaches the anihilation of dukkha. But he > doesnt have the slightest thread of anililationsim as a doctrine of > self that is being anilihilated. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Oh, sure. No self; so no self to be annihilated. ---------------------------------------------- You wrote earlier that you thought > he cessation of the khandas sounded like a suicide wish. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Not the cessation; the wish for that cessation. ---------------------------------------------- This idea > comes from a belief that there is something to be anihilated. Dhammas > are really nothing - just fleeting conditioned phenomenena without a > trace of self. Nothing lasting, nothing worth clinging to. Because of > deep delusion though WE cling. Such a long path to comprehend this > properly. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The flow of dhammas is an event, a process. When that flow stops, it is no more, it has ceased, it has been annihilated. For one who is free of craving and aversion, free of clinging, and free of ignorance, what difference would it make whether the flow continues or not (except as a matter of compassion for worldlings and their suffering)? For one who is not free of the three poisons, he/she might cling to a continuation or, oppositely, crave for cessation. ----------------------------------------------------- > robert > ========================== 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) 8610 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:06am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/15/01 2:28:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > Very good, but my question is: is the object only existent by virtue of being > discernible, or is it only observable because it is existent? > ======================= As I see it, these are one and the same. To "exist" is to be observable, and to be observable is to "exist". All objects are objects of consciousness, actual or potential. Nothing exists outside of possible experience. To speak of some "thing" existing beyond experience is, to my mind, to speak incoherently, because such an alleged "thing" is in principle unknowable, not only as to its nature but as to its very existence. The way I interpret the statement to the effect "In the seen, let there be just the seen" in the Sutta to Bahiya is along the lines I have expressed here. 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) 8611 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:11am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Hi Robert K and Howard, > > I think the problem is the word "cessation" (anymore knows what is the > Pali word used). When kandhas cease, it does not mean that they are > annihilated or totally obligated. I think this is the perspective we > should look at. They could be just there and maybe they would not rise > anymore. Hence there is no total annihilation when one enter PariNibbana. > > > > > Kindest regards > Kenneth Ong > > =========================== I don't quite get that, Kenneth. When you write "When kandhas cease, it does not mean that they are annihilated or totally obligated. I think this is the perspective we should look at. They could be just there and maybe they would not rise anymore.", I have to disagree. No conditioned dhamma remains. All conditioned dhammas cease. Whatever is of the nature to arise is of the nature to cease, or so the Buddha says! The question is whether an individual *flow* of dhammas continues or not. 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) 8612 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/15/01 3:01:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Gaga (and Christine) - > > > > In a message dated 10/14/01 1:20:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > David P > > writes: > > > > > > > Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query. > > > > > > Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa. Then what exists in > the > > > 31 > > > planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane? > > > > > ====================== > > How's this for a possibility?: There *is* no "it" which moves > > anywhere; there is just some channel flipping (to use a modern metaphor) > - > > each plane being a different channel, a different mode of experience. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > Well, wouldn't it be simpler to say that awareness experiences the different > planes of existence, and that this is what is common to all the experiences > of > living? It seems to me that if you have to torture and bend the > definitions of > things in order to make them fit, that there is probably a simpler > explanation. > We want to make sense of why we can't find a self upon inquiry, and yet we > keep > conveniently referring to one. So it makes sense to say 'well this is a > concept > which has feelings attached to it, and interpretations which are fed by the > senses > which are subtly being shaped by mental factors. That is why we have a > sense of > self even though there is no self to be found. If a self could be found, > we would > say 'well there is a self' but that's not the way it is. The analysis of > kandhas > breaks down the components of experience very nicely. The problem we are > left > with is the continuity of experiences. Well, we say, that is just a > question of > memories being stored in the brain and referred back to by various arising > cittas > which give a sense of continuity. Well, that's okay. But when we start > saying > that reincarnation really means the reincarnation from moment to moment, or > that > different planes that are referred to are not really planes but are just > mental > experiences and don't really exist, it seems to start taking what is said in > sutras and just twisting them around to fit one's own conception. Not that > I > don't possibly do this myself. But I just think we should try to be good > detectives who don't avoid the obvious in order to make the convoluted make > sense, > and if the Buddha refers to different planes we might want to say 'well > what does > that then necessitate' rather than trying to deny what is there. To me it > once > again seems to necessitate 'something' that is capable of experiencing those > planes. The something must be either awareness itself, or a consciousness > of some > kind that is able to exist independent of the physical body. Does that make > sense? > > Robert Ep. > ========================== Well, we have finally found an issue on which we disagree - praise Buddha!! ;-)) The thing is: You recognize a world or worlds of existence that lie beyond experience, whereas I only recognize realms *of* experience. So, we differ. My world of experience is directly knowable, because it *is* exactly experience. Your presumed world that *underlies* experience can only be inferred, but never directly known. At least that is how I see the matter. 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) 8613 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Paramattha dhammas exist? Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/15/01 5:37:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick writes: > Dear Howard, > You might remember a discussion a while back where you seemed > concerned about the idea of paramattha dhammas or the words > "exist' in the abhidhamma and commentaries. I think you accepted > the explanations of this. Anyway just to confirm that the > suttanta also has this, the Buddha says: > SnXXII 94 > Rupa that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this > the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it > EXISTS. Feeling...perception..volitional > formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and > subject to change..I too say that it exists." > robert > =========================== I seem to recall that my concern was not so much with the term 'exists' but moreso with the term 'sabhava', whose Sanskrit cognate, 'svabhava', in Mahayana typically denotes own-being or self-nature in the sense of real, separate, and unconditional self-existence. I was persuaded that Theravada understands 'sabhava' as only carrying the sense of identifying characteristic. 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) 8614 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:44am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah --- Victor wrote: > ...let's focus on what the Buddha taught: > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen > as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. > This I am not. This is not my self.'"* It's fascinating to look at what the Buddha actually said, and it also points out how important translation and syntax can be. It seems there is no doubt that what Buddha is saying is that anything that partakes of the impermanent and insubstantial quality of the five kandhas is not worthy to be considered one's self. Certainly in this sutra he does not ever say 'there is no self' or that 'anatta is all there is' as if anatta were something. Instead anatta is a characteristic of these unsatisfactory candidates that he is scrutinizing for their characteristics. He says for each object thus scrutinized, 'Monks, does something that is this impermanent and stressful really qualified to be one's self? Should we think of it as our self?' and in each case says 'No, obviously not'. I'm paraphrasing of course. But this is very different than ever stating either what *is* the self or that there is *no* self. So it becomes a very important question as to whether the Buddha ever said 'there is no self'. If he refrained from doing so, we must look at that closely. What we know for a fact is that he did not consider the five kandhas to qualify as having 'selfhood'. They had the three properties of anatta, anicca and dukkha. But did he ever rule out the possibility of something beyond the kandhas which did not partake of these qualities being the 'true self' of a Buddha or Arahat? If Nibbana is the only state of being which does not partake of the mundane, defiled qualities of the kandhas, then Nibbana would be the only possible candidate for the true self of the Buddha. Unmodified awareness does not seem to be mentioned, but it is not ruled out either. When the Buddha speaks of consciousness, he always speaks of it as a consciousness of something, but did he ever say that 'there is no awareness possible that is not a consciousness of something'? Even though he does not speak of the 'luminous mind' which is obscured by defilement very often, in the light of this discussion it becomes an amazingly significant passage. 'Mind is luminous and it is defiled by defilements from without.' In other words, Mind of Awareness may not be synonymous with the five kandhas but in its undefiled form may shed those impediments. Robert 8615 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:46am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence --- Gaga wrote: > Much thanks for your analogy to flipping channels for tackling this notion of > 31 planes Howard. In essence then there is no moral or ethical ramification (a > good or bad!) then to be at any plane-- some might be "hot", others "sensual", > and so on and so forth... > > A naive question as a follow up: is there a cosmology from whence Gotama > derived these planes, or did he envision these through insight alone? In other > words, on what basis are these 31 planes identified and characterized? > > May you be well, > > Gaga Hope you don't mind me giving my random answer, but I would say that he would have had to have experienced them. I don't believe that Buddha spoke with authority about things that he wasn't familiar with. This would lead me to believe that the various planes of existence were as obvious to him as the stairs and door are to us. The fact that he acknowledged their existence does not mean that they were substantial or permanent. Like any other manifest object, they would be subject to Anicca and Anatta. Robert 8616 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:50am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected this all, I > shall make known another all" - that would be a mere empty boast on his part. > If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would > meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be > within his domain." > > Does sound rather definitive, doesn't it! The question in my mind is: > "Where does nibbana fit in?". > > With metta, > Howard Dear Howard, Again, the exact translation is extremely important. If accurate, please note that Buddha says that the man questioned would not be able to answer because 'bhikkus, that would not be within his domain.' My emphasis would be on *his* domain. In other words, the Buddha may be implying here that this is only in the Buddha's or Arahant's domain, not that of the ordinary spiritual aspirant to make such a claim. The Buddha does not say, he would not be able to answer 'because that domain doesn't exist'. He merely says it's not *his* domain, ie, that it's out of his league. And that, indeed, would be where Nibbana fits in, the domain in which perhaps there *is* something beyond the 'all'. Robert Ep. 8617 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah --- Sarah wrote: > Victor, > > --- Victor wrote: > Sarah, > > > > I am going to reply in context below. > .................... > > Likewise.....I’m going to give the points a number as i have a feeling (before > I start) that I may end up going in a circle..... > .................... > > (1) > > On the contrary, in every discourse I read, I understand the Buddha > > to be > > > teaching `there is no self'. > > He teaches about realities to be known as not > > > self. > .................... > > > Sarah, let's focus on what the Buddha taught: > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. > > > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen > > as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. > > This I am not. This is not my self.'"* > .................... > > Do you agree that feeling, perception and so on are realities (paramattha > dhammas)? > > If yes, in what way do my words in (1) not reflect what the Buddha taught as > implied? > .................... > > (2) > > If you say to me, does he ever say `there is no self' other than > > with regard to > > > the khandhas, the namas and rupas, the elements and so on, the > > question doesn't > > > make any sense to me. > .................... > > > Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught: > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. > > > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen > > as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. > > This I am not. This is not my self.'" > .................... > > Can we agree that feeling and so on are 4 of the 5 khandhas? > > If so, where is the difference in meaning? > .................... Dear Sarah, I believe, if I read Victor rightly, that the difference he is seeing is between understanding the kandhas as not-self [we all agree on that] and deducing from this that 'there is no self' [we have divergent points of view on this]. The direct statements of the Buddha that the kandhas and all examples of the kandhas partake of annica and anatta and are therefore 'not self' do not equal a statement that there *is no* self. In my estimation, this is why Victor is distinguishing The Buddha's statements from what you have been discussing about the existence of the Self, and why he asked if there is a direct statement of the Buddha's that 'there is no self'. Regards, Robert Ep. 8618 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:59am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ =========================== > I don't quite get that, Kenneth. When you write "When kandhas > cease, > it does not mean that they are annihilated or totally obligated. I > think > this is the perspective we should look at. They could be just there and > maybe > they would not rise anymore.", I have to disagree. No conditioned dhamma > > remains. All conditioned dhammas cease. Whatever is of the nature to > arise is > of the nature to cease, or so the Buddha says! The question is whether > an > individual *flow* of dhammas continues or not. > > 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) > > > 8619 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 0:00pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert E > > Honestly, my grasp of the English language is not good. Could you kindly > assist in explain in simpler terms what is your question below? > > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > > > > Very good, but my question is: is the object only existent by virtue of > > being > > discernible, or is it only observable because it is existent? > > > > Regards, > > Robert Is the object nothing but the perception of it [and there really is no object], or should we think that the object exists independently based on the fact that we are able to perceive it? Robert Ep. 8620 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 2:39pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Rob Ep, Just a few comments on a couple of points you wrote in a post (to Jon): > What I am asking is whether there is a basis for this analysis in the > Buddha's > words himself? Is there a Sutra where he talks about the 'four supreme > efforts' > and that they are handled by the single factor of Energy? I can give one quick example of the 4 supreme efforts (samma-ppadhaana) in a sutta at MN 77, Mahasakulayi Sutta (ii 11).I know it is generally accepted (and I’ve seen it in dictionaries) that the 4 efforts (all included) are synonymous with the 8FP factor of rt effort (sammaa vaayaama), but I can’t give you more Sutta refs for now. >Is there a place > where > Buddha himself talks about the 'path factors' arising in the advanced moments > before enlightenment? Is there a place in the sutras where Buddha talks > about the > 'mundane Eightfold Path and the Supramundane Eightfold path'? Others more familiar with the suttas and with better memories, like Mike or Rob K, may help here. I’d just like to mention that as far as the Theravada tradition is concerned (and accepted by the original Councils, as I understand), the Abhidhamma is an integral part of the Tipitaka as taught by the Buddha himself. Why do people (not necessarily you, Rob;-)) accept Sutras written a long time later (and not accepted by the great arahats at these Councils) as being the words of the Buddha, rather than the entire Tipitaka with ancient commentaries, I wonder?? You started to discuss the decline of the Teachings with Jon. To be very honest, it’s very easy for me to see how they are declining. Relatively few monks follow the Vinaya rules striclty. Very few people have any interest in the ancient commentaries (some of which have already disappeared) and already very few people are really interested in the Abhidhamma (which is said to be the first ‘basket’ to disappear). Some parts are not translated into English and fewer and fewer people study the Pali Abhidhamma. When the Teachings don’t accord with someone’s understanding or view of self, they will often suggest that those parts, such as the Abhidhamma are not the Buddha’s Teachings or translate the Suttas in a way which does accord with this view of self.. Should we mind or be depressed about this? Not at all.There’s no use in accumulating dosa (aversion). It should just help us to see our good fortune to be able to read and hear what we can and encourage us to develop as much understanding (not self developing it, of course) as we can while we have the very rare opportunity. Whatever we read, Rob, should be, I think, in the light of anatta as emphasised by the Buddha. So if I’m reading a Sutta which urges an effort to be made to develop kusala (wholesome) states, I understand that this effort is not-self and cannot be forced or produced at will. It helps to remember that viriya cetasika (effort) is not always or often wholesome. It arises with most cittas (but not with vipaka cittas, for example, like seeing and hearing which are vipaka, the result of kamma). So even if I’m sitting now, doing nothing at all, with attachment, there is viriya or energy ‘energizing’ the other mental states and the consciousness at this moment. When it is the highly developed path factor, it becomes an indriya (controlling faculty) and a factor of enlightenment (bojjhanga), but whatever the degree and regardless of whether it is kusala (wholesome) or not, it is only ever a mental factor (cetasika) arising very briefly with a moment of consciousness (citta). There is never a self involved. regardless of whether or not there is a (wrong) view of one. When we read the Buddha’s reminders in the Suttas which can sound like a prescription rather than a description, it can be a condition for awareness accompanied by right effort to develop instantly and for understanding to know the unwholesome qualities as well as the other realities . It’s a reminder to persevere on this very difficult path without delay. As Christine mentioned so aptly, it’s not always easy to understand the anattaness of all realities and to give up other views and as Ken H mentioned to Ken O (I think), the more understanding there is of the conditioned nature of realities, the less inclined we are to take effort or any other reality for self or a ‘thing to do’. (thanks Dan!) > > If there is, I would like to be directed to what part of the Tipitaka, not > counting the commentaries, I might read some of these things. If there is > not, I > would still like to know on what basis these kinds of extrapolations have > been > made. I wonder if this means you are discounting the commentaries? > I feel quite confident that following Abhdhamma and its analysis of arising > cittas, that one would reach a great understanding of how realities are > constituted and regarding the nature of mind and dhamma. It seems like a > very > thorough analysis. But I don't think it's unfair to ask whether there is a > basis > for this analysis in the direct statements of the Buddha. > > If the analysis is in the commentaries but not in the Suttas, I would just > like to > know this so I can proceed accordingly. Well, we’d say the Abhidhamma is taught directly by the Buddha (how else could it have been conceived anyway?) The truth is that a lot of the detail is only in the commentaries and Abhidhamma. For example, all the very precise details about conditions can only be found in the Patthana. I very much doubt that anyone would understand the suttas without some of this invaluable teaching, but I know this is controversial...... We all agree that the direct understanding of these realities is essential. Is there a field of consciousness or nibbana outside the 5 khandhas being experienced now? If so where and how is it experienced? This is the test. Can we stop impatience or attachment arising now? The Abhidhamma and commentary notes are only to be read in order for us to understand the different phenomena appearing now more precisely and more directly. Rob, I’ve given more than a couple of comments here, but I’m sure you won’t mind.....Hopefully, Jon will also add his own response when he has a chance;-) Sarah 8621 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 3:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah Dear Rob Ep, Me again! Many thanks for your assistance here.... --- Robert Epstein wrote: > .................... Victor: > > > Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught: > > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. > > > > > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen > > > as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. > > > This I am not. This is not my self.'" > > .................... > > Sarah: > > Can we agree that feeling and so on are 4 of the 5 khandhas? > > > > If so, where is the difference in meaning? > > .................... Rob: > Dear Sarah, > I believe, if I read Victor rightly, that the difference he is seeing is > between > understanding the kandhas as not-self [we all agree on that] and deducing > from > this that 'there is no self' [we have divergent points of view on this]. > The direct statements of the Buddha that the kandhas and all examples of the > kandhas partake of annica and anatta and are therefore 'not self' do not > equal a > statement that there *is no* self. Sarah: OK, Rob....(I’m staying minimalist here;-) 1. When the Buddha talks about ‘The All’ as quoted by Howard, what is there now to be known other than the khandhas? 2. How do you understand ‘sabbe dhamma anatta’ (and Gayan’s other helpful quotes)? 3. Can do you explain these comments made by Rob Eddison (except by saying that you’re not sure whether you accept the commentaries;-) : .................... Rob ED: When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and the latter is not impermanent). As the Samyutta Commentary states: 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels are impermanent. 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not self. (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the three already mentioned together with the supramundane level (lokuttarabhuumi)] .................... Rob: > In my estimation, this is why Victor is distinguishing The Buddha's > statements > from what you have been discussing about the existence of the Self, and why > he > asked if there is a direct statement of the Buddha's that 'there is no self'. Sarah: 4. Thanks for your help, Rob. However, I’d be surprised in any case if I’ve ever discussed ‘no self’ (or those who were quoted before) without reference to realities. The example he mentioned was in fact with regard to awareness as not self, I think (which of course falls under sankhara khandha). Is there any disagreement here or any other example you can give? One reason it’s great talking to you, Rob, is I know you’re more than happy to have plenty of mail to reply to and you don’t mind if I lose the ‘minimalism’ which doesn’t come very naturally to either of us;-) Look f/w to more....I’m running late for class now... Sarah 8622 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 3:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Oh, Sarah, I really do appreciate your comments and explanations here. They are always interesting and helpful. I know I'm into a controversial area, but not really knowing the status of the Abhidhamma -- I really just first learned of it here and was not too familiar with Theravada in general anyway when I 'arrived', I am trying to get the lay of the land. Here is what concerns me: Several advanced folks here have commented that 'the Suttas and the word of the Buddha himself' are totally adequate for the path and that we should always consult the Buddha's words directly. But at the same time the Abhidhamma community is saying that the commentaries [and I don't even know where the Suttas leave off and the commentaries begin so I'm groping in the dark for these explanations] are absolutely necessary to understand what the Buddha *meant* in the Suttas, at least on the advanced level that leads to Arahat-hood. And that being that the councils were made up of enlightened Arahats we should trust their commentaries as being the true explanation of the Suttas. But this leaves me with a serious problem: 1/ The Arahats, however completely discerning they may be, are still not the Buddha himself. To consider the commentaries as necessary to understanding the Suttas is to say that the Buddha's words in and of themselves are inadequate for understanding, a view that the advanced Abhidhammists here have strongly spoken against. So am I to consider the Buddha's words to include the words of the Buddha + the interpretations of the Arahats? And if this is the case why are the commentaries necessary? It means that the Buddha did not himself think to give these explanations, which expresses a missing link in the Suttas. 2/ If these commentaries are the essential material that allows the Suttas to be 'activated' for advanced progress, then why on earth [forgive my emphasis] did the Buddha not give these commentaries himself as Suttas? He certainly could have done so for his advanced disciples. Why is it left to the councils of Arahats to fill in the blanks? It seems that where the Abhidhamma is concerned, the prohibition that we should stick to the Buddha's teachings themselves is stretched quite a bit, and that this is because of the belief of practitioners that it is the correct philosophy. When I say that I think that the Mahayana Sutras contain wisdom that comes directly from the Buddha, or that is the result of enlightened teachers who understood the Buddha's teachings directly, I am asked to find a direct reference in the Suttas that can back up my claim. Shouldn't the same rule apply to the Abhidhamma? The most important one to me is to find whether the Buddha himself spoke of a mundane and supramundane eightfold path and distinguished between them. If there is no reference to this in the Buddha's words, I wonder why they are not in the suttas but appear only in the commentaries. This is important to me in assessing the place that the Abhidhamma comes from. I hope you realize that these are sincere questions, and are not meant to disparage anything. I think the Abhidhammic analysis must be valuable either way. But I still want to know who said what and where these teachings really come from. I hope you don't mind my being so honest. I am just sincerely interested in finding out the answer to these questions, and I'll accept the answers whatever they may be. It may help me to sort out the relationship of the Abhidhamma to the more 'conventional' suttas, and help me to get a view of how the Tipitaka is organized. I actually think it's a fascinating area and hope you won't mind replying once again! And I hope that my tone is not too overly challenging. I really do have an enormous amount of respect to you and the others who are treading this rigorous path. Best, Robert Ep. =============================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > Just a few comments on a couple of points you wrote in a post (to Jon): > > > What I am asking is whether there is a basis for this analysis in the > > Buddha's > > words himself? Is there a Sutra where he talks about the 'four supreme > > efforts' > > and that they are handled by the single factor of Energy? > > I can give one quick example of the 4 supreme efforts (samma-ppadhaana) in a > sutta at MN 77, Mahasakulayi Sutta (ii 11).I know it is generally accepted (and > I’ve seen it in dictionaries) that the 4 efforts (all included) are synonymous > with the 8FP factor of rt effort (sammaa vaayaama), but I can’t give you more > Sutta refs for now. > > >Is there a place > > where > > Buddha himself talks about the 'path factors' arising in the advanced moments > > before enlightenment? Is there a place in the sutras where Buddha talks > > about the > > 'mundane Eightfold Path and the Supramundane Eightfold path'? > > Others more familiar with the suttas and with better memories, like Mike or > Rob K, may help here. I’d just like to mention that as far as the Theravada > tradition is concerned (and accepted by the original Councils, as I > understand), the Abhidhamma is an integral part of the Tipitaka as taught by > the Buddha himself. > > Why do people (not necessarily you, Rob;-)) accept Sutras written a long time > later (and not accepted by the great arahats at these Councils) as being the > words of the Buddha, rather than the entire Tipitaka with ancient commentaries, > I wonder?? > > You started to discuss the decline of the Teachings with Jon. To be very > honest, it’s very easy for me to see how they are declining. Relatively few > monks follow the Vinaya rules striclty. Very few people have any interest in > the ancient commentaries (some of which have already disappeared) and already > very few people are really interested in the Abhidhamma (which is said to be > the first ‘basket’ to disappear). Some parts are not translated into English > and fewer and fewer people study the Pali Abhidhamma. When the Teachings don’t > accord with someone’s understanding or view of self, they will often suggest > that those parts, such as the Abhidhamma are not the Buddha’s Teachings or > translate the Suttas in a way which does accord with this view of self.. > > Should we mind or be depressed about this? Not at all.There’s no use in > accumulating dosa (aversion). It should just help us to see our good fortune to > be able to read and hear what we can and encourage us to develop as much > understanding (not self developing it, of course) as we can while we have the > very rare opportunity. > > Whatever we read, Rob, should be, I