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 the > degree of vipassana nana ! > I hope this clarifies the nature of nibbana (in > theory) and > shows the necessity of understanding the khandas, > ayatanas and > dhatus as they are now. The quote from the > patisambhimagga that > I gave yesterday mentions that insight develops by > defining and > discerning the characteristics of all the ayatanas. > Seeing is > surely appearing now; is there study(directly) of > the nature of > seeing? > robert > 8644 From: m. nease Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] 31 planes Robert, excellent and a GREAT citation. What book or publication exactly is the source of your quotes from 'salayatanasamyutta Bodhi translation'? Think I should have a copy. mike --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > --- 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 8645 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:48pm Subject: Re: 31 planes --- "m. nease" wrote: > Robert, excellent and a GREAT citation. What book or > publication exactly is the source of your quotes from > 'salayatanasamyutta Bodhi translation'? Think I > should have a copy. > > mike > _________ Dear Mike, it is Connected Discourses from Wisdom(2 volume set) about $100. I don't find it that much of an improvement over the PTS set except that some verses are better translated. Bodhi is very terse with his commentary notes which is a great pity considering his pioneering earlier work on these. robert 8646 From: Suan Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 0:16am Subject: Re: Paramattha dhammas exist? To Robert K And Howard Dear Robert K (and Howard) How are you? Your message is spot-on. Nothing is wrong with the concept of the existence of paramattha dhammas. Another equivalent term for the existence of paramattha dhammas is "Sacca" that refers to the Four Noble Truths. Because there exists attachment, there exists misery. Because there exists misery, we wish for cessation of misery. Because there exists the way to cessation of misery, there exists nibbana. The fact that paramattha dhammas are of sunnyata (empty of self and self-belongings) does not negate their existence or their truth status. Because Samsara exists, we seek nibbana (nibbana priyesana). As simple as that! Anyone who denies paramattha dhammas their existence denies them their truth status. Anyone who denies paramattha dhammas their truth status denies the Four Noble Truths. Anyone who denies the Four Noble Truths denies the Buddha and falls outside the legacy of the Buddha's Teachings. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org/ --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > 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 > > 8647 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 16, 2001 9:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana -Howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/16/01 11:08:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick writes: > 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 > ============================= Yes, thanks. I'm aware of this sutta. I have two comments: One is that here the Buddha was reponding to the question of what happens to the the person called the Buddha, something which has no real existence to begin with, a mere concept. The second comment is that several Buddhist writers have pointed out that the notion of fire and its extinguishing in Indian philosophy differed from the modern scientific view, seeing the extinguishing of a fire as its going into a latent state rather than completely ceasing. In any case, the fire that burns is, as I see it, the fire of craving and aversion, or of the khandhas-afflicted-by-defilements. It is that, I believe, which "goes out". 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) 8648 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 4:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- 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. > ____________ Dear Ken, I don't know how anyone else feels about it, but I don't see any reason why the Buddha couldn't talk about any topic he felt like. I'm sure that when he said 'It's good not to eat too much before you meditate' no one was confused into thinking that this was a part of the Dhamma itself and that it was anything other than practical advice. We don't want to turn the Buddha into God, someone who can't say anything but divine words. He is merely a human being who is a complete seer and teacher. So why not take his words on various subjects as just that, good advice from someone who knows better than anyone else what they're talking about? Secondly, I don't see conceptual truth as absolute untruth, but as conditional truth. If one makes a conceptual statement, they are merely living in this world, which we all do until we don't. So they are not 'lying' by saying 'I wake up and brush my teeth'. Surely, as far as the body goes, one does wake up and brush one's teeth. No one would deny that within the conditions of this life, that takes place. What that actually consists of as nama and rupaa can be broken down more precisely, but that is a 'professional' issue for one who is practicing discernment. I think you can see that there is someone brushing their teeth and break it down into its constituent experiences at the same time. You don't have to drive yourself bonkers by trying not to see the things of this world in the conventional way. I think it makes more sense to accept what is there and then use mindfulness to see gradually deeper into it. Does this make sense? Robert Ep. 8649 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 4:43am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Yeah, Kenneth, I think the point would be along the lines you say, that by seeing what conventional truth really is, we see the absolute truth. Robert Ep. --- 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 > > > 8650 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 4:45am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Hi Rober Ep, > > I do not think that the suttas claim that there is nothing there because > they only say that kandhas cease. (cease is not destroyed) In addition > from this sutta, we should know there is something there, if it is not, it > could not be utter by Buddha in this sutta. But the problem is that why > did Buddha do not descibe the state in detail? I think because if he said > that in detail, does it help in our practise. If he said that there it is > something to be gain, we will all hope for something to gain in Buddhism, > then we become attached. If he said there is nothing to be gain in this > state, everyone will be discouraged. So he let us hang in the air. In my > point of view by speculating the nature of Nibbana is not productive and > could be a hindrance in our practise. The speculation of Nibbana is like > what I feel the similiar situation when we start to speculate the meaning > of emptiness (Mahayana). > > > > Kind regards. > Kenneth Ong > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- 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. 8651 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 4:49am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > It is very edifying to be well understood! Thanks. > > With metta, > Howard :] as always, Robert Ep. ================== > 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. > > > > > 8652 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 4:54am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence --- Howard wrote: > 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. > --------------------------------------------------- I understand, and I really didn't mean to unduly attack your metaphor, which makes a lot of sense in a certain way. But I was mainly arguing with the idea that because a 'self' does not exist, this implies that there really are no realms. Of course, even if there really are realms, and they are not just 'frequencies of mind' to flip into and out of, they are still only provisional, so it adds up to the same thing from the ultimate standpoint anyway. But as far as conditional reality goes, I think Buddha was saying that these realms are as real as our own conditional realm, and that this is just one of many. If the kandhas can show up here and partake of arising conditions, why can't they arise and react in the other realms as well? Robert Ep. PS. By the way, I'm just speculating onward. If it sounds like I'm still arguing with you, I don't mean to. ==================== 8653 From: Victor Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 6:09am Subject: Re: Citta -Sarah Robert and Sarah, Robert, thank you for your explanation. I think you understand the point I was trying (very hard) to get across. :-) Sarah, I am going to respond in context below. --- 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? As I said, how we used the word "self" reflects our understanding. In my last message, I was repeating what the Buddha taught several times: Body(feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) is not self. Body(feeling, perception, formations, 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.'" I hope by this time you have seen the equivalence between this two statements. :-) > > 2. How do you understand `sabbe dhamma anatta' (and Gayan's other helpful > quotes)? Every dhamma 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, that is all. 'sabbe dhamma anatta' does not mean 'there is no self.' :-) Please try to distinguish the word "self" in the context of what the Buddha taught and the word "self" in the context of "there is no self". > > 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 Metta, Victor 8654 From: m. nease Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 6:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Ken, --- Ken Howard wrote: > 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. Good question--it (anicca) isn't an absolute reality in the sense of a paramattha dhamma, but I think it does have some kind of special status (with the other two lakkhanas). You can probably find it in AIDL as you suggest (I haven't had time to look it up yet). > 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. I'd like to think so, but not certain. Also by no means certain that I'm right if we disagree. > 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. I would say that conventional right understanding, in the sense of pariyatti, does come first. Sammaditthi of the Eightfold (or five-or sixfold) Path is a different matter, I think. Certainly learning to recognize moha (by hearing and wisely reflecting on the Dhamma (and dhammas) is crucial to the arising of understanding in the first sense (is this what you meant by 'accepting that we don't understand'?); satipatthaana is crucial to the arising of understanding in the second sense. Of course, the two sort of alternate and support one another (as I see it), and, of course, no one to move closer to the Path. > 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. This is where we may disagree. The Buddha did often give very mundane advice (the advantages of teeth-cleaning, e.g.). I'm not willing to say that, because it isn't Abhidhamma, it isn't Dhamma. I do, however, accept that Abhidhamma is somewhat more important than teeth-cleaning(!) and underlies and is essential to all the Dhammavinaya. ________________ > > 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. Understanding understands, as I see it--conventional understanding depends on hearing and reflecting (wisely) on the Dhamma; understanding of the kind that eradicates defilements depends on satipatthaana. The instruction, 'be mindful', is, I think, intended to condition the arising of satipatthaana in the collection of khandhas known conventionally as 'the hearer'. I do appreciate Jon's 'descriptive' vs. 'prescriptive' distinction, and also agree that a description of a practice does not constitute endorsement of it as a method or technique of bhavana. (I think I like Dan's 'declarative vs. imperative' even better, and his 'simile of the grin' (message 8240)). > Thanks for helping me with this My thanks to you, sir! > Kind regards Back at you, Ken, mike 8655 From: Victor Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 7:06am Subject: Re: Citta -Sarah Sarah, I am going to reply in context below. :-) --- 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? > .................... > > (3) > For example, we can talk about seeing or hearing or > > > attachment as not self. We cannot talk about computer or any > > concept as having > > > no self because they are only concepts. > .................... > > > Rupa is impermanent. > > > > A computer is impermanent. > > > > Nama is impermanent. > > > > A concept is impermanent. > .................... > > Is a computer a concept (pa~n~natti). Is a concept a rupa? Where does the > Buddha say a concept is impermanent or has the characteristic of anicca > (impermanence)?> :-) I see a computer as something physical. So I see it as rupa. I don't see it as a concept. :-) By the way, I bought the computer I use now about 4 years ago and it has a Pentium II processor. It is still working, but I don't think it's gonna last forever. :-) I see concept as idea or thought. So I see it as nama. :-) Please, let's not argue on this. If we are going to, then you win. :-) > .................... > > (4) >> Likewise, we cannot talk about a > > > `blank' or a `nothing' having no self or being no self:-) > .................... > > > Again, 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.'" > .................... > > Victor, do we agree here? If not why? Sarah, I don't think it really matters to you/me if I agree with you or you agree with me. I think what really matters to you/me is if you/I understand and not misunderstand what the Buddha taught. > .................... > > (5)> > If we talk about awareness being aware rather than a self being > > aware (as > > > above), this is either intellectual rt. understanding or direct > > understanding > > > of the characteristic of sati (awareness) as explained to us by the > > Buddha. In > > > what way is it a `speculative view'? What do you mean > > by `speculative view' > > > here? > .................... > > > By speculative views I mean views that are based on assumption and > > speculation, views that do not lead to the cessation of dukkha. > .................... > > Would you say my comments above are speculative views (using your definition) > and do not lead to the cessation of dukkha? If so, why? > .................... > > (6)> >Do you agree that sati (and all other realities) are not self? > .................... > > > Sati is not self. Sati 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.'" > .................... > > So where is the disagreement? Where is the speculation? > ................... > > (7)> > ....I'm actually not sure at all whether you are just > > questioning the use > > > of words or whether you have a different understanding of what > >> anatta means. > .................... > > > Sarah, how we use the word "self" reflects our understanding. > > > > 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.'" > .................... > > Victor, we all agree that all the khandhas (these ones plus rupa) are not self. > We have all read suttas where this is confirmed many times Please indicate > what has been said that does not conform with this Teaching and where any > difference is. > .................... > > (8)> Butting in here is no problem with me. :-) > .................... > > Good! We agree :-) > > (aside to others- Must say, I like the contrast in styles on the list.....the > minimalist one is quite a refreshing change and challenge - may become > addictive;-) > .................... > > (9)> Sarah, also check out SN.18 Rahulasamyutta. :-) > .................... > > What is your point, Victor? > .................... Sarah, my point is that: please check out this discourse if you have time sometime. :-) > > > Metta, > > Victor > ................... > > best wishes and metta too, Sarah > ..................... > > (10)> *Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > .................... > > Please indicate