think, in the light of anatta as emphasised > by the Buddha. So if I’m reading a Sutta which urges an effort to be made to > develop kusala (wholesome) states, I understand that this effort is not-self > and cannot be forced or produced at will. > > It helps to remember that viriya cetasika (effort) is not always or often > wholesome. It arises with most cittas (but not with vipaka cittas, for example, > like seeing and hearing which are vipaka, the result of kamma). So even if I’m > sitting now, doing nothing at all, with attachment, there is viriya or energy > ‘energizing’ the other mental states and the consciousness at this moment. > > When it is the highly developed path factor, it becomes an indriya (controlling > faculty) and a factor of enlightenment (bojjhanga), but whatever the degree and > regardless of whether it is kusala (wholesome) or not, it is only ever a mental > factor (cetasika) arising very briefly with a moment of consciousness (citta). > There is never a self involved. regardless of whether or not there is a (wrong) > view of one. > > When we read the Buddha’s reminders in the Suttas which can sound like a > prescription rather than a description, it can be a condition for awareness > accompanied by right effort to develop instantly and for understanding to know > the unwholesome qualities as well as the other realities . > > It’s a reminder to persevere on this very difficult path without delay. As > Christine mentioned so aptly, it’s not always easy to understand the anattaness > of all realities and to give up other views and as Ken H mentioned to Ken O (I > think), the more understanding there is of the conditioned nature of realities, > the less inclined we are to take effort or any other reality for self or a > ‘thing to do’. (thanks Dan!) > > > > If there is, I would like to be directed to what part of the Tipitaka, not > > counting the commentaries, I might read some of these things. If there is > > not, I > > would still like to know on what basis these kinds of extrapolations have > > been > > made. > > I wonder if this means you are discounting the commentaries? > > > I feel quite confident that following Abhdhamma and its analysis of arising > > cittas, that one would reach a great understanding of how realities are > > constituted and regarding the nature of mind and dhamma. It seems like a > > very > > thorough analysis. But I don't think it's unfair to ask whether there is a > > basis > > for this analysis in the direct statements of the Buddha. > > > > If the analysis is in the commentaries but not in the Suttas, I would just > > like to > > know this so I can proceed accordingly. > > Well, we’d say the Abhidhamma is taught directly by the Buddha (how else could > it have been conceived anyway?) The truth is that a lot of the detail is only > in the commentaries and Abhidhamma. For example, all the very precise details > about conditions can only be found in the Patthana. I very much doubt that > anyone would understand the suttas without some of this invaluable teaching, > but I know this is controversial...... > > We all agree that the direct understanding of these realities is essential. Is > there a field of consciousness or nibbana outside the 5 khandhas being > experienced now? If so where and how is it experienced? This is the test. Can > we stop impatience or attachment arising now? The Abhidhamma and commentary > notes are only to be read in order for us to understand the different phenomena > appearing now more precisely and more directly. > > Rob, I’ve given more than a couple of comments here, but I’m sure you won’t > mind.....Hopefully, Jon will also add his own response when he has a chance;-) > > Sarah 8623 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 3:19pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/15/01 2:28:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > Very good, but my question is: is the object only existent by virtue of being > > discernible, or is it only observable because it is existent? > > > ======================= > As I see it, these are one and the same. To "exist" is to be > observable, and to be observable is to "exist". All objects are objects of > consciousness, actual or potential. Nothing exists outside of possible > experience. To speak of some "thing" existing beyond experience is, to my > mind, to speak incoherently, because such an alleged "thing" is in principle > unknowable, not only as to its nature but as to its very existence. The way I > interpret the statement to the effect "In the seen, let there be just the > seen" in the Sutta to Bahiya is along the lines I have expressed here. Understood, Howard. And so no speculation can really be made as to whether objects exist beyond our organs of apprehension. It may be a matter of idle curiosity to speculate as to whether the universe exists when we're not around to perceive it, but from the Buddha's standpoint of liberating the mind that sees, hears, etc., it is inconsequential. Robert Ep. 8624 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 3:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/15/01 3:01:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > Hi, Gaga (and Christine) - > > > > > > In a message dated 10/14/01 1:20:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > David P > > > writes: > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query. > > > > > > > > Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa. Then what exists in > > the > > > > 31 > > > > planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane? > > > > > > > ====================== > > > How's this for a possibility?: There *is* no "it" which moves > > > anywhere; there is just some channel flipping (to use a modern metaphor) > > - > > > each plane being a different channel, a different mode of experience. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > > Well, wouldn't it be simpler to say that awareness experiences the different > > planes of existence, and that this is what is common to all the experiences > > of > > living? It seems to me that if you have to torture and bend the > > definitions of > > things in order to make them fit, that there is probably a simpler > > explanation. > > We want to make sense of why we can't find a self upon inquiry, and yet we > > keep > > conveniently referring to one. So it makes sense to say 'well this is a > > concept > > which has feelings attached to it, and interpretations which are fed by the > > senses > > which are subtly being shaped by mental factors. That is why we have a > > sense of > > self even though there is no self to be found. If a self could be found, > > we would > > say 'well there is a self' but that's not the way it is. The analysis of > > kandhas > > breaks down the components of experience very nicely. The problem we are > > left > > with is the continuity of experiences. Well, we say, that is just a > > question of > > memories being stored in the brain and referred back to by various arising > > cittas > > which give a sense of continuity. Well, that's okay. But when we start > > saying > > that reincarnation really means the reincarnation from moment to moment, or > > that > > different planes that are referred to are not really planes but are just > > mental > > experiences and don't really exist, it seems to start taking what is said in > > sutras and just twisting them around to fit one's own conception. Not that > > I > > don't possibly do this myself. But I just think we should try to be good > > detectives who don't avoid the obvious in order to make the convoluted make > > sense, > > and if the Buddha refers to different planes we might want to say 'well > > what does > > that then necessitate' rather than trying to deny what is there. To me it > > once > > again seems to necessitate 'something' that is capable of experiencing those > > planes. The something must be either awareness itself, or a consciousness > > of some > > kind that is able to exist independent of the physical body. Does that make > > sense? > > > > Robert Ep. > > > ========================== > Well, we have finally found an issue on which we disagree - praise > Buddha!! ;-)) The thing is: You recognize a world or worlds of existence that > lie beyond experience, whereas I only recognize realms *of* experience. So, > we differ. My world of experience is directly knowable, because it *is* > exactly experience. Your presumed world that *underlies* experience can only > be inferred, but never directly known. At least that is how I see the matter. > > With metta, > Howard I may disappoint you by saying that I still don't think we really disagree. I don't really think you can infer a real existence to something beyond the subjective experience of it. However, I think it may be a mistake to define one's experience in a different way than it *is* experienced. If the Buddha speaks of different planes of existence which he understands as existing, then for you to say 'it's really just switching channels' is to conceptualize his experience into something that fits a particular way of viewing it, no? I was only saying to accept the simple explanation of what is experienced or said to be experienced by a reliable source, rather than saying it is really something else. If Buddha says 'Mind is luminous' why bend over backwards to say he really means the particular mind of a momentary arising citta, because that accords better with one's philosophy [to use another popular example]? Now I may contradict myself in the next moment on this, but that is my stream of arising cittas at present. I was mainly saying to take things at face value unless there is some evidence to interpret it differently. Best Regards, "He who is provisionally called Robert Ep" 8625 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 3:30pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Udana VIII.1 > "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, Just want to use or abuse the moment to make these points: Buddha here says 'nor dimension of nothingness' which would imply something different from all things ceasing or becoming nil. That implies that something remains, although whatever it is has to avoid the definition of 'infinitude of consciousness' as well as 'dimension of nothingness'. nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; Again he not only says there is no perception, but he says there is no 'non-perception'. How can that be interpreted to mean anything other than that there is something that has not ceased, but which neither perceives nor doesn't perceive. It is not nil and it is not nothing. Something that does not partake of 'non-perception' cannot merely be the cessation of the kandhas. I say therer are more hints in the Buddha's refusal to merely say 'everything stops' than we are taking account of in the normal interpretation that the kandhas merely cease and nothing remains. > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I > say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away > nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental > object).[1] This, just this, is the end of stress." Robert Ep. 8626 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 3:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > Me again! Many thanks for your assistance here.... > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > .................... > Victor: > > > > Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught: > > > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. > > > > > > > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen > > > > as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. > > > > This I am not. This is not my self.'" > > > .................... > > > > Sarah: > > > Can we agree that feeling and so on are 4 of the 5 khandhas? > > > > > > If so, where is the difference in meaning? > > > .................... > > Rob: > > Dear Sarah, > > I believe, if I read Victor rightly, that the difference he is seeing is > > between > > understanding the kandhas as not-self [we all agree on that] and deducing > > from > > this that 'there is no self' [we have divergent points of view on this]. > > > The direct statements of the Buddha that the kandhas and all examples of the > > kandhas partake of annica and anatta and are therefore 'not self' do not > > equal a > > statement that there *is no* self. > > Sarah: > OK, Rob....(I’m staying minimalist here;-) > > 1. When the Buddha talks about ‘The All’ as quoted by Howard, what is there now > to be known other than the khandhas? > > 2. How do you understand ‘sabbe dhamma anatta’ (and Gayan’s other helpful > quotes)? > > 3. Can do you explain these comments made by Rob Eddison (except by saying that > you’re not sure whether you accept the commentaries;-) : > .................... > > Rob ED: > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or > phrases > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and > the latter is not impermanent). > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels > are impermanent. > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not > self. > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > .................... > > Rob: > > In my estimation, this is why Victor is distinguishing The Buddha's > > statements > > from what you have been discussing about the existence of the Self, and why > > he > > asked if there is a direct statement of the Buddha's that 'there is no self'. > > Sarah: > 4. Thanks for your help, Rob. However, I’d be surprised in any case if I’ve > ever discussed ‘no self’ (or those who were quoted before) without reference to > realities. The example he mentioned was in fact with regard to awareness as not > self, I think (which of course falls under sankhara khandha). Is there any > disagreement here or any other example you can give? > > One reason it’s great talking to you, Rob, is I know you’re more than happy to > have plenty of mail to reply to and you don’t mind if I lose the ‘minimalism’ > which doesn’t come very naturally to either of us;-) > > Look f/w to more....I’m running late for class now... > > Sarah Thanks Sarah. I need to think harder before replying. And I have to go to bed or I'll turn into a pumpkin, so I'll talk to you soon! It is fun to talk, isn't it? Regards, Robert 8627 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:09pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Udana VIII.1 > > "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > > nothingness, > > Just want to use or abuse the moment to make these points: > Buddha here says 'nor dimension of nothingness' which would imply > something > different from all things ceasing or becoming nil. That implies that > something > remains, although whatever it is has to avoid the definition of > 'infinitude of > consciousness' as well as 'dimension of nothingness'. > > nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > > Again he not only says there is no perception, but he says there is no > 'non-perception'. How can that be interpreted to mean anything other > than that > there is something that has not ceased, but which neither perceives nor > doesn't > perceive. It is not nil and it is not nothing. Something that does not > partake > of 'non-perception' cannot merely be the cessation of the kandhas. I > say therer > are more hints in the Buddha's refusal to merely say 'everything stops' > than we > are taking account of in the normal interpretation that the kandhas > merely cease > and nothing remains. > > > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, > I > > say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing > away > > nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental > > object).[1] This, just this, is the end of stress." > > Robert Ep. > > 8628 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Hi Ken Howard, I admit that it is my own bias that I do not like the difference that "this is conventional" and "this is absolute". To me the word "absolute" sounds ultimate. Sounds like "godly". I do not know of any other better word. It is just that such words may bring a misconception that Buddhism supports an "absolute". If we start having this difference, then it is difficult to practise Buddhism as I point out in my earlier email. Or maybe it is my lack of understanding of the English usage and the culture behind it. For your kind thoughts please. Kindest regards kenneth Ong --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Ken Howard > > I always puzzling by this, why is there a need to make a difference in > absolute reality and conceptual reality. I thought the gist in seeing > the > nature of reality is in our every moment of our life. If it is absolute > how does conventional pple like us learn this absolute. What makes us > think that this is absolute and that is not absolute. Do we mean that > daily life events is not absolute, not worth our time in being absolute. > > Or do we mean that every day when pple talk to us and teach us the > conventional wisdom is not absolute dhamma. When there is right > understanding, every conventional dhamma is absolute. Do we need to > classify right understanding as absolute. If it is absolute, we would > never able to learn right understanding. Dhamma can be learn but it is > not > absolute, when it is practise and thus understand then it becomes > absolute > :) Cheers :) > > > > My kindest regards > Kenneth Ong > > > > > > > > > > Knowing the difference between conceptual reality and absolute > > reality is the starting point in Dhamma study. I think you are > > saying that we shouldn't let such classifications stand in the way of > > right understanding and right mindfulness. That is, by ignoring > > interpretations that amount to conventional wisdom, I might be > > `enshrining' the Dhamma in the sense of putting it out of my reach. > > > Thank you for asking for my comments on this. I think we > > shouldn't worry about missing out on the benefits of any > > conventional wisdom that can be seen in the Pali Canon. There are > > friends, parents, school teachers, scientists etc., who can help with > > conventional wisdom when we need it. By studying the Dhamma, > > we hope to learn what these people can't teach us. > > Although I sound dogmatic on this, I appreciate that I may be > > mistaken and I will try to heed the warning you are giving. If I may > > borrow a wise remark you made a little while ago, `I am always > > happy to be proved wrong.' > > > > Kind regards > > Ken Howard 8629 From: David Progosh Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:47pm Subject: Re: 31 planes of existence Greetings all, In the thread so far the direction has been to define in one sense what moves between these 31 planes through the process of birth, death,and rebirth, and the inherent difficulty in defining the "it" that does the being born, dying and being reborn (which, by definition, is not a self). The other issue is this description of the planes as being desirable or undesirable (and for me, why so many of them!). On this issue of description, "desirability"--good, bad, heaven, hell seems to be a problematic. Desire is the root of all suffering. The cessation of suffering is the final freedom. So this "promise" of rebirth (whatever that may mean) to a plane of more desirability (or vice versa) is like a moral carrot on a stick, which seems to be unsatisfactory from the moment it is described in theses terms. To go to lengths to describe in detail the planes, what they are like, and what "inhabits" them, and how to get into them (through degrees of absorption in jhana states) is really weird! I won't even go to how long the duration of existence in these planes takes... that is another weird one! Back to another difficulty posed earlier in my original query--at what moment does this rebirth into a plane occur-- after the dissolution of the 5 khandas in this "imaginary" lifetime, when citta moves, when an act of skill or unskill is performed (kamma)... what is the overall guiding principle to such determinism? Be well, Gaga > If Buddha says 'Mind is luminous' why bend over backwards to say he really means > the particular mind of a momentary arising citta, because that accords better with > one's philosophy [to use another popular example]? > > Now I may contradict myself in the next moment on this, but that is my stream of > arising cittas at present. I was mainly saying to take things at face value > unless there is some evidence to interpret it differently. > > Best Regards, > "He who is provisionally called Robert Ep" 8630 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 7:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Hi Ken Howard Its me again :). After reading and re-read a few of my post to you, I realise that I may sound very unfriendly. Please kindly accept my apology if I do sound like that. Kindest regards Kenneth Ong --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Ken Howard, > > I admit that it is my own bias that I do not like the difference that > "this is conventional" and "this is absolute". To me the word > "absolute" > sounds ultimate. Sounds like "godly". I do not know of any other better > word. It is just that such words may bring a misconception that > Buddhism > supports an "absolute". If we start having this difference, then it is > difficult to practise Buddhism as I point out in my earlier email. Or > maybe it is my lack of understanding of the English usage and the > culture > behind it. > > > For your kind thoughts please. > > > > Kindest regards > kenneth Ong > > > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Ken Howard > > > > I always puzzling by this, why is there a need to make a difference in > > absolute reality and conceptual reality. I thought the gist in seeing > > the > > nature of reality is in our every moment of our life. If it is > absolute > > how does conventional pple like us learn this absolute. What makes us > > think that this is absolute and that is not absolute. Do we mean that > > daily life events is not absolute, not worth our time in being > absolute. > > > > Or do we mean that every day when pple talk to us and teach us the > > conventional wisdom is not absolute dhamma. When there is right > > understanding, every conventional dhamma is absolute. Do we need to > > classify right understanding as absolute. If it is absolute, we would > > never able to learn right understanding. Dhamma can be learn but it is > > not > > absolute, when it is practise and thus understand then it becomes > > absolute > > :) Cheers :) > > > > > > > > My kindest regards > > Kenneth Ong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Knowing the difference between conceptual reality and absolute > > > reality is the starting point in Dhamma study. I think you are > > > saying that we shouldn't let such classifications stand in the way > of > > > right understanding and right mindfulness. That is, by ignoring > > > interpretations that amount to conventional wisdom, I might be > > > `enshrining' the Dhamma in the sense of putting it out of my reach. > > > > > Thank you for asking for my comments on this. I think we > > > shouldn't worry about missing out on the benefits of any > > > conventional wisdom that can be seen in the Pali Canon. There are > > > friends, parents, school teachers, scientists etc., who can help > with > > > conventional wisdom when we need it. By studying the Dhamma, > > > we hope to learn what these people can't teach us. > > > Although I sound dogmatic on this, I appreciate that I may be > > > mistaken and I will try to heed the warning you are giving. If I > may > > > borrow a wise remark you made a little while ago, `I am always > > > happy to be proved wrong.' > > > > > > Kind regards > > > Ken Howard > > > 8631 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 7:34pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ > This idea > > comes from a belief that there is something to be anihilated. Dhammas > > are really nothing - just fleeting conditioned phenomenena without a > > trace of self. Nothing lasting, nothing worth clinging to. Because of > > deep delusion though WE cling. Such a long path to comprehend this > > properly. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The flow of dhammas is an event, a process. When that flow stops, it > is no more, it has ceased, it has been annihilated. For one who is free of > craving and aversion, free of clinging, and free of ignorance, what > difference would it make whether the flow continues or not (except as a > matter of compassion for worldlings and their suffering)? For one who is not > free of the three poisons, he/she might cling to a continuation or, > oppositely, crave for cessation. > ----------------------------------------------------- Robert: Do you accept that flow of dhammas ceases, permanently at parinibbana? robert 8632 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:00pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ > --- Howard wrote: > > > "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected this > all, I > > shall make known another all" - that would be a mere empty boast on his > part. > > If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he > would > > meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be > > within his domain." > > > > Does sound rather definitive, doesn't it! The question in my mind > is: > > "Where does nibbana fit in?". > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > Dear Howard, > Again, the exact translation is extremely important. If accurate, please > note > that Buddha says that the man questioned would not be able to answer because > 'bhikkus, that would not be within his domain.' My emphasis would be on > *his* > domain. In other words, the Buddha may be implying here that this is only > in the > Buddha's or Arahant's domain, not that of the ordinary spiritual aspirant > to make > such a claim. > > The Buddha does not say, he would not be able to answer 'because that domain > doesn't exist'. He merely says it's not *his* domain, ie, that it's out of > his > league. > > And that, indeed, would be where Nibbana fits in, the domain in which > perhaps > there *is* something beyond the 'all'. > > Robert Ep. > > /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) 8633 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:12pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Hi Howard, > > When we talk abt cease, it is not destroyed. --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, my sense of 'cease' certainly implies destruction. ---------------------------------------- > If "no condition dhamma > remains" then Buddha is biting on his own words. This is a very nihistic > point of view. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: If, indeed, the conditioned dhammas are "the all", then I agree. ----------------------------------------- If there is "individual *flow* of dhammas continues", then > Buddha is biting his own words again becuase this is a eternalistic point > of view. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I don't agree with that. An "individual" psychophysical stream is just a stream of empty phenomena arising and ceasing. It is a flow of events. It continues right now. The question is whether or not such a flow is ever stopped (as opposed to its being radically transformed). ------------------------------------------- > > I feel since that Buddha does not bother to go in length to discuss this > issue abt Nibbana or pariNibbana, shouldn't we now have a cup of coffee :) > and relax as whatever our view or trying to infer could be incorrect and > the danger of having such a view. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Coffee is always good! Meditation likewise. ;-)) ------------------------------------------- > > Maybe we should resign ourselves and just accept this definition of > Nibbana > > Udana VIII.1 > "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I > say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away > nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental > object).[1] This, just this, is the end of stress." > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I like this - I always have. But there is more than one way to understand it, I believe. (More to follow in a future post.) ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > With my kindest regards :) > Kenneth Ong ============================= With metta, Howard > > > =========================== > > I don't quite get that, Kenneth. When you write "When kandhas > > cease, > > it does not mean that they are annihilated or totally obligated. I > > think > > this is the perspective we should look at. They could be just there and > > maybe > > they would not rise anymore.", I have to disagree. No conditioned dhamma > > > > remains. All conditioned dhammas cease. Whatever is of the nature to > > arise is > > of the nature to cease, or so the Buddha says! The question is whether > > an > > individual *flow* of dhammas continues or not. > > > > 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) 8634 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 10:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort Ken O Thanks for the reply and your comments. I agree that kusala needs to become our habit. However, we perhpas have different ideas of what that means. You say: "> I assuming that kusala actions that are unprompted could be our past karma habits. Hence to develop further kusala habbit there should be some determined effort involved, until such habit becomes unprompted. Take for example again abt the letting of my seat in the public for other pple. If I constantly do a deliberate effort to let my seat to others, next time it will become naturally to me. There is no need for deliberate or determine effort. Hence this deliberate effort has become right effort in a sense. It has become natural, unprompted, arises spontaneously." Akusala is stronger than any deliberate effort, and it is also too 'tricky' to be displaced by effort. The only habit that will displace akusala is the habit that is accumulated kusala itself. Kusala is developed by being accumulated, moment by moment. However, such displacement is only temporary subduing. No amount of accumulated kusala can actually eradicate akusala habits, except the kusala that is of the level of satipatthana/vipassana. This is kusala of the kind that is aware of, and comes to know the characteristic of, different realities. According to my study, the effort that arises at such moments has the fourfold function that is called the 'supreme efforts'. Kusala that arises without being prompted is actually already a 'habit', since it is already natural and spontaneous. If there is awareness of this kusala as and when it arises, this will be a condition for more unprompted kusala of the same kind in the future. Just briefly on your other point: > I do not know whether you classify a calm mind as kusala. In order to > practise the breathing method to calm the mind, it does not come easily, > one got to be discipline, notice the breath, able at first to endure the > muscle and body pains etc.... It becomes naturally after constant and > deliberate effort in the first place. I think in the texts it is put the other way around: at a moment of kusala the mind is calm, since it is free from akusala. Hence, the development of samatha is the development of kusala of a kind that subdues (again, temporarily) akusala. Deliberate effort, however, can be either kusala or akusala, even if the goal is the development of kusala. It can so easily result in the accumulation of more akusala instead of more kusala. Jon --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Let us look at the other way round, how abt looking at akusala. Usually > akusala is unprompted, for eg, looking at a beautiful lady (no offence > here for ladies). I more incline to believe this unprompted akusala > arise > due to our past habits at looking at things. Then we apply the > Abidhamma > method, then slowly this "looking" is just successive cittas. Then > eventually as the practise becomes finer and finer, this successive > cittas > is seen as it is, the akusala now has not become unprompted. Next time > when looking at a beaufiful lady, the akusala is just a sucessive > cittas. > The unprompted has been "slow" down to a point of prompted. Hence we > are > able to see our successive cittas in an objective manner. > > > Similarly, I assuming that kusala actions that are unprompted could be > our > past karma habits. Hence to develop further kusala habbit there should > be > some determined effort involved, until such habit becomes unprompted. > Take > for example again abt the letting of my seat in the public for other > pple. > If I constantly do a deliberate effort to let my seat to others, next > time > it will become naturally to me. There is no need for deliberate or > determine effort. Hence this deliberate effort has become right effort > in > a sense. It has become natural, unprompted, arises spontaneously > > > Let us use your reference in one of your email. > CMA VII, 25 > "There are four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa): (1) the effort to > discard evil states that have arisen, (2) the effort to prevent the > arising of unarisen evil states, (3) the effort to develop unarisen > wholesome states, (4) the effort to augment arisen wholesome states. > Here one mental factor, energy, performs four separate functions. This > fourfold effort is identical with right effort, the sixth factor of the > Noble Eightfold Path." > > > I interpret No (3) as a deliberate effort. Take for eg the Karaniiya > Metta Sutta , to me the words in the sutta seems to point that there is > a > need of an deliberate effort to do metta. One particular sentence seems > to support this notion "In anger or ill will let him not wish another > ill." > > > I do not know whether you classify a calm mind as kusala. In order to > practise the breathing method to calm the mind, it does not come easily, > one got to be discipline, notice the breath, able at first to endure the > muscle and body pains etc.... It becomes naturally after constant and > deliberate effort in the first place. > > > What do you think? But I have to wait a while before you are back. > Sigh..... > > > > > With kindest regards > Kenneth Ong > 8635 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:20pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Robert - It is very edifying to be well understood! Thanks. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/16/01 3:22:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > > > In a message dated 10/15/01 2:28:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Robert E writes: > > > > > > > Very good, but my question is: is the object only existent by virtue of > being > > > discernible, or is it only observable because it is existent? > > > > > ======================= > > As I see it, these are one and the same. To "exist" is to be > > observable, and to be observable is to "exist". All objects are objects > of > > consciousness, actual or potential. Nothing exists outside of possible > > experience. To speak of some "thing" existing beyond experience is, to > my > > mind, to speak incoherently, because such an alleged "thing" is in > principle > > unknowable, not only as to its nature but as to its very existence. The > way I > > interpret the statement to the effect "In the seen, let there be just the > > seen" in the Sutta to Bahiya is along the lines I have expressed here. > > Understood, Howard. And so no speculation can really be made as to whether > objects exist beyond our organs of apprehension. It may be a matter of idle > curiosity to speculate as to whether the universe exists when we're not > around to > perceive it, but from the Buddha's standpoint of liberating the mind that > sees, > hears, etc., it is inconsequential. > > Robert Ep. > > /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) 8636 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 10:21pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan? --- Howard wrote: > > Would you see a conclusion to the effect that the khandas cease on > > parinabbana as being inconsistent with any other aspect of the > Buddha's > > teaching? > > > > Jon > > > ========================= > Ahh. That's an easy question to answer, Jon. No, I do *not* think > that > such a conclusion is inconsistent with any other aspect of the Dhamma. > > With metta, > Howard Thanks, Howard. And do you agree that that is what the Buddha had to say on the subject, ie, that the khandas cease on parinabbana? Jon 8637 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/16/01 3:26:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > Well, we have finally found an issue on which we disagree - praise > > Buddha!! ;-)) The thing is: You recognize a world or worlds of existence > that > > lie beyond experience, whereas I only recognize realms *of* experience. > So, > > we differ. My world of experience is directly knowable, because it *is* > > exactly experience. Your presumed world that *underlies* experience can > only > > be inferred, but never directly known. At least that is how I see the > matter. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > I may disappoint you by saying that I still don't think we really disagree. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Oh, no! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------- I > don't really think you can infer a real existence to something beyond the > subjective experience of it. However, I think it may be a mistake to > define one's > experience in a different way than it *is* experienced. If the Buddha > speaks of > different planes of existence which he understands as existing, then for > you to > say 'it's really just switching channels' is to conceptualize his > experience into > something that fits a particular way of viewing it, no? I was only saying > to > accept the simple explanation of what is experienced or said to be > experienced by > a reliable source, rather than saying it is really something else. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I only submitted the channel-flipping metaphor as a possible way of thinking about rebirth without presuming the existence of a transmigrating soul or of externally existing realms, independent of experience. --------------------------------------------------- > > If Buddha says 'Mind is luminous' why bend over backwards to say he really > means > the particular mind of a momentary arising citta, because that accords > better with > one's philosophy [to use another popular example]? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I see no need for this. But, hey, maybe that's based on my *own* predispositions and prejudices. ------------------------------------------------- > > Now I may contradict myself in the next moment on this, but that is my > stream of > arising cittas at present. I was mainly saying to take things at face value > unless there is some evidence to interpret it differently. > > Best Regards, > "He who is provisionally called Robert Ep" > > ============================= 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) 8638 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:35pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Robert: Do you accept that flow of dhammas ceases, permanently at > parinibbana? > =========================== Well, of course I don't know! I had previously raised the question in a post of mine of whether the Buddha ever made a statement to that effect in the sutta pitaka,as opposed to it being stated in the commentaries. So far I haven't received a response from anyone on that. 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) 8639 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:42pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan? Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/16/01 10:24:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > --- Howard wrote: > > > > Would you see a conclusion to the effect that the khandas cease on > > > parinabbana as being inconsistent with any other aspect of the > > Buddha's > > > teaching? > > > > > > Jon > > > > > ========================= > > Ahh. That's an easy question to answer, Jon. No, I do *not* think > > that > > such a conclusion is inconsistent with any other aspect of the Dhamma. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > Thanks, Howard. > > And do you agree that that is what the Buddha had to say on the subject, > ie, that the khandas cease on parinabbana? > > Jon > ================================== With regard to "And do you agree that that is what the Buddha had to say on the subject, ie, that the khandas cease on parinabbana?", I would be very interested in some references to where the Buddha said that. 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) 8640 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:06pm Subject: Nibbana -Howard --- Dear Howard, Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/16/01 7:35:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick writes: > > > > Robert: Do you accept that flow of dhammas ceases, permanently at > > parinibbana? > > > =========================== > Well, of course I don't know! I had previously raised the question in > a post of mine of whether the Buddha ever made a statement to that effect in > the sutta pitaka,as opposed to it being stated in the commentaries. So far I > haven't received a response from anyone on that. > ___________________ OK, I will note that the commentaries are rehearsed along with Tipitaka at the Buddhist councils. They are there to help us understand the deep meaning of the Tipitaka. Anyway here is a sutta that gives a fairly clear answer to my question: Vacchagotta asked what happens to a Buddha after he dies. The Buddha talked about the extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to a fire and asked vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been extinguished: MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) "So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and you may reply as it pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of you, would you know, there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good Gotama, if a fire burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire burning in front of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account of what is it burning, how would you reply?''Good Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire burning in front of me is burning on account of grass and sticks.' `Vaccha, if the fire in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this fire in front of me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in front of me extinguishes, I would know, this fire has extinguished''Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in which direction did it go, to the east, west, north or south?' `Good, Gotama, it does not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and sticks, those supports finished, no other supports were supplied, without supports the fire, went out.'. `Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which the Thus Gone One is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm stump, made a thing not to grow again."endquote. robert 8641 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Hi. Hope you're having a great trip. I won't say too much to burden > your reading time while away. It's never a burden to read your posts, Rob! > On re-reading my original posts, my tone wasn't all that pleasant. It's > sometimes > easier to see this in retrospect. At the time, I was very intent on > trying to > seek clarification, and that led to a somewhat combatative tone. > Anyway, I enjoy > interacting with you on these issues, and I appreciate your gentle tone > in > response to my 'challenges'. I think we all would wish our posts could come across better in that respect. Don't think any more about it. Sometimes it's all one can do to get the content sufficiently correct, never mind the tone! > I appreciate the effort you went to in quoting from the Abhidhamma > commentaries. > I guess my real question is still a general one. One can certainly read > and > understand, with a bit of work [!] what is being said in the > commentaries and how > they explain the mechanism implied by the Buddha's teachings on the > Eight-fold > Path. My general question is: did the Buddha himself use this kind of > language > about the 'path factors' and about Energy handling the four 'supreme > efforts' and > these sorts of things. I am sure the system hangs together very well > and makes a > lot of sense after some study. > > What I am asking is whether there is a basis for this analysis in the > Buddha's > words himself? Is there a Sutra where he talks about the 'four supreme > efforts' > and that they are handled by the single factor of Energy? Is there a > place where > Buddha himself talks about the 'path factors' arising in the advanced > moments > before enlightenment? Is there a place in the sutras where Buddha talks > about the > 'mundane Eightfold Path and the Supramundane Eightfold path'? The answer is, there is and there isn't. To take the last of these, there are references in the suttas that are explained in the commentaries as being a reference to the mundane or the supramundane path, although the particular terminology is not used. But if not for the commentary, I don't know what sense might be made of the reference. We should not expect that everything should be 'laid out' in the suttas for us. The fact is, they were a layout for some members of the audience at the time but not for everyone. How could the same text be ripe for everyone's ears? Why should we assume we are among those at whose level the teaching was pitched? > If there is, I would like to be directed to what part of the Tipitaka, > not > counting the commentaries, I might read some of these things. If there > is not, I > would still like to know on what basis these kinds of extrapolations > have been > made. > > I feel quite confident that following Abhdhamma and its analysis of > arising > cittas, that one would reach a great understanding of how realities are > constituted and regarding the nature of mind and dhamma. It seems like > a very > thorough analysis. But I don't think it's unfair to ask whether there > is a basis > for this analysis in the direct statements of the Buddha. > > If the analysis is in the commentaries but not in the Suttas, I would > just like to > know this so I can proceed accordingly. I think with time it would be possible to come up with some more direct references I have, but one will always need to rely heavily on the commentaries. In the meantime, I would like to suggest some contextual points for your consideration in relation to the nature of the Noble Eightfold Path as the 4th of the Four Noble Truths. 1. The 4NTs are given as truths, i.e. understandings to be realised. All 4 Noble Truths are realised at the same moment. The 4th of these is the 'truth' of the path, i.e., that this is the path leading to cessation (nibbana) that is to be realised. They are not given as factors for the attainment of wisdom/enlightenment (there are other passages in the suttas that address this question). 2. It is a 'noble' truth. 'Noble' is a term that connotes its supramundane nature. Only one who has realised these truths is referred to in the texts as a Noble One. The reason it is called a path is that there are 4 moments of path consciousness (magga citta) spanning the progress from stream entry to arahantship and final cessation (at parinibbana). Only one who has attained to stream entry is on a path that leads inevitably to cessation. Those who have attained to stream-entry and the next 2 stages are referred to in the texts as 'trainers', those who have not attained to stream-entry are referred to as ‘the uninstructed worldling’. The 4NT’s are given as one of the ‘mental objects’ of the development of satipatthana in the Satipatthana Sutta. This shows their nature as ‘truths to be realised’ by one who is developing awareness. I’m afraid I’ll have to finish it there for this post. I hope it’s of some use. There are others waiting to use the hotel’s (one and only) computer, and in any event we have a 3.30 am wake-up in the morning for a long day’s journey tomorrow. More on this and others as and when I get the chance along the way. Jon 8642 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana -Howard Hi Howard, Robert states a good sutta below to support his point that khandas cease but it does not state what is it in PariNibbana. I inclined to believe that this subject is not adequately address by the Pali Cannon. I reluctant to use this statement on this list but I believe that the answer to your question is found in the Mahayana doctrines. Kind regards Kenneth Ong --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > Dear Howard, > > Howard wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > > > In a message dated 10/16/01 7:35:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > robertkirkpatrick writes: > > > > > > > Robert: Do you accept that flow of dhammas ceases, permanently at > > > parinibbana? > > > > > =========================== > > Well, of course I don't know! I had previously raised the > question in > > a post of mine of whether the Buddha ever made a statement to that > effect in > > the sutta pitaka,as opposed to it being stated in the commentaries. > So far I > > haven't received a response from anyone on that. > > > ___________________ > OK, I will note that the commentaries are rehearsed along with > Tipitaka at the Buddhist councils. They are there to help us > understand the deep meaning of the Tipitaka. > Anyway here is a sutta that gives a fairly clear answer to my > question: Vacchagotta asked what happens to a Buddha after he dies. > The Buddha talked about the > extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to a fire and asked > vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been extinguished: > MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II > II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) > "So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and you may reply as it > pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of you, would you know, > there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good Gotama, if a fire > burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire burning in front > of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire burning in front of > you, on account of what is it burning, how would you reply?''Good > Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account > of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire burning in front of > me is burning on account of grass and sticks.' `Vaccha, if the fire > in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this fire in front of > me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in front of me > extinguishes, I would know, this fire has extinguished''Vaccha, if > you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in which direction > did it go, to the east, west, north or south?' `Good, Gotama, it does > not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and sticks, those > supports finished, no other supports were supplied, without supports > the fire, went out.'. > `Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which the Thus Gone One > is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm stump, made a > thing not to grow again."endquote. > > robert > 8643 From: m. nease Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana Robert and Christine, Thank you both so very much. This can't be repeated often enough (for me anyway). mike --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Group, > Just some more to help with the understanding of > nibbana. > > Howard kindly quoted the ALL from the samyutta > nikaya. > 23 (1) The All > At Saavatthi. "Bhikkus, I will teach you the all. > Listen to that > .... > "And what bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and > forms, the > ear and > sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, > the body and > tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This > is called > the all. > "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: > 'Having rejected > this all, I shall make known another all" - that > would be a mere > empty boast on his part. > If he were questioned he would not be able to reply > and, > further, he would meet with vexation. For what > reason? Because, > bhikkhus, that would not be > within his domain." > > There has been some debate on this list with some > members > suggesting that Nibbana is some type of > unmanifestative > awareness or something similar that a arahant enters > into. > However, this is not the position put forward in the > Pali texts. > In the Khandhasamyutta nikaya. XXII. 94 (p949 of > Bodhi trans.) > The Buddha said :A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, > a > perception, a mental > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and > persistent, > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the > wise men in > this world do not recognize; and I also say that > there is no > such thing.{endquote] > > It is hard to see these things because of the > obstructions of > view, especially self view. Christine quoted an > excellent > article yesterday which states:'One cannot too often > and too > emphatically stress the fact that not > only for the actual realisation of the goal of > Nibbana, but also > for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an > indispensable > preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of > anatta, the > egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of > existence. > Without such an understanding, one will necessarily > misconceive > Nibbana - according to one's either materialistic or > metaphysical leanings - either as > annihilation of an ego, or an eternal state of > existence into > which an ego or self enters OR WITH WHICH IT > MERGES."endquote > Christine adds: "The capitals show the unconscious > belief I > have just realised I > had." > Christine it is really to be applauded that you see > this > wrongview. If you hadn't studied you might have > clung to this > view without even knowing it was present.It is > indeed by seeing > our views that they are let go of. I have even met > people who > hold such views who believe they have experienced > wisdom to t