what I've said (or someone else has said) that you don't > believe conforms with the understanding (rather than the exact words) taught > here. We both agree with your point stated in (7) that how we use `self' > reflects the understanding and that it is the understanding that is important. > (Of course, as the Buddha emphasised, we have to talk to someone quite a lot to > get an idea of their understanding when they use certain words......and you're > not giving much away, Victor, but I'm in no hurry ;-) > > (aside to others - lost the minimalist approach here... --- (I am not an expert in minimalism. However, if I am not mistaken, an example of minimalist in art is Mondrian. And I appreciate his work - simple, direct, not complicated, yet subtle. :-)) Metta, Victor 8656 From: Howard Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 3:15am Subject: Dvayayana: The Two-Wheeled Vehicle, a Brief Modern Metaphor Hi, all - The life of a worldling is the constant peddling of a bicycle, a bicycle always in gear. Sometimes it is in high gear, with much difficulty in peddling, much dukkha; sometimes middle gear, with less difficulty; sometimes low gear, with dukkha quite negligible, yet still present. But when the bicycle is taken entirely out of gear, the peddles then turn freely, completely disengaged, with nothing to push or pull, no further travail, no longer "getting somewhere", no more becoming/bhava, the journey completed: nibbana. With mettafor ;-)) you, 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) 8657 From: Howard Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 3:25am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/16/01 4:56:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- Howard wrote: > > 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. > > --------------------------------------------------- > > I understand, and I really didn't mean to unduly attack your metaphor, > which makes > a lot of sense in a certain way. But I was mainly arguing with the idea > that > because a 'self' does not exist, this implies that there really are no > realms. Of > course, even if there really are realms, and they are not just 'frequencies > of > mind' to flip into and out of, they are still only provisional, so it adds > up to > the same thing from the ultimate standpoint anyway. But as far as > conditional > reality goes, I think Buddha was saying that these realms are as real as > our own > conditional realm, and that this is just one of many. If the kandhas can > show up > here and partake of arising conditions, why can't they arise and react in > the > other realms as well? ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Absolutely! I make no distinction. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Robert Ep. > > PS. By the way, I'm just speculating onward. If it sounds like I'm still > arguing > with you, I don't mean to. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, not at all. Just sounds like clarification to me. =========================== 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) 8658 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:07am Subject: Re: Nibbana -Howard --- Howard wrote: ========= > Yes, thanks. I'm aware of this sutta. I have two comments: One is that > here the Buddha was reponding to the question of what happens to the the > person called the Buddha, something which has no real existence to begin > with, a mere concept. The second comment is that several Buddhist writers > have pointed out that the notion of fire and its extinguishing in Indian > philosophy differed from the modern scientific view, seeing the extinguishing > of a fire as its going into a latent state rather than completely ceasing. In > any case, the fire that burns is, as I see it, the fire of craving and > aversion, or of the khandhas-afflicted-by-defilements. It is that, I believe, > which "goes out". > > With metta, > Howard > ____________________ Dear Howard, Indian philosphers thought that fire goes into a 'latent state' when it is extinguished??? Anyway, even if so where in this sutta do you get the idea that was what the Buddha meant. In your next sentence you refer to the khandas afflicted by defilements. Am I reading you right in that you accept that these khandas are utterly extinguished at parinibbana? Is there something else that isn't extinguished and if so could you say something about what it is? regards robert 8659 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:25am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Robert: Do you accept that flow of dhammas ceases, permanently at > parinibbana? > robert Robert, When you say the flow of dhammas, do you mean rupas, namas, nibbana ie ..... that flow of rupas namas nibbana ceases permanently at parinibbana? Regards Herman 8660 From: Howard Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 4:46am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana -Howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/16/01 8:10:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick writes: > Dear Howard, > Indian philosphers thought that fire goes into a 'latent state' when > it is extinguished??? Anyway, even if so where in this sutta do you > get the idea that was what the Buddha meant. > In your next sentence you refer to the khandas afflicted by > defilements. Am I reading you right in that you accept that these > khandas are utterly extinguished at parinibbana? Is there something > else that isn't extinguished and if so could you say something about > what it is? > regards > robert > ============================ I don't know what parinibbana is, except that is identified with the death of an arahant. What I understand is extinguished upon realization of nibbana is all ignorance (including even the slightest "whiff" of a sense of self), all craving, and all aversion, and, consequently all dukkha. The khandas are, at that point, no longer khandhas-affected-by-clinging. What happens after the death of an arahant I just don't know. I have never seen any sutta that gives a clear and unambiguous answer to this. Theravada and Mahayana have different takes on this question. Certainly, if a stream of aggregates continues at all, there will be no self associated with that stream; there will be just empty, impersonal phenomena rolling on. My impression is that the Buddha was reluctant to discuss such a matter, apparently because any attempt at a positive description would be at best misleading. But, frankly, I don't see that the matter would be a very important one as far as an arahant would be concerned, for he would have no ax to grind one way or the other, having extinguished all craving and clinging. I suppose that what is important for us is not so much to have a particular view or belief with regard to this, but rather to pay more attention to our practice, moving towards that state in which views are replaced by direct knowing. 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) 8661 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:56am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ ------------------------------------------------- > > Robert: Do you accept that flow of dhammas ceases, permanently at > > parinibbana? > > robert > > > Robert, > > When you say the flow of dhammas, do you mean rupas, namas, nibbana > ie ..... that flow of rupas namas nibbana ceases permanently at > parinibbana? > > > Regards > > > Herman 8662 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 10:20am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ --- > Dear herman, > No, Nibbana doesn't arise nor does it cease. > What I meant was that the stream of namas and rupas ceases at > parinibbana. > robert > > Herman wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > Robert: Do you accept that flow of dhammas ceases, permanently at > > > parinibbana? > > > robert > > > > > > Robert, > > > > When you say the flow of dhammas, do you mean rupas, namas, nibbana > > ie ..... that flow of rupas namas nibbana ceases permanently at > > parinibbana? > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Herman 8663 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 11:21am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah --- Victor wrote: > I see a computer as something physical. So I see it as rupa. I > don't see it as a concept. :-) Hi Victor, I know you said you didn't want to argue about this, but I thought I'd offer one comment and if you don't want to respond to it that's okay. I think the idea here is that of course, the physicality of that which we call computer is physical and is an object, but the fact that it is a 'computer' is a concept. If we were to see all the moments of working with, touching, seeing, etc. the computer, we would see that we are getting certain impressions from the physical aspects that are presented to us which are then formed into a concept or image by mental factors, and thus 'computer' is a conglomerate of millions of separate impressions formed together to give us an idea that there is this one solid reality. Of course, now that I have said this, it leaves me with a further question. If we normally mistake concepts for objects and they are really 'nama' not 'rupa' then what on earth *is* a genuine rupa? They would all be subject to the interference of conceptualization. I will give myself a provisional answer to my own question and then wait for further advice: we only see the pure rupa when we have gotten to the point of discernment where we can distinguish the sensory moment from the mental moment and experience the direct seeing of a physical reality. This particular idea is not unique to abhidhamma. It is a prominent idea in Mahayana sutras as well, such as the Diamond Sutra and Lankavatara Sutra. In the Lankavatara, there is a beautiful description of how physical objects are created in the mind through a series of mental processes. In the Diamond Sutra it is said that by naming something by its properties [such as Computer or Bodhisattva] we exchange the actuality for the name, and that name and form, the way that things are named and delineated, takes away from directly seeing its reality. Best, Robert Ep. 8664 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 11:55am Subject: Re: Citta -Sarah Hi all, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Of course, now that I have said this, it leaves me with a further question. If we > normally mistake concepts for objects and they are really 'nama' not 'rupa' then > what on earth *is* a genuine rupa? They would all be subject to the interference > of conceptualization. I will give myself a provisional answer to my own question > and then wait for further advice: we only see the pure rupa when we have gotten > to the point of discernment where we can distinguish the sensory moment from the > mental moment and experience the direct seeing of a physical reality. I do not believe there is ever seeing the rupa. There may be seeing the light that emanated from the rupa, but it is not the rupa. The rupa is always an inference. The mind never deals with reality, but with a representation of it. Even if one could foster awareness of the photon hitting the back of the retina, the sensation of the photon impacting the retina is not the same as the event. Direct seeing sounds very mysterious to me. It somehow seems to combine being and knowing. I always thought that cittas know and rupas are, and never the twain shall be one, likened to the seeing cripple seated on the shoulders of the blind strong man, mutually dependant, and no use without each other (unless you live in arupa ). All the best Herman 8665 From: Ken Howard Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 0:08pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Dear Robert Ep, Kenneth O, Robert K, and Mike re unanswered messages: Kenneth O has addressed 3 messages to me without reply, the last one wondering whether he had sounded unfriendly. Robert Ep has sent two; also unanswered Robert K has sent the friendliest message one could hope to receive; also unanswered Mike has sent one; also unanswered There are some reasons, but no excuses for this rude behaviour on my part. Most importantly, please understand, there is no element of disrespect or indifference involved. For me, posting a message on dsg is a monumental task. I agonise over every detail, draft and redraft, reconsider, delete, -- everything but hit the send button. I wanted to reply to you in chronological order but the hardest one, Robert Ep's, was first in line. His opening sentence has a question I just can't get my head around. Rather than leave it, I have become obsessed with it. I can't promise to change my personality, so please just expect not to receive your replies until you have probably forgotten what on earth we were talking about. With fulsome apology Ken Howard --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > 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 > > 8666 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 0:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Hi Ken Howard. Personally I do not think you are rude in anyway when you did not reply and I appreciate this reply. Please feel free to write what you think, do not inhibit yourself :). Please do not worry that you will make mistakes in your writing or your intention is not correctly presented. Who do not makes mistakes here :) Please feel free to contribute as we are not here to judge you, we are here to learn from each other. To be honest, the second and third email was actually an excuse for me as I felt guilty that I was being imposing on my views on the first email. Kindest regards Kenneth Ong P.S. By the way, I accept you as what you are even though I do not really know you:) Cheers :) --- Ken Howard wrote: > Dear Robert Ep, Kenneth O, Robert K, and Mike > > re unanswered messages: > > Kenneth O has addressed 3 messages to me without reply, the last > one wondering whether he had sounded unfriendly. > > Robert Ep has sent two; also unanswered > > Robert K has sent the friendliest message one could hope to > receive; also unanswered > > Mike has sent one; also unanswered > > There are some reasons, but no excuses for this rude behaviour on > my part. Most importantly, please understand, there is no element > of disrespect or indifference involved. > > For me, posting a message on dsg is a monumental task. I agonise > over every detail, draft and redraft, reconsider, delete, -- > everything but hit the send button. > > I wanted to reply to you in chronological order but the hardest one, > Robert Ep's, was first in line. His opening sentence has a question > I just can't get my head around. Rather than leave it, I have > become obsessed with it. > > I can't promise to change my personality, so please just expect not > to receive your replies until you have probably forgotten what on > earth we were talking about. > > With fulsome apology > > Ken Howard > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > 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 8667 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 1:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah --- Herman wrote: > Hi all, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Of course, now that I have said this, it leaves me with a further > question. If we > > normally mistake concepts for objects and they are really 'nama' > not 'rupa' then > > what on earth *is* a genuine rupa? They would all be subject to > the interference > > of conceptualization. I will give myself a provisional answer to > my own question > > and then wait for further advice: we only see the pure rupa when > we have gotten > > to the point of discernment where we can distinguish the sensory > moment from the > > mental moment and experience the direct seeing of a physical > reality. > > I do not believe there is ever seeing the rupa. There may be seeing > the light that emanated from the rupa, but it is not the rupa. The > rupa is always an inference. > > The mind never deals with reality, but with a representation of it. > Even if one could foster awareness of the photon hitting the back of > the retina, the sensation of the photon impacting the retina is not > the same as the event. > > Direct seeing sounds very mysterious to me. It somehow seems to > combine being and knowing. I always thought that cittas know and > rupas are, and never the twain shall be one, likened to the seeing > cripple seated on the shoulders of the blind strong man, mutually > dependant, and no use without each other (unless you live in arupa ). > > All the best > > > Herman Well, that's interesting. It's very Kantian. Kant proposed that there were two modes of being; he called them phenomena, which were in the mode of 'in-itself': had not consciousness, just were, and on the other hand could never be totally known because they present us with an opaque surface that cannot ultimately be penetrated. The other mode was the sentient or human mode and that he said was 'for-itself', able to be conscious of its own properties as well as those which it was able to apprehend of the object-world. The mind that investigated its own processes however, could come to account for its own processing mechanism and come closer and closer to deducing the pure sense-data that existed before it was conceptualized into a mental object. But it could never know it completely or totally directly. The most thorough knowledge a human being could have would thus be self-knowledge. The mind could examine its own properties, but the world outside the mind would always be relatively opaque. Sound familiar? Best, Robert 8668 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 1:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Dear Ken, Thanks for your message, which, though slightly agonized, had a hint of humor to it as well. It made me smile, which is always helpful to me. Whenever you get around to answering my post, I will be more than happy to see it. Please take whatever time is necessary without any apprehension on my account. I am curious though, what the sentence is that you found difficult to understand. Best, Robert Ep. ====================== --- Ken Howard wrote: > Dear Robert Ep, Kenneth O, Robert K, and Mike > > re unanswered messages: > > Kenneth O has addressed 3 messages to me without reply, the last > one wondering whether he had sounded unfriendly. > > Robert Ep has sent two; also unanswered > > Robert K has sent the friendliest message one could hope to > receive; also unanswered > > Mike has sent one; also unanswered > > There are some reasons, but no excuses for this rude behaviour on > my part. Most importantly, please understand, there is no element > of disrespect or indifference involved. > > For me, posting a message on dsg is a monumental task. I agonise > over every detail, draft and redraft, reconsider, delete, -- > everything but hit the send button. > > I wanted to reply to you in chronological order but the hardest one, > Robert Ep's, was first in line. His opening sentence has a question > I just can't get my head around. Rather than leave it, I have > become obsessed with it. > > I can't promise to change my personality, so please just expect not > to receive your replies until you have probably forgotten what on > earth we were talking about. > > With fulsome apology > > Ken Howard > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > 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 > > > > 8669 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 3:01pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Dear Ken H, ..and this needs no reply;-) --- Ken Howard wrote: > For me, posting a message on dsg is a monumental task. I agonise > over every detail, draft and redraft, reconsider, delete, -- But this is why all appreciate and clamour more for the end product....the rest of us just open our big mouths and hit 'send'. . .... I happen to live with a law draftsman who works all day at what you describe, so I'm familiar with the process of the perfectionist....... > everything but hit the send button. I replied to someone else, who mentioned they were always writing posts and not sending them, that perhaps it would help to just address the name you post to, as in a personal note, and forget there is a larger audience..... > I wanted to reply to you in chronological order but the hardest one, > Robert Ep's, was first in line. His opening sentence has a question > I just can't get my head around. Rather than leave it, I have > become obsessed with it. I usually pick an easy one (like this;-) to get 'warmed up' and then attempt a harder one....like you, I have a kind of order in mind, but the list should be fun too, so I'm always happy to let a bit of fun jump the queue, especially if I'm tired or don't have much time.... > > I can't promise to change my personality, so please just expect not > to receive your replies until you have probably forgotten what on > earth we were talking about. At least this kind of sounds like a promise;-) It's never too late to reply. I think Erik holds the record for picking up a message about a year or so later..... Personally, I love it when old threads re-emerge like long-lost friends..... > > With fulsome apology Not to me I know, but I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say it's never needed in this regard.... I think we all enjoy the different personalities and styles btw...... Take your time, Sarah 8670 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 5:03pm Subject: Re: Citta -Sarah Dear Robert E, Well, I'm impressed, both by your across-the-board knowledge of various belief systems, and by my ability to parallel Kant without trying to :-) I would really appreciate any links or material that would shed further light on direct seeing. Thanks Herman --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Herman wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, now that I have said this, it leaves me with a further > > question. If we > > > normally mistake concepts for objects and they are really 'nama' > > not 'rupa' then > > > what on earth *is* a genuine rupa? They would all be subject to > > the interference > > > of conceptualization. I will give myself a provisional answer to > > my own question > > > and then wait for further advice: we only see the pure rupa when > > we have gotten > > > to the point of discernment where we can distinguish the sensory > > moment from the > > > mental moment and experience the direct seeing of a physical > > reality. > > > > I do not believe there is ever seeing the rupa. There may be seeing > > the light that emanated from the rupa, but it is not the rupa. The > > rupa is always an inference. > > > > The mind never deals with reality, but with a representation of it. > > Even if one could foster awareness of the photon hitting the back of > > the retina, the sensation of the photon impacting the retina is not > > the same as the event. > > > > Direct seeing sounds very mysterious to me. It somehow seems to > > combine being and knowing. I always thought that cittas know and > > rupas are, and never the twain shall be one, likened to the seeing > > cripple seated on the shoulders of the blind strong man, mutually > > dependant, and no use without each other (unless you live in arupa ). > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman > > Well, that's interesting. It's very Kantian. Kant proposed that there were two > modes of being; he called them phenomena, which were in the mode of 'in-itself': > had not consciousness, just were, and on the other hand could never be totally > known because they present us with an opaque surface that cannot ultimately be > penetrated. > > The other mode was the sentient or human mode and that he said was 'for-itself', > able to be conscious of its own properties as well as those which it was able to > apprehend of the object-world. > > The mind that investigated its own processes however, could come to account for > its own processing mechanism and come closer and closer to deducing the pure > sense-data that existed before it was conceptualized into a mental object. But it > could never know it completely or totally directly. > > The most thorough knowledge a human being could have would thus be self-knowledge. > The mind could examine its own properties, but the world outside the mind would > always be relatively opaque. > > Sound familiar? > > Best, > Robert > > 8671 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 5:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Oh Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Oh, Sarah, > I really do appreciate your comments and explanations here. They are always > interesting and helpful. Thanks....a little flattery goes a long way with this mana.... >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. Understood. > 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. > I really can't speak for either the 'advanced Abhidhammists' or the 'Stick to Suttas Set ', but I'll just give a few comments of my own which really may not count for much as this is a rather speculative area for me;-) I think those in the super-advanced about-to-be-enlightened realm probably, like Sariputta and a few others we read about, really only need to hear a line or two of verse to fully understanding anatta and the other characteristics of reality. They have already developed unimaginably high levels of wisdom and wholesomeness over many aeons. In the Buddha's time, of course there were many, many others who were not in this realm, but were in the realm of being able to understand the Teachings after hearing one or many suttas. They heard these from the Buddha himself with all the optimal conditions involved. For these people, the combination of conditions was sufficient.(For many others, it wasn’t). Today, we are not, in my view, in either of these 'realms'. We're the slow learners that can only begin to develop a little understanding with extra prompts and assistance. Actually, the commentaries were written by the arahats (as I understand) quite soon after the Buddha's life to help people at that time and afterwards who, like us, needed the extra detail. I don't retain the historical information, but for me, the commentary notes and the Suttas are always pointing in the same direction, the same direction as the Abhidhamma, as an explanation of realities. Actually, I'd read very little Sutta commentary material before being so pleasantly 'challenged' on dsg and usually only refer to it when someone mentions an interpretation (as in the luminous mind sutta) which conflicts with how I understand the Teachings. When a sutta is interpreted differently between us, however clearly and simply it stands out to each, like that one or the one Rob K and Howard are discussing now with regard to parinibbana, can you think of a better ‘mediator’ than the commentaries rehearsed at the councils of arahats? The Thai group set off very early this morning from Agra to travel to Sankasya on the river Kali. 'This was the site where the Buddha is believed to have descended from the Trayastrima or the 33-god-heaven, accompanied by Brahma and Indra, after spending a pansa there, during which time he preached the Abhidhamma to his mother, Mayadevi'.This is a very remote spot which can only be reached after a very long bus journey and I’ve not heard of any other groups visiting it. I’ve been reflecting a lot today, as a result, on the good fortune I’ve had to hear and appreciate the Abhidhamma. I was not brought up as a Buddhist, but as a strict Christian, and have always been someting of a rebel. When I go on one of these wonderful Buddhist group trips, I tend to do the ‘opposite’ to everyone else....I’m more likely to sit quietly on a rock than to circumambulate and chant in a group, for example. But Khun Sujin has always stressed that questioning and studying and being aware of the reality now is the highest respect to the Teachings and she’s always encouraged me to just ‘live naturally’. I mention this because, to be honest, we don’t have to accept any ‘fixed ways’ or historical accounts. I don't think it matters whether one believes or accepts the account of the origin of the Abhidhamma except if it affects one’s ability to listen or study the Teachings. In 'Useful Posts' Rob K had a long correspondence about the origins of the Abhidhamma and commentaries which you can read under 'Abhidhamma- its origins'.for those who wish to check the accuracy from an historical point of view.. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts For myself, studying the details of the Abhidhamma in my ‘snail fashion’ and relating what I study to the namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena) being experienced right now in my daily life leaves me with no doubt about the value or truth of what is taught. Many of the fine details seemed to be of no relevance at all for a very long time and still there are many more details which I’m not particularly interested in because they are ‘too theoretical’ for me for now. However, I find no distinction at all in meaning between the different texts, though like everyone, some are more 'significant' for me than others. We have different inclinations too, so there is no rule about how much to read or what order and so on. Live naturally! > > 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? I undersatand what you’re saying and why it seems unfair. However, I think that if a later Sutra is based on an earlier one (which everyone accepts as being the words of the Buddha) and has been changed radically or even a little, that this is a very fair question. On the other hand, if the arahats at the Councils accepted the Abhidhamma as being the words of the Buddha, without any hesitation or question I know of, why would we question this? > > 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’ll leave you & Jon and anyone else to continue this one....My only suggestion is that we shouldn’t get ‘hung up’ on the labels. Can there be right awareness of seeing now, hardness now, agitation now? If so, we can talk about a ‘path moment’ I think, as the awareness accompanies rt understanding, effort, concentration and thinking. Of course this isn’t a supramundance path moment and there is no nibbana being experienced. One step at a time.... > > 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 understand. but I’m not sure I’m able to help further. > 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. Thanks and likewise. Actually, I planned not to reply because I’m a little out of my depth and wasn’t sure in the value of anything I might say....but I know you’re very, very sincere and it really is a pleasure to chat with you, Rob, which is why I added the more personal comments. When you think your tone sounds challenging, it just sounds pleasant, keen-to-clarify and firiendly to me. (And I don’t say that to everyone;-) Sarah 8672 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:50pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Dear Robert, > > Thank you for that. > > The inference I am tempted to draw from your reply is that namas and > rupas are somehow "individual" or "personal", tied to a living body > or being. Is that a valid inference? ____________ Dear Herman, Rupas can mean all physical phenomena but in this case I was referring to the stream of namas and rupas that is conventionally referred to as a 'being'. > > Has parinibbana ever occured? ________ We go by inference, and faith in the texts here. According to the texts it has occured many times. ______ If so , what does it mean if there > seems to be a continuation of numas and rupas after this event? __________ That would be a contradiction in terms. The type of nibbana that is khanda parinibbana is the final extinction of the stream of namas and rupas. (except that certain rupas conditioned by temperature still carry on . For example the bone remains of the buddha -the buddha relics - see http://www.abhidhamma.org/ for a picture of a container holding some of these. if you click on the picture it will take you to a larger picture) best wishes robert 8673 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 9:29pm Subject: straight shooting from some good 'ol boys. Dear group, Some country talk between Dan and Dave from another list: Hello - Just thought I would throw in some comments from the Goat Roper School of Dhamma,Y'all. When that there ignurnt feller (y'all know the one; he is under the influence of those ding-dang defilements) preforms some kinda action (kamma) he is doin all of this compoundin' (like drinkin', killin', adultrin', stealin' and the like). Why heck this here is just plain ole compoundin' and is based on ignurnce, delusion, and good ole' outright stupidity. Kinda like my cousin Daryl Ect. It jus' goes on an on (like drinkin' white lightnen') until it produces feelin' of pleasure and satisfaction in that there pea brain of the doer. When he been feelin' unsatisfactory results (usually the next day) he'll be temptin' to be a dealin' with it by further action....which right likely makes the whole gul dern fiasco alot worse...until such time bein' when he be lookin' around and determines to stop all of this collidin' with the world non-sense. Now let us look at the person who does good. Take my dear ole' Auntie Fern who does good. Ya look up abstinence in the dictionary it is right likely you'll find her picture right next to the definition (all smilin' and such). Heck, I think, she would have people arrested for runnin' around stark raving nude underneath there clothin'. Such a fittin' person gets all them good results from all them so called good actions. She be gettin' wealth, perstige, and all those things she be a wishin' fer (a right pillar of the community). But if you examine her "delicate" mental condition,why heck, you would realize she is full of worry (anxiety attacks). It seems to be a fact that if someone happens to be attached and finds satisfaction it sure is right bound to cause distress. So even good action (in no way evil or unwholesome) does not mean one is free from those unsatisfyin' conditions. Jus' as my Cousin' Daryl Ect suffers the torment of a bottle and a one night stand; my Auntie Fern suffers (inconspicously) from clingin' to her own goodness. The evil feller experiancin' the fruits of his deeds is twirlin' around in the cycle of compoundin'. Like wise the good person experiancin' the fruits is likewise involved in this here cycle of compoundin'. Why it jus' right likely be a spinnin' round and round. When a feller like me gets to bein' fed up one hasta search for somthin' higher. All that badness and goodness is jus' plain ole' simply empty (like a keg 'o' beer left in ole' Cousin Daryl Ect's hands for "safe keepin' "). Then ya go forth until such time that you meet one of those spiritual advanced goat roper types. Ya jus' plop yourself down at his feet and he right kindly lurnt you the Truth, the Dhamma. Ya lurnt the state that is right likely contrary and opposite of every kinda a lurnin' ya done lurnt before. Then that there dim witted light bulb gets bright and walla: "Thats why I was done birthed!!!" Then ya right likely been knowin' and lurnt anicca, dukkha, anatta (in that there Pali) Transience, unsatisfactoriness and non-selfhood (in plain ole' English). When these three settle into yer brain and are rightly percieved with insight, well golly that is the Path! Then ya right likely be understandin' all of this compoundin' is nature itself. Then all of this behavin', bodily, vocal, and mental will be as it should-right fine behavior. Now don't ya be gitten' me wrong here I ain't talkin' about general morality, or society customs, not just ignurnt right. To put it another way for y'all, if a feller really percieves transience, unsatisfactoriness, and non-selfhood, why there jus' ain't no plain way he'd be doin' wrong by the way of body, speech, and mind cause' the power of understandin' acts like a ding dang governor. If we right likely understand these here three things we don't be thinkin' wrong, or be havin' wrong aspirations, or be doin' or sayin' the wrong kinda things. Havin' clear insight into the nature of all of these things, we ain't liable to be obsessin' about 'em. Actions based on true insight are always right fine. Thus all of this here morality, concentration, and insight (The Noble Eightfold Path, or the Ten Skillful Actions, etc.) come in to bein' of their own accord. Thanks for lettin' me blab y'all! Goat Roper Tulsa Dave-Bob _______________________________ Howdy, Goat Roper Tulsa Dave-Bob, Mind if ah jist join ya' for a lil' yammering here? Bein' a Montana bwoa maself, this here cowboy talk is kinda refreshin'. Ah'm not the gossipin' type, an' ah don' know a lick about yer dear ol' Auntie Fern, so let's say these here words are jist pointin' at the legendary Auntie Fern, the one that must'a bin in some kid book m'granny read t'me at her kneecaps. Goat Roper Tulsa Dave-Bob (can I jist say GRTDB?): "Take my dear ole' Auntie Fern who does good...why heck, ... she is full of worry...So even good action (in no way evil or unwholesome) does not mean one is free from those unsatisfyin' conditions." Y'know, them actions ain't what ya'd call "kusala" in this here Abhidhamma sense cuz they got their roots in worry and ignurnse. Them Abhidhamma guys are even more prudish than the dear Auntie Fern. They'll tell ya' that those doin's that look so "good" on the outside are purty much rotten on the inside, all filled with, what'cha call it, akusala cetasikas, or some such bogus soundin' mumbo-jumbo. But ya' gotta' admit, they shur seem to got it raaht. GRTDB: "All that badness and goodness is jus' plain ole' simply empty." Amen, pardner. THAT sort of badness and goodness shur is jis' plain ol' simply empty. But that ain't the kind of stuff those hoity-toity Dhamma boys are talkin' with their all them "kusalas" and "akusalas" they spout on about. Nice comments, GRTDB. Dan[dalthorp] 8674 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 10:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Drear Rob Ep and Ken O, --- Robert Epstein wrote > Yeah, Kenneth, I think the point would be along the lines you say, that by seeing > what conventional truth really is, we see the absolute truth. I'd put it the other way round - by seeing or understanding absolute truth, we understand what conventional truth is. without the understanding of absolute truth, i.e. namas and rupas, we take computers and other conceptual truths for being absolute truths. Sarah 8675 From: Suan Date: Wed Oct 17, 2001 11:05pm Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Mike, Sarah, Ken, and Robert Epstein How are you? Sarah wrote: "I think we all appreciate the fine example of Mike's gentle speech and other excellent examples. Like you, I learn a lot from these." I agree with Sarah. I have been following the dialogues between Mike on one hand and Ken and Robert Epstein on the other hand- regarding bhavanga and etc. In fact, I did compose a supporting message to Sarah's remark on Mike's messages as gentle speech. Guess what? While I was reviewing the message before posting, Windows unexpectedly shut down and I lost what has been written. And it was after 2 a.m, and I was too sleepy to write a new message. The main points I made in the lost message were the way Mike tackled Ken O's and Robert's views from the standpoint of Theravada while at the same time letting them have their own views freely. Mike only made sure that they knew their views were not from Theravada. In short, Mike's messages clearly demonstrated that he had no intention of imposing on them Theravada views, and that he also had no intention of letting them consider their views as part of Theravada teaching. And Mike made sure that he achieved these goals with skill and gentleness. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org/ --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Ken O, > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Mike > > > > It always great to talk to you and in fact I enjoy > > talking to every one in the list. I learn from you > > and pple here even though our views are different. It > > is a pleasure to converse in this list because pple > > here are accepting, genuine, very sincere and most > > importantly practise the right speech. In fact, > > Sukin, has kindly offered to send me materials for me > > to read. I am touch. The pple here are sincere and > > they wish to share Buddhism with me. This is the > > first time in my life that I experience the spirit of > > a Buddhist community. > > This is a really touching and special note and you also offer us a very fine > example of sincere and considerate speech, Ken. I'm very glad to hear of your > good experience. > > I think we all appreciate the fine example of Mike's gentle speech and other > excellent examples. Like you, I learn a lot from these. > > Anumodana, > Sarah > > 8676 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 0:17am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] straight shooting from some good 'ol boys. Goat Roper Tulsa Dave-Bob Hey I like the way all these kind of talks, too bad I do not know how to write in this manner and it sounds fun to me. A very interesting and enlighting posts and thanks for the sharing on right understanding. As I said to one of them before, you always weclome to blab (should be David) :) Kindest regards Kennet Ong --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear group, > Some country talk between Dan and Dave from another list: > > Hello - > > Just thought I would throw in some comments from the Goat Roper > School of > Dhamma,Y'all. > > When that there ignurnt feller (y'all know the one; he is under > the > influence of those ding-dang defilements) preforms some kinda > action > (kamma) he is doin all of this compoundin' (like drinkin', > killin', > adultrin', stealin' and the like). Why heck this here is just > plain ole > compoundin' and is based on ignurnce, delusion, and good ole' > outright > stupidity. Kinda like my cousin Daryl Ect. It jus' goes on an on > (like > drinkin' white lightnen') until it produces feelin' of pleasure > and > satisfaction in that there pea brain of the doer. When he been > feelin' > unsatisfactory results (usually the next day) he'll be temptin' > to be a > dealin' with it by further action....which right likely makes > the whole > gul dern fiasco alot worse...until such time bein' when he be > lookin' > around and determines to stop all of this collidin' with the > world > non-sense. > > Now let us look at the person who does good. Take my dear ole' > Auntie > Fern who does good. Ya look up abstinence in the dictionary it > is right > likely you'll find her picture right next to the definition (all > smilin' > and such). Heck, I think, she would have people arrested for > runnin' > around stark raving nude underneath there clothin'. Such a > fittin' person > gets all them good results from all them so called good actions. > She be > gettin' wealth, perstige, and all those things she be a wishin' > fer (a > right pillar of the community). But if you examine her > "delicate" mental > condition,why heck, you would realize she is full of worry > (anxiety > attacks). It seems to be a fact that if someone happens to be > attached > and finds satisfaction it sure is right bound to cause distress. > > So even good action (in no way evil or unwholesome) does not > mean one is > free from those unsatisfyin' conditions. Jus' as my Cousin' > Daryl Ect > suffers the torment of a bottle and a one night stand; my Auntie > Fern > suffers (inconspicously) from clingin' to her own goodness. The > evil > feller experiancin' the fruits of his deeds is twirlin' around > in the > cycle of compoundin'. Like wise the good person experiancin' the > fruits > is likewise involved in this here cycle of compoundin'. Why it > jus' right > likely be a spinnin' round and round. > > When a feller like me gets to bein' fed up one hasta search for > somthin' > higher. All that badness and goodness is jus' plain ole' simply > empty > (like a keg 'o' beer left in ole' Cousin Daryl Ect's hands for > "safe > keepin' "). Then ya go forth until such time that you meet one > of those > spiritual advanced goat roper types. Ya jus' plop yourself down > at his > feet and he right kindly lurnt you the Truth, the Dhamma. Ya > lurnt the > state that is right likely contrary and opposite of every kinda > a lurnin' > ya done lurnt before. Then that there dim witted light bulb gets > bright > and walla: "Thats why I was done birthed!!!" > > Then ya right likely been knowin' and lurnt anicca, dukkha, > anatta (in > that there Pali) Transience, unsatisfactoriness and non-selfhood > (in > plain ole' English). When these three settle into yer brain and > are > rightly percieved with insight, well golly that is the Path! > > > Then ya right likely be understandin' all of this compoundin' is > nature > itself. Then all of this behavin', bodily, vocal, and mental > will be as > it should-right fine behavior. Now don't ya be gitten' me wrong > here I > ain't talkin' about general morality, or society customs, not > just > ignurnt right. To put it another way for y'all, if a feller > really > percieves transience, unsatisfactoriness, and non-selfhood, why > there > jus' ain't no plain way he'd be doin' wrong by the way of body, > speech, > and mind cause' the power of understandin' acts like a ding dang > governor. > > If we right likely understand these here three things we don't > be > thinkin' wrong, or be havin' wrong aspirations, or be doin' or > sayin' the > wrong kinda things. Havin' clear insight into the nature of all > of these > things, we ain't liable to be obsessin' about 'em. Actions based > on true > insight are always right fine. Thus all of this here morality, > concentration, and insight (The Noble Eightfold Path, or the Ten > Skillful > Actions, etc.) come in to bein' of their own accord. Thanks for > lettin' > me blab y'all! > > Goat Roper Tulsa Dave-Bob > > > _______________________________ > > > > Howdy, Goat Roper Tulsa Dave-Bob, > Mind if ah jist join ya' for a lil' yammering here? Bein' a > Montana > bwoa maself, this here cowboy talk is kinda refreshin'. > > Ah'm not the gossipin' type, an' ah don' know a lick about yer > dear > ol' Auntie Fern, so let's say these here words are jist pointin' > at > the legendary Auntie Fern, the one that must'a bin in some kid > book > m'granny read t'me at her kneecaps. > > Goat Roper Tulsa Dave-Bob (can I jist say GRTDB?): "Take my dear > ole' > Auntie Fern who does good...why heck, ... she is full of > worry...So > even good action (in no way evil or unwholesome) does not mean > one is > free from those unsatisfyin' conditions." > > Y'know, them actions ain't what ya'd call "kusala" in this here > Abhidhamma sense cuz they got their roots in worry and ignurnse. > Them > Abhidhamma guys are even more prudish than the dear Auntie Fern. > > They'll tell ya' that those doin's that look so "good" on the > outside > are purty much rotten on the inside, all filled with, what'cha > call > it, akusala cetasikas, or some such bogus soundin' mumbo-jumbo. > But > ya' gotta' admit, they shur seem to got it raaht. > > GRTDB: "All that badness and goodness is jus' plain ole' simply > empty." > > Amen, pardner. THAT sort of badness and goodness shur is jis' > plain > ol' simply empty. But that ain't the kind of stuff those > hoity-toity > Dhamma boys are talkin' with their all them "kusalas" and > "akusalas" > they spout on about. > > > Nice comments, GRTDB. > > Dan[dalthorp] > > 8677 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 1:03am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah Hi Robert Ep "Of course, now that I have said this, it leaves me with a further > question. If we > normally mistake concepts for objects and they are really 'nama' not > 'rupa' then > what on earth *is* a genuine rupa? They would all be subject to the > interference > of conceptualization. I will give myself a provisional answer to my own > question > and then wait for further advice: we only see the pure rupa when we > have gotten > to the point of discernment where we can distinguish the sensory moment > from the > mental moment and experience the direct seeing of a physical reality." A genuine rupa is just rupa, a mana that conceptualize a rupa is just mana. Hmm i think is best keep it apart :). We need conceptual to know rupa or how do we know rupa in the first place. That is why consciousness is the third factor in the dependent origination before name and form....contact. "They would all be subject to the interference of conceptualization." They are objects cognize in the conscious and it is up to the conscious to interpret it as what objects they have seen. But conscious cannot change the physical structure of a rupa in the human realm unless you have kind of ESP :). Objects that are seen outside are just outside. It is seen inside because our mind cognize it. But our mind can infer the meaning of the object in whatever way we like but we cannot change the physical part of the object. "We only see the pure rupa when we have gotten to the point of discernment where we can distinguish the sensory moment from the mental moment and experience the direct seeing of a physical reality" What do you mean by a pure rupa? You mean that is something different in ordinary rupa and pure rupa. It is only through the way we see things that our inference of rupa is different. Even if we are able to discern seeing a rupa, it is the mana side and not the rupa side. The rupa is still rupa. It is only the mana that has change the way it look at the rupa and not rupa has change. Kindest regards. Kenneth Ong 8678 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:25am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah --- Herman wrote: > Dear Robert E, > > Well, I'm impressed, both by your across-the-board knowledge of > various belief systems, and by my ability to parallel Kant without > trying to :-) > > I would really appreciate any links or material that would shed > further light on direct seeing. > > Thanks > > Herman Hmm, I may not be able to go further with references on this. In my mind, it's all mixed in with other things. But if I think of anything, I will let you know. Meanwhile, as far as Theravadin suttas go, I'll bet there are plenty of experts here who can talk about direct seeing or the lack thereof in the Abhidhamma. The only thing that comes to mind at the moment is the Zen practice of shikantaza, an attempt to be aware of everything that takes place around one while meditating without labelling any of it; and a Vipassana practice of trying to be mindful of sounds, sensations, etc., without naming or objectifying them. Robert Ep. 8679 From: m. nease Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:37am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ the > Buddha said that nibbana is the end of suffering. I > have always taken this in > the sense of "Nibbana *marks* the end of suffering" > or "The realization of > nibbana results in the end of suffering". But what > if, in fact, the Buddha > meant this literally, and was *defining* nibbana as > "the end of suffering"? > What if "all" that he meant by nibbana was the state > of absence of the three > poisons, of mind functioning the same as always > except freed of ignorance, > craving, and aversion? As I understand it, the Buddha did define nibbaana as 'the end of suffering'. However (maybe I'm wrong but), as I understand it, nibbaana is not a state--it's an event. I suppose that the knowledge of nibbaana after the event is a matter of memory of the event, recognition as of any other past event (though supramundane, I guess), with its attendant implications ('the holy life has been lived, what was to be done has been done, birth is destroyed' etc.). I welcome corrections from any abhidhammikas out there if I'm mistaken (and thanks in advance). > I've been thinking about a > post along these lines that > I may write up soon and forward to the list. When I > do that, perhaps we can > take it up for discussion. Hope you will, Howard. mike > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 10/15/01 11:52:10 PM Eastern > Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > > > --- 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) 8680 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 6:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Suan, --- Suan wrote: > > I have been following the dialogues between Mike on one hand and Ken > and Robert Epstein on the other hand- regarding bhavanga and etc. In > fact, I did compose a supporting message to Sarah's remark on Mike's > messages as gentle speech. Guess what? While I was reviewing the > message before posting, Windows unexpectedly shut down and I lost > what has been written. And it was after 2 a.m, and I was too sleepy > to write a new message. Thanks for your patience in re-writing this post and I'm glad you did. I've had many, many similar experiences of losing messages, though since Jon 'insisted' I compose longer ones in a workbook (forget the name, but off-list, off-internet) it's been a lot better.....I have a lot of interruptions, so this really helps. One of our savvy computer experts told me he recently lost a long message written to Erik, so I think we all know this problem;-) Talking about tests of patience....just got a message from 'the Group' to say they only checked in (Lucknow) after mid-night, having set off at about 4a.m, I think , in the 5 buses going via that very remote spot I mentioned yesterday- Sankasya (sp?).....Now, you may be able to add some details for Rob Ep...just if you feel inclined to do so. > The main points I made in the lost message were the way Mike tackled > Ken O's and Robert's views from the standpoint of Theravada while at > the same time letting them have their own views freely. Mike only > made sure that they knew their views were not from Theravada. > > In short, Mike's messages clearly demonstrated that he had no > intention of imposing on them Theravada views, and that he also had > no intention of letting them consider their views as part of > Theravada teaching. > > And Mike made sure that he achieved these goals with skill and > gentleness. Thanks Suan for these helpful reminders...... Sarah 8681 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 7:42am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ --- Herman wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > Thank you for that. > > > > The inference I am tempted to draw from your reply is that namas > and > > rupas are somehow "individual" or "personal", tied to a living body > > or being. Is that a valid inference? > ____________ > > Dear Herman, > Rupas can mean all physical phenomena but in this case I was > referring to the stream of namas and rupas that is conventionally > referred to as a 'being'. > > > > > > Has parinibbana ever occured? > ________ > We go by inference, and faith in the texts here. According to the > texts it has occured many times. > ______ > > If so , what does it mean if there > > seems to be a continuation of numas and rupas after this event? > __________ > > > That would be a contradiction in terms. The type of nibbana that is > khanda parinibbana is the final extinction of the stream of namas and > rupas. (except that certain rupas conditioned by temperature still > carry on . For example the bone remains of the buddha -the buddha > relics - see http://www.abhidhamma.org/ for a picture of a container > holding some of these. if you click on the picture it will take you > to a larger picture) > best wishes > robert > > 8682 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 9:01am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Dear Robert, > > Thanks for yur replies, and I hope you don't if I keep going on with > it. > > Does it follow from our discussion that there is more than one stream > of namas and rupas? > > ____________ Dear Herman, Yes, I think we can say that. For instance, the stream of namas amd rupas that is conventionally known as Herman is a different from the stream conventionally known as Robert. best wishes robert 8683 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 10:00am Subject: Re streams of namas/rupas... Dear Robert, Thank you again. Now for the next one :-) Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the stream known as Robert? Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something at all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa? Thanks again Herman --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Herman wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > Thanks for yur replies, and I hope you don't if I keep going on > with > > it. > > > > Does it follow from our discussion that there is more than one > stream > > of namas and rupas? > > > > > ____________ > > Dear Herman, > Yes, I think we can say that. For instance, the stream of namas amd > rupas that is conventionally known as Herman is a different from the > stream conventionally known as Robert. > best wishes > robert 8684 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 10:12am Subject: Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... --- Herman wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Thank you again. Now for the next one :-) > > Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the > stream known as Robert? > > Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something at > all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa? > > __________ dear Herman, good questions. Let's first mentally check that we aren't having any idea of permanence or self in what we call Robert or Herman. Sometimes when we are talking about paramattha dhammas we might still have an idea that, say, herman or robert really exist. There is really no Herman. However, now seeing consciousness arises conditioned by certain colours(these colours in this case are what we conventionally call writing). Very, very quickly, citta, sanna, vitaka and other factors in following mind-door processes form up concepts based on what was seen. Now in conventional language we can certainly say that herman wrote something and it conditioned some processes to occur in 'Robert'. But let us be careful not to imagine that "Robert" is something differnet from these processes or that "Robert" is these processes etc. Robert is simply a useful designation, a concept, but no reality. best wishes robert 8685 From: Howard Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 6:25am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ --- Howard wrote: > > > the > > Buddha said that nibbana is the end of suffering. I > > have always taken this in > > the sense of "Nibbana *marks* the end of suffering" > > or "The realization of > > nibbana results in the end of suffering". But what > > if, in fact, the Buddha > > meant this literally, and was *defining* nibbana as > > "the end of suffering"? > > What if "all" that he meant by nibbana was the state > > of absence of the three > > poisons, of mind functioning the same as always > > except freed of ignorance, > > craving, and aversion? > > As I understand it, the Buddha did define nibbaana as > 'the end of suffering'. However (maybe I'm wrong > but), as I understand it, nibbaana is not a > state--it's an event. I suppose that the knowledge of > nibbaana after the event is a matter of memory of the > event, recognition as of any other past event (though > supramundane, I guess), with its attendant > implications ('the holy life has been lived, what was > to be done has been done, birth is destroyed' etc.). > I welcome corrections from any abhidhammikas out there > if I'm mistaken (and thanks in advance). > > ========================== Mmm. The problem with nibbana as an event is that events occur, they arise, and they are caused. I think that bodhi/enlightenment is an event, namely the ceasing of the three poisons, whereas nibbana is not a thing or an event, but rather is an absence, the absence of the three poisons. The moment of complete enlightenment is the *realization* of nibbana. Nibbana does not arise - an absence doesn't arise (except in a manner of speaking). What happens is that the three poisons, and samsara, cease. 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) 8686 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 10:26am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... Hi Herman Please excuse me for butting in. Below are my personal views. "Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the stream known as Robert?" They are of no difference it is only the different accumulations of each stream that separate us from you and me. There is why some of us are born rich or more intelligence or have different habits and our future rebirth:) "Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something at all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa?" They cannot overlap, if they overlap, kamma definition will be totally refuted. Kindest regards Kenneth. <>, Herman wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > Thank you again. Now for the next one :-) > > > > Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the > > stream known as Robert? > > > > Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something > at > > all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa? > > > > __________ 8687 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 10:37am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence Hi Gaga "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? Somehow you questions are quite similiar to what I have asked previously, and the answer I obtain is that this is how cittas functions. Why it is function like that, the answer will have no end because this is an answer abt origination :). Kind regards Kenneth Ong --- David Progosh wrote: > 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" 8688 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 11:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi Sarah, Hmm let me clarify my position. I am more concern over the word "absolute" because to me it could be misleading as I stated in my previous posts. Actually I agree with you that it starts with right understanding. My reservations is that if we classify this as absolute then how do pple like us who are convention in the first place to learn what is absolute. It is just word bias. Sorry to cause such confusion. Kind regards Kenneth Ong > I'd put it the other way round - by seeing or understanding absolute > truth, we > understand what conventional truth is. without the understanding of > absolute > truth, i.e. namas and rupas, we take computers and other conceptual > truths for > being absolute truths. > > Sarah 8689 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 11:24am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Suan I believe both me and Robert Ep knows that our views are not Thervada when we discuss that :). At times, I just can't resist to let go one or two from non-Thervada :) Cheers Kenneth Ong --- Suan wrote: > > > > > Dear Mike, Sarah, Ken, and Robert Epstein > > How are you? > > Sarah wrote: > > "I think we all appreciate the fine example of Mike's gentle speech > and other excellent examples. Like you, I learn a lot from these." > > I agree with Sarah. > > I have been following the dialogues between Mike on one hand and Ken > and Robert Epstein on the other hand- regarding bhavanga and etc. In > fact, I did compose a supporting message to Sarah's remark on Mike's > messages as gentle speech. Guess what? While I was reviewing the > message before posting, Windows unexpectedly shut down and I lost > what has been written. And it was after 2 a.m, and I was too sleepy > to write a new message. > > The main points I made in the lost message were the way Mike tackled > Ken O's and Robert's views from the standpoint of Theravada while at > the same time letting them have their own views freely. Mike only > made sure that they knew their views were not from Theravada. > > In short, Mike's messages clearly demonstrated that he had no > intention of imposing on them Theravada views, and that he also had > no intention of letting them consider their views as part of > Theravada teaching. > > And Mike made sure that he achieved these goals with skill and > gentleness. > > > With regards, > > Suan > > > http://www.bodhiology.org/ > 8690 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 11:37am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah Hi Robert Ep, You wrote that > The only thing that comes to mind at the moment is the Zen practice of > shikantaza, an attempt to be aware of everything that takes place around one while meditating without labelling any of it; and a Vipassana practice of trying to be mindful of sounds, sensations, etc., without naming or objectifying them. > Hmm I do not see any difference in both practise as they their basis is mindfullness. Cheers Kenneth Ong 8691 From: Ken Howard Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 11:54am Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Ken, > Thanks for your message, which, though slightly agonized, had a hint of humor to > it as well. It made me smile, which is always helpful to me. > > Whenever you get around to answering my post, I will be more than happy to see it. > Please take whatever time is necessary without any apprehension on my account. > > I am curious though, what the sentence is that you found difficult to understand. > > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ====================== > > Dear Robert Ep Thanks, I think I'm over it now. (And thanks also to Kenneth O, Sarah and Mike for helping to pacify me.) What paralysed my brain was this opening paragraph of yours: "Wouldn't it also be a failure to see conditionality in everything to see 'absolute teachings' as separate from `conditional ones'? If everything is merely a condition which combines with other conditions to have a beneficial or non-beneficial effect, then why could not the Buddha use seemingly conditional statements to have such effects just as well as he could use seemingly 'absolute' statements?" ____________ We had been talking about absolute realities (parramatta dhammas), and conventional realities (sammutti dhammas). There was also talk of concepts (pannatti), which I engaged in without really knowing how they were different from sammutti dhammas (still don't). I also used the term, `conventional truth' meaning logical concept or, more particularly, helpful logical concept (conventional teaching). Then, this paragraph of yours threw in `conditional teachings' and `absolute teachings' which, to my mind, brings in `conditioned dhammas' and the `unconditioned dhamma' (nibbana), plus perhaps, concepts again in that they are not conditioned (by virtue of their not being real). Here we have `absolute' referring only to nibbana, not to the other absolute realities. `Conditional' then refers to . . . (I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT THERE!) If I could put it away for a few days, it might be as clear as crystal, I don't know. By the way, I'm not suggesting you weren't making sense, far from it. If you weren't, I would have had less trouble skipping over it. ______________ Moving along; you also wrote: Since any statement, whether pointing to conditional or absolute reality will by virtue of being in language be a conceptual act, the only way that Buddha could refrain from participating in conventional reality would be to refrain from teaching altogether. ________________ Yes, all language is conceptual, some of it refers to other concepts, some to absolute realities. _________________ Then you wrote: Even by the act of teaching people, he has taken those who have no permanent or actual existence as entities, and has treated them as 'real' for the purposes of teaching. __________________ But has he? Or are we expected to see through the conceptual language at every turn? Every time he says bhikkhu, bowl, alms-round etc., aren't we to bear in mind, above all else, that there is only seeing, hearing, . . . thinking and THEN the pannatti, the non-real, -- bhikkhu, bowl etc.? I think we are. _____________ You continued; Rather than say that this somehow compromises Buddha's absolute standpoint, I would rather say that he is skillfully straddling the line between using conditionality and denying its actuality, a line which only a World-Teacher could maintain effectively. The Absolute is what there is to transmit, and the conditional is the field of skillful means he uses to transmit it. ______________ I'll leave that. ______________ Finally, you said; There is nothing in my opinion, from how someone ties their shoes to how they look upon the final cittas preceding entry into Nibbana, that is not potentially part of the Buddha's pallette. And there is almost nothing in human existence that he didn't talk about. ______________ Actually, I think it is said that he refused to engage in small talk. (I know you're not suggesting otherwise.) I'm sorry I can't identify just where, but in one sutta, he asked a woman where she was from. She replied, "I don't know." She knew he wasn't just showing an interest, that everything he said was Dhamma related,and so she guessed, correctly, that he meant, where was she in her previous life. If he refused to engage in small talk, wouldn't he also refuse to teach conventional realities (sammutti dhammas)? Like small talk, they were common-place, in plentiful supply, and ineffectual in providing final release from dukkha. To see the Middle Way is to realise that everything in this world is anicca, dukkha and anatta, and so I think the Buddha saw conceptual truths as a danger. He had to use them, but he would have refused to teach them. Thanks again Robert, I may be taking my mere opinions too far, but I think (hope), they are basically consistent with what I am learning here at dsg. Kind regards Ken Howard 8692 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 0:38pm Subject: Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... Robert, Yes, that is a useful reminder, about being alert to ideas of self creeping in. It is the citta and concomitant cetasikas at any moment which may have the idea of self of Robert, or Herman, as object. When we say Herman's kamma, or Robert's vipaka, what do we really mean in absolute terms? All the best Herman --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Herman wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > Thank you again. Now for the next one :-) > > > > Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the > > stream known as Robert? > > > > Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something > at > > all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa? > > > > __________ > dear Herman, > good questions. Let's first mentally check that we aren't having any > idea of permanence or self in what we call Robert or Herman. > Sometimes when we are talking about paramattha dhammas we might still > have an idea that, say, herman or robert really exist. > There is really no Herman. However, now seeing consciousness arises > conditioned by certain colours(these colours in this case are what we > conventionally call writing). Very, very quickly, citta, sanna, > vitaka and other factors in following mind-door processes form up > concepts based on what was seen. > Now in conventional language we can certainly say that herman wrote > something and it conditioned some processes to occur in 'Robert'. But > let us be careful not to imagine that "Robert" is something differnet > from these processes or that "Robert" is these processes etc. Robert > is simply a useful designation, a concept, but no reality. > best wishes > robert 8693 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 0:58pm Subject: dhammavicaya dear mike sir, Took a little time to settle down and to be back on rails, From tomorrow I'll start to post the little study little by little. It will be mostly aimed at the 'vinnana' ( with all its 'sabbhato pabham..' etc ) I will be posting the references in the Sutta Pitaka , the Pali translations from an expert with some sloppy translations of mine. If there's anything that you like or dislike ( approve or disaprove ) its for the benefit for you that you refer the actual text because the reference will be given. And please note that I am in no capacity to answer the complex questions that may arise :o) rgds, gayan 8694 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 1:04pm Subject: Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... Dear Kenneth, Thanks for joining in. I have a teensy, weensy little problem with a method which would refuse certain arguments because the conclusion is not desirable. I read your argument as saying : The doctrine of kamma is true. Therefore any arguments that would refute it must be false. Am I reading you incorrectly ? All the best Herman --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Herman > > Please excuse me for butting in. Below are my personal views. > > "Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the > stream known as Robert?" > > They are of no difference it is only the different accumulations of each > stream that separate us from you and me. There is why some of us are born > rich or more intelligence or have different habits and our future > rebirth:) > > "Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something at > all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa?" > > They cannot overlap, if they overlap, kamma definition will be totally > refuted. > > > Kindest regards > Kenneth. > > > <>, Herman wrote: > > > Dear Robert, > > > > > > Thank you again. Now for the next one :-) > > > > > > Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the > > > stream known as Robert? > > > > > > Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something > > at > > > all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa? > > > > > > __________ > > 8695 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 1:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah Hi Rob Ep, Herman and Ken O, I’m going to take the liberty of adding Ken O’s recent post to me to comments made by Rob Ep and Herman..(hope it’s not too confusing;-) Robert Ep: > Of course, now that I have said this, it leaves me with a further question. If we > normally mistake concepts for objects and they are really 'nama' not 'rupa' then > what on earth *is* a genuine rupa? .................... Sarah: Ok, the concepts are neither namas or rupas..They are merely figments of our imagination, i.e. concepts which can only be experienced by thinking about them. They cannot be objects of awareness. Examples of more obvious rupas are: visible objects, sounds, smells, tastes, hardness/softness and temperature. .................... Rob Ep: > They would all be subject to the interference > of conceptualization. .................... Sarah: Yes and no - they are experienced directly by namas, but thinking conceptualizes them. Without any awareness or understanding, there is no knowing when it is a rupa being experienced and when it is just thinking. .................... Rob Ep: > I will give myself a provisional answer to my own question > and then wait for further advice: we only see the pure rupa when we have gotten > to the point of discernment where we can distinguish the sensory moment from the > mental moment and experience the direct seeing of a physical reality. .................... Sarah: Yes, pretty much agreed ;-) Of course it’s awareness and not you or me which is aware or discerns. (I’m slightly nervous of using ‘discerns’ because I note that some people seem to use it for ‘be aware of’ and some people use it for ‘experience’ as in citta/vinnana experiences an object). So this is why the very first vipassana nana (stage of insight) is clearly knowing the difference (from direct experience and understanding of cours) between namas and rupas. For this, there has to be awareness of different namas and rupas over and over and over again as namas and rupas, not self. .................... Herman: I do not believe there is ever seeing the rupa. There may be seeing the light that emanated from the rupa, but it is not the rupa. The rupa is always an inference. ................... Sarah: I think it’s really useful to question, as you’re doing, whether there really is any direct seeing (or understanding) of any rupa (or nama). However, by considering the details of what these realities are and understanding a little more how it is not self, but nama which experiences them, there will be conditions for understanding to grow and awareness to be aware directly. Take ‘sound’ now. There are many, many moments of hearing of sound, even while we read messages. If it’s a particularly loud sound, there will be conditions to think about it and build up a story ‘I wonder who that is on the phone and so on’. Immediately we’re ‘lost in the story’. There is no awareness of sound and thinking as different realities, distinct from concepts and stories. Even so, sound is just the rupa which is experienced by hearing, regardless of its particular quality.It lasts for a brief instant and then it’s gone. .................... Herman: The mind never deals with reality, but with a representation of it. Even if one could foster awareness of the photon hitting the back of the retina, the sensation of the photon impacting the retina is not the same as the event. .................... Sarah: May I say that awareness cannot be fostered, but it can develop. When it is aware of sound or visible object, there is no idea of photons or retina. It’s actually much simpler, to my way of thinking. It’s just aware of what ‘appears’. .................... Herman: Direct seeing sounds very mysterious to me. It somehow seems to combine being and knowing... .................... Sarah: I think I prefer the ‘knowing’ without the ‘being’. Let’s call the ‘seeing’, pa~n~na, which directly knows or understands a nama or rupa. For panna to arise and develop, there has to be clear (intellectual) understanding of what namas and rupas are to be known. Like you said (sorry, I just accidentally lost your sentence on the screen), namas and rupas are dependent on each other and condition each other. Is this Abhidhamma or Sutta stuff? Both. When we read about ‘The All’ and ‘The World’. these are the very same realities which are being discussed. .................... Ken O: Hmm let me clarify my position. I am more concern over the word "absolute" because to me it could be misleading as I stated in my previous posts. Actually I agree with you that it starts with right understanding. My reservations is that if we classify this as absolute then how do pple like us who are convention in the first place to learn what is absolute. It is just word bias. Sorry to cause such confusion. .................... Sarah: You’re not causing any confusion and these are really good questions. Absolute (paramattha) dhammas refer to those realities which really exist momentarily, not just in our thoughts and imagination. We can say we live in a conventional world in the sense that without any understanding we think there is a self and a computer in actuality. In fact, we live in a world of absolute realities. Whether or not there is any understanding, self and computer do not exist in actuality..they are merely terms and labels and ideas that are given to a combination of namas and rupas, the absolute realities. So it’s not that the world or the ‘all’ changes. What is seen, heard and so on is just the same as before. The only difference is that as understanding grows and ignorance reduces, the blinkers are slowly removed and panna begins to ‘see’ what is there. We don’t have to use the term ‘absolute’ at all (especially if it sounds ‘godly;-) we can just talk about feeling, hardness, like and dislike instead, for example (or find a Chinese term we like better;-). Look forward to hearing more on these really (to my mind) useful points of discussion.... Sarah Recommended reading 1) ‘Realities and Concepts’ by K.Sujin http://www.abhidhamma.org/ 2) Useful Posts > > dear mike sir, > > > Took a little time to settle down and to be back on rails, Are you back in Boston? (just my lobha that kinda likes to keep track.....) > From tomorrow I'll start to post the little study little by little. > It will be mostly aimed at the 'vinnana' ( with all its 'sabbhato pabham..' > etc ) > > I will be posting the references in the Sutta Pitaka , the Pali translations > from an expert with some sloppy translations of mine. > > If there's anything that you like or dislike ( approve or disaprove ) its > for the benefit for you that you refer the actual text because the reference > will be given. It all sounds very intriguing and interesting...look f/w to hearing more from you both;-) > > And please note that I am in no capacity to answer the complex questions > that may arise :o) > Look f/w to your attempts anyway, Sarah 8697 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 1:46pm Subject: Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... --- Herman wrote: > Robert, > > Yes, that is a useful reminder, about being alert to ideas of self > creeping in. > > It is the citta and concomitant cetasikas at any moment which may > have the idea of self of Robert, or Herman, as object. > > When we say Herman's kamma, or Robert's vipaka, what do we really > mean in absolute terms? > ______________________________ Another good question, Herman. In absolute terms kamma is a cetasika - cetana. But it is not every type of cetana. It is the cetana that arises during the javana processes (see this chapter of Abhidhamma in daily life for details about javana : http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid14.html There are amny different degrees of cetana even during the javana process. So that while dreaming there is javana and cetana - we might have a dream of doing something bad or good. But this level of kamma will not usually give results in the form of vipaka. It does have a conditioning effect, though, on following cittas. Vipaka is such conditioned phenomena as seeing, hearing, tasting touch etc. The reason "we" see pleasant objects now is because of kamma done in the past. This kamma could have been done in this life or it could have been done a hundred thousand aeons ago- we have no way of knowing when. But vipaka can't arise if kamma is the only condition supporting it. Other conditions are needed to support the kamma. best wishes robert 8698 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:08pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... Hi Herman At times you sound like Robert Ep (no offense here Robert), relentless in your quest and investigation of the dhamma. Sometimes I do hope I got your kind of spirit. > Thanks for joining in. I have a teensy, weensy little problem with a > method which would refuse certain arguments because the conclusion is > not desirable. This is fine with me. There is no such thing as sure thing in this conditonal realm. > I read your argument as saying : The doctrine of kamma is true. > Therefore any arguments that would refute it must be false. > Am I reading you incorrectly ? Sorry that was not my intention. I am just using Kamma as an example Let us revisit your last questions again "Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something at all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa?" You cannot. An example would be bitten by an ant. Let us assume that you are bitten while Robert is not. The pain (which is a stream of citta) is experienced by you and not Robert. kind regards kenneth Ong 8699 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:19pm Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] dhammavicaya dear sarah madam, >Are you back in Boston? (just my lobha that kinda likes to keep track.....) no, in SL, took time to settle down u know, visiting friends ,tieing loose ends..etc u know. its election time here in SL, lot of lieing , hatred , mud slinging metta to them :o) >It all sounds very intriguing and interesting...look f/w to hearing more from >you both;-) yep., Buddha'hu akbar, Buddha bismillah, nirrahman , nirrahim rgds, gayan 8700 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Sarah, i wrote a fairly extensive reply to your very nice and helpful post here. Unfortunately, due to inauspicious arising conditions, my computer erased it before I could send it! I will try to reconstruct some of my comments soon. Meanwhile, just wanted to say that your message was appreciated. Best, Robert Ep. ============================ --- Sarah wrote: > Oh Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Oh, Sarah, > > I really do appreciate your comments and explanations here. They are always > > interesting and helpful. > > Thanks....a little flattery goes a long way with this mana.... > > >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. > > Understood. > > > 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. > > > > I really can't speak for either the 'advanced Abhidhammists' or the 'Stick to > Suttas Set ', but I'll just give a few comments of my own which really may not > count for much as this is a rather speculative area for me;-) > > I think those in the super-advanced about-to-be-enlightened realm probably, > like Sariputta and a few others we read about, really only need to hear a line > or two of verse to fully understanding anatta and the other characteristics of > reality. They have already developed unimaginably high levels of wisdom and > wholesomeness over many aeons. > > In the Buddha's time, of course there were many, many others who were not in > this realm, but were in the realm of being able to understand the Teachings > after hearing one or many suttas. They heard these from the Buddha himself with > all the optimal conditions involved. For these people, the combination of > conditions was sufficient.(For many others, it wasn’t). > > Today, we are not, in my view, in either of these 'realms'. We're the slow > learners that can only begin to develop a little understanding with extra > prompts and assistance. Actually, the commentaries were written by the arahats > (as I understand) quite soon after the Buddha's life to help people at that > time and afterwards who, like us, needed the extra detail. I don't retain the > historical information, but for me, the commentary notes and the Suttas are > always pointing in the same direction, the same direction as the Abhidhamma, as > an explanation of realities. Actually, I'd read very little Sutta commentary > material before being so pleasantly 'challenged' on dsg and usually only refer > to it when someone mentions an interpretation (as in the luminous mind sutta) > which conflicts with how I understand the Teachings. When a sutta is > interpreted differently between us, however clearly and simply it stands out to > each, like that one or the one Rob K and Howard are discussing now with regard > to parinibbana, can you think of a better ‘mediator’ than the commentaries > rehearsed at the councils of arahats? > > The Thai group set off very early this morning from Agra to travel to Sankasya > on the river Kali. 'This was the site where the Buddha is believed to have > descended from the Trayastrima or the 33-god-heaven, accompanied by Brahma and > Indra, after spending a pansa there, during which time he preached the > Abhidhamma to his mother, Mayadevi'.This is a very remote spot which can only > be reached after a very long bus journey and I’ve not heard of any other groups > visiting it. > > I’ve been reflecting a lot today, as a result, on the good fortune I’ve had to > hear and appreciate the Abhidhamma. I was not brought up as a Buddhist, but as > a strict Christian, and have always been someting of a rebel. When I go on one > of these wonderful Buddhist group trips, I tend to do the ‘opposite’ to > everyone else....I’m more likely to sit quietly on a rock than to > circumambulate and chant in a group, for example. But Khun Sujin has always > stressed that questioning and studying and being aware of the reality now is > the highest respect to the Teachings and she’s always encouraged me to just > ‘live naturally’. I mention this because, to be honest, we don’t have to accept > any ‘fixed ways’ or historical accounts. I don't think it matters whether one > believes or accepts the account of the origin of the Abhidhamma except if it > affects one’s ability to listen or study the Teachings. > > In 'Useful Posts' Rob K had a long correspondence about the origins of the > Abhidhamma and commentaries which you can read under 'Abhidhamma- its > origins'.for those who wish to check the accuracy from an historical point of > view.. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > For myself, studying the details of the Abhidhamma in my ‘snail fashion’ and > relating what I study to the namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena) > being experienced right now in my daily life leaves me with no doubt about the > value or truth of what is taught. Many of the fine details seemed to be of no > relevance at all for a very long time and still there are many more details > which I’m not particularly interested in because they are ‘too theoretical’ for > me for now. However, I find no distinction at all in meaning between the > different texts, though like everyone, some are more 'significant' for me than > others. We have different inclinations too, so there is no rule about how much > to read or what order and so on. Live naturally! > > > > 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? > > I undersatand what you’re saying and why it seems unfair. However, I think that > if a later Sutra is based on an earlier one (which everyone accepts as being > the words of the Buddha) and has been changed radically or even a little, that > this is a very fair question. On the other hand, if the arahats at the Councils > accepted the Abhidhamma as being the words of the Buddha, without any > hesitation or question I know of, why would we question this? > > > > 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’ll leave you & Jon and anyone else to continue this one....My only suggestion > is that we shouldn’t get ‘hung up’ on the labels. Can there be right awareness > of seeing now, hardness now, agitation now? If so, we can talk about a ‘path > moment’ I think, as the awareness accompanies rt understanding, effort, > concentration and thinking. Of course this isn’t a supramundance path moment > and there is no nibbana being experienced. One step at a time.... > > > > 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 understand. but I’m not sure I’m able to help further. > > > 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. > > Thanks and likewise. Actually, I planned not to reply because I’m a little out > of my depth and wasn’t sure in the value of anything I might say....but I know > you’re very, very sincere and it really is a pleasure to chat with you, Rob, > which is why I added the more personal comments. When you think your tone > sounds challenging, it just sounds pleasant, keen-to-clarify and firiendly to > me. (And I don’t say that to everyone;-) > > Sarah > 8701 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:35pm Subject: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Ken and m.nease >>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. > >This is where we may disagree. The Buddha did often >give very mundane advice (the advantages of >teeth-cleaning, e.g.). I'm not willing to say that, >because it isn't Abhidhamma, it isn't Dhamma. I do, >however, accept that Abhidhamma is somewhat more >important than teeth-cleaning(!) and underlies and is >essential to all the Dhammavinaya. I read your very interesting discussion. I also would like to add a small point to m. nease's comments. Buddha once said ... kusalo vidithwa, Vohara maththena Soo vohareiya If there is an enlightened person (an Arahath) that person should live in the world according to the "excepted standard" (there should be a better word to put here). That is, Buddha knew that actually there is no person or self other than just punchas-scanda (rupa, vedana, sangna, sankara, vingnana). But Buddha did not call people like "come here you punchas-scanda", instead used the name of the person. So the "name" is an "excepted standard". I am known as "Ranil" to the world though there is actually nothing called "Ranil" - just a punchas-scanda. Now this, Buddha said to an Arahath. So we just normal people are no exception - we "have" to live by the "excepted standard". So living, behaving, etc should be performed according to the "excepted standard". No one can live according to the "paramartha dhamma" - (eg. I am actually not existing). Well, that was a small addition from me... ~mettha to all Ranil 8702 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > i wrote a fairly extensive reply to your very nice and helpful post here. > Unfortunately, due to inauspicious arising conditions, my computer erased it > before I could send it! Oh no, another one gobbled up;-) never mind, another test for your patience too.....as I was saying to Suan...... > > I will try to reconstruct some of my comments soon. pls do...... > > Meanwhile, just wanted to say that your message was appreciated. Thanks so much for the 'interim message' and a little delay gives me some much needed chance to do some work proper;-( On a happier note, I'm thinking of 'The Group' in Savatthi and the Jeta Grove today, a very memorable spot for me in India....I imagine them sitting amongst the rocks about right now, having dhamma discussion as we are here (without the bus journeys....). from the itinerary: 'Vist Savathi, one of the most important places asscociated with the life of the Buddha. he spent his 14th pansa here and came back again for the 21st pansa and the spent all the remaining pansa here -except the very last). in all 25 rainy seasons were spent here. The Buddha delivered the major part of his discourses also at Savatthi. It was here that the most famous of his monasteries, the Jetavana, was situated- a gift from the rich merchant Anathapindaka. Also visit Jetavana Vihara, a unique feature of this Vihara is the paintings in the main shrine room. There are 31 panels in all illustrating episodes in the life of the Buddha, with particular emphasis on those events that have taken place at Savatthi.' Hope this gives you something other than computer problems to reflect on..... Sarah 8703 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:52pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Sarah wrote: > Drear Rob Ep and Ken O, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote > > > Yeah, Kenneth, I think the point would be along the lines you say, that by > seeing > > what conventional truth really is, we see the absolute truth. > > I'd put it the other way round - by seeing or understanding absolute truth, we > understand what conventional truth is. without the understanding of absolute > truth, i.e. namas and rupas, we take computers and other conceptual truths for > being absolute truths. > > Sarah Actually, I think we're saying the exact same thing: The absolute truth of conventional truth is what conventional truth really is. The truth (absolute truth) of what a computer (conventional truth) is, is that it is not a computer (conventional truth) but a collection of cittas, cetasikas, and rupas that partake of no quality of self or permanent existence (absolute truth). Robert Ep. 8704 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 2:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Suan wrote: > In short, Mike's messages clearly demonstrated that he had no > intention of imposing on them Theravada views, and that he also had > no intention of letting them consider their views as part of > Theravada teaching. Hi, Suan, With respect, I don't believe that Mike's intention was to show us that our views 'were not part of Theravada'. My experience of Mike is that he tries to give his own best assessment of what is true in a certain discussion, and has no general agenda to point out what is or is not 'Theravada' as a general category. I think it is important to make this distinction, because it seems that you are trying to draw a clear line between what views accord to Theravada and which do not. While one may argue for this, I think it would be a mistake to assume that you or anyone else knows whether someone else is ultimately in accord with the teachings or not. The most sincere people can do is give their own assessment, without, as you say, disaparaging the sincere attempts to understand of others. I don't believe Mike would go so far as to say that he has a handle of what is or isn't 'Theravada', except according to his own sincere but necessarily limited understanding, as would we all. None of us are Buddhas, so it may not be our job to judge. Best, Robert Ep. 8705 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > What do you mean by a pure rupa? You mean that is something different in > ordinary rupa and pure rupa. It is only through the way we see things > that our inference of rupa is different. Even if we are able to discern > seeing a rupa, it is the mana side and not the rupa side. The rupa is > still rupa. It is only the mana that has change the way it look at the > rupa and not rupa has change. I agree with this. the only thing I would question is the idea that you know the rupa is a rupa. Since you only see it through nama, you have no way of knowing what the rupa really is, except that it appears and is interpreted by you in one way or another as an object. All you can know with greater clarity is how the mechanism of your own mind works, and how the objects it contains are constructed. Robert 8706 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:04pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Hello, Howard and Rob Ep, > > Hope you don't mind my butting in again. > > --- Howard wrote: > > > the > > Buddha said that nibbana is the end of suffering. I > > have always taken this in > > the sense of "Nibbana *marks* the end of suffering" > > or "The realization of > > nibbana results in the end of suffering". But what > > if, in fact, the Buddha > > meant this literally, and was *defining* nibbana as > > "the end of suffering"? > > What if "all" that he meant by nibbana was the state > > of absence of the three > > poisons, of mind functioning the same as always > > except freed of ignorance, > > craving, and aversion? > > As I understand it, the Buddha did define nibbaana as > 'the end of suffering'. However (maybe I'm wrong > but), as I understand it, nibbaana is not a > state--it's an event. I suppose that the knowledge of > nibbaana after the event is a matter of memory of the > event, recognition as of any other past event (though > supramundane, I guess), with its attendant > implications ('the holy life has been lived, what was > to be done has been done, birth is destroyed' etc.). > I welcome corrections from any abhidhammikas out there > if I'm mistaken (and thanks in advance). > > > I've been thinking about a > > post along these lines that > > I may write up soon and forward to the list. When I > > do that, perhaps we can > > take it up for discussion. > > Hope you will, Howard. > > mike > > > With metta, > > Howard > > 8707 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:07pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ --- Herman wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > Thanks for yur replies, and I hope you don't if I keep going on > with > > it. > > > > Does it follow from our discussion that there is more than one > stream > > of namas and rupas? > > > > > ____________ > > Dear Herman, > Yes, I think we can say that. For instance, the stream of namas amd > rupas that is conventionally known as Herman is a different from the > stream conventionally known as Robert. > best wishes > robert So each stream of namas and rupas is associated with the appearance and function of a particular body. Robert Ep. 8708 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:07pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re streams of namas/rupas... --- Herman wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Thank you again. Now for the next one :-) > > Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the > stream known as Robert? > > Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something at > all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa? > > Thanks again > > Herman > > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > > --- Herman wrote: > > > Dear Robert, > > > > > > Thanks for yur replies, and I hope you don't if I keep going on > > with > > > it. > > > > > > Does it follow from our discussion that there is more than one > > stream > > > of namas and rupas? > > > > > > > > ____________ > > > > Dear Herman, > > Yes, I think we can say that. For instance, the stream of namas amd > > rupas that is conventionally known as Herman is a different from > the > > stream conventionally known as Robert. > > best wishes > > robert It seems to me that this would be a good definition of interaction. Robert Ep. 8709 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Herman > > Please excuse me for butting in. Below are my personal views. > > "Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the > stream known as Robert?" > > They are of no difference it is only the different accumulations of each > stream that separate us from you and me. There is why some of us are born > rich or more intelligence or have different habits and our future > rebirth:) > > "Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something at > all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa?" > > They cannot overlap, if they overlap, kamma definition will be totally > refuted. Dear Kenneth, I don't totally agree with the above. I think in many instances, we are each other's assigned karma, and in that way we are designated to affect each other. As Sartre put it in his dramatic way, "Hell is other people". Robert Ep. 8710 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Suan > > I believe both me and Robert Ep knows that our views are not Thervada when > we discuss that :). At times, I just can't resist to let go one or two > from non-Thervada :) But the point that I would disagree would be: I think that when we discuss the realities that are spoken of in Theravada and try to determine what their outline and limits are, we may say things that are not conventionally accepted as Theravada, but we are trying to discover, just as others are, the truth of Theravada while learning about it at the same time. So it is possible that some conventional truths about Theravada are not the same as the actual truths expressed *in* Theravada, and perhaps through pushing some of these limits we may all discover some points that have been obscured. Perhaps it is arrogant to think that, but I for one believe in investigation. Sarah and others have pointed out that a lot of the teachings have been obscured and lost, and it takes all of us to discern what the truth really is. Buddha makes some specific references that point to a possibility of something more going on in Nibbana that is conventionally accepted. Howard, who certainly believes in Nibbana being an extinguishment of defilements, thinks that there is something else in the process not easily discerned. So we are working in the dark at this particular frontier, and I don't think it should be asserted that this investigation is 'outside of Theravada'. Just my opinion, and hope it isn't too defensive, but I don't want to be declared 'outside' of the teachings, before I have a chance to find out what they may be. Robert Ep. 8711 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert Ep, > > You wrote that > > The only thing that comes to mind at the moment is the Zen practice of > > shikantaza, an attempt to be aware of everything that takes place around > one while meditating without labelling any of it; and a Vipassana practice > of trying to be mindful of sounds, sensations, etc., without naming or > objectifying them. > > > > Hmm I do not see any difference in both practise as they their basis is > mindfullness. > Agreed. No basic difference. Just two places where you might find references to the practice of discerning objects directly. Robert Ep. 8712 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. --- Ken Howard wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > Thanks for your message, which, though slightly agonized, had a > hint of humor to > > it as well. It made me smile, which is always helpful to me. > > > > Whenever you get around to answering my post, I will be more than > happy to see it. > > Please take whatever time is necessary without any apprehension on > my account. > > > > I am curious though, what the sentence is that you found difficult > to understand. > > > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ====================== > > > > > Dear Robert Ep > > Thanks, I think I'm over it now. (And thanks also to Kenneth O, > Sarah and Mike for helping to pacify me.) > > What paralysed my brain was this opening paragraph of yours: > > "Wouldn't it also be a failure to see conditionality in everything to > see 'absolute teachings' as separate from `conditional ones'? If > everything is merely a condition which combines with other > conditions to have a beneficial or non-beneficial effect, then why > could not the Buddha use seemingly conditional statements to have > such effects just as well as he could use seemingly 'absolute' > statements?" > ____________ > We had been talking about absolute realities (parramatta > dhammas), and conventional realities (sammutti dhammas). There > was also talk of concepts (pannatti), which I engaged in without > really knowing how they were different from sammutti dhammas > (still don't). I also used the term, `conventional truth' meaning > logical concept or, more particularly, helpful logical concept > (conventional teaching). > > Then, this paragraph of yours threw in `conditional teachings' and > `absolute teachings' which, to my mind, brings in `conditioned > dhammas' and the `unconditioned dhamma' (nibbana), plus > perhaps, concepts again in that they are not conditioned (by virtue > of their not being real). Here we have `absolute' referring only to > nibbana, not to the other absolute realities. `Conditional' then > refers to . . . (I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT THERE!) > > If I could put it away for a few days, it might be as clear as > crystal, I don't know. By the way, I'm not suggesting you weren't > making sense, far from it. If you weren't, I would have had less > trouble skipping over it. > ______________ > Moving along; you also wrote: > Since any statement, whether pointing to conditional or absolute > reality will by virtue of being in language be a conceptual act, the > only way that Buddha could refrain from participating in > conventional reality would be to refrain from teaching altogether. > ________________ > Yes, all language is conceptual, some of it refers to other concepts, > some to absolute realities. > _________________ > Then you wrote: > Even by the act of teaching people, he has taken those who have no > permanent or actual existence as entities, and has treated them as > 'real' for the purposes of teaching. > __________________ > But has he? Or are we expected to see through the conceptual > language at every turn? Every time he says bhikkhu, bowl, > alms-round etc., aren't we to bear in mind, above all else, that there > is only seeing, hearing, . . . thinking and THEN the pannatti, the > non-real, -- bhikkhu, bowl etc.? I think we are. > _____________ > You continued; > Rather than say that this somehow compromises Buddha's absolute > standpoint, I would rather say that he is skillfully straddling the > line between using conditionality and denying its actuality, a line > which only a World-Teacher could maintain effectively. The Absolute is > what there is to transmit, and the conditional is the field of > skillful means he uses to transmit it. > ______________ > I'll leave that. > ______________ > Finally, you said; > There is nothing in my opinion, from how someone ties their shoes > to how they look upon the final cittas preceding entry into Nibbana, > that is not potentially part of the Buddha's pallette. And there is > almost nothing in human existence that he didn't talk about. > ______________ > Actually, I think it is said that he refused to engage in small talk. > (I know you're not suggesting otherwise.) I'm sorry I can't identify > just where, but in one sutta, he asked a woman where she was from. > She replied, "I don't know." She knew he wasn't just showing an > interest, that everything he said was Dhamma related,and so she > guessed, correctly, that he meant, where was she in her previous life. > > If he refused to engage in small talk, wouldn't he also refuse to > teach conventional realities (sammutti dhammas)? Like small talk, > they were common-place, in plentiful supply, and ineffectual in > providing final release from dukkha. > > To see the Middle Way is to realise that everything in this world is > anicca, dukkha and anatta, and so I think the Buddha saw conceptual > truths as a danger. He had to use them, but he would have refused to > teach them. > > Thanks again Robert, I may be taking my mere opinions too far, but I > think (hope), they are basically consistent with what I am learning > here at dsg. > > Kind regards > Ken Howard Thanks for your comments Ken. And for satisfying my curiosity. My point was mainly that the world is a series of conventions, but you are right: some point to the conventional, some point through the conventional to the absolute. However, I do think that Buddha sincerely taught certain ways of living and practicing that would be conducive to receiving the teachings more usefully, such as his instructions to the monks about how to conduct themselves. I think that almost everything he said probably functioned on the absolute level while possibly giving some information that would be conducive to understanding on the conventional level. Personally I don't see that as a contradiction. To give an absurd example, if I were a physics teacher and I were to say: 'Well I'm going to discuss particle physics with you. I suggest before we talk that you don't drink a bottle of whiskey, or you probably won't understand what I say' you wouldn't think: 'Well, he's a physics teacher so even his admonition about drinking must really be physics.' You would understand that I am giving you a useful piece of advice so that you will be able to have an intelligent understanding of the physics to come. Likewise, I think Buddha taught some practices that would affect the body and mind of the hearer and make the conditions for teaching more conducive. To struggle for a higher meaning in the Buddha telling us to avoid alcohol seems to be unnecessary when we can just take it literally and follow the instruction for obvious reasons. Best, Robert Ep. 8713 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah Thank you Sarah, for your good clarifications. Robert Ep. --- Sarah wrote: > > > Hi Rob Ep, Herman and Ken O, > > I’m going to take the liberty of adding Ken O’s recent post to me to comments > made by Rob Ep and Herman..(hope it’s not too confusing;-) > > > Robert Ep: > > > Of course, now that I have said this, it leaves me with a further > question. If we > > normally mistake concepts for objects and they are really 'nama' > not 'rupa' then > > what on earth *is* a genuine rupa? > > .................... > > Sarah: > > Ok, the concepts are neither namas or rupas..They are merely figments of our > imagination, i.e. concepts which can only be experienced by thinking about > them. They cannot be objects of awareness. > > Examples of more obvious rupas are: visible objects, sounds, smells, tastes, > hardness/softness and temperature. > > .................... > > Rob Ep: > > > They would all be subject to > the interference > > of conceptualization. > > .................... > > Sarah: > > Yes and no - they are experienced directly by namas, but thinking > conceptualizes them. Without any awareness or understanding, there is no > knowing when it is a rupa being experienced and when it is just thinking. > > .................... > > Rob Ep: > > > I will give myself a provisional answer to > my own question > > and then wait for further advice: we only see the pure rupa when > we have gotten > > to the point of discernment where we can distinguish the sensory > moment from the > > mental moment and experience the direct seeing of a physical > reality. > .................... > > Sarah: > > Yes, pretty much agreed ;-) Of course it’s awareness and not you or me which is > aware or discerns. (I’m slightly nervous of using ‘discerns’ because I note > that some people seem to use it for ‘be aware of’ and some people use it for > ‘experience’ as in citta/vinnana experiences an object). > > So this is why the very first vipassana nana (stage of insight) is clearly > knowing the difference (from direct experience and understanding of cours) > between namas and rupas. For this, there has to be awareness of different namas > and rupas over and over and over again as namas and rupas, not self. > .................... > > Herman: > > I do not believe there is ever seeing the rupa. There may be seeing > the light that emanated from the rupa, but it is not the rupa. The > rupa is always an inference. > > ................... > > Sarah: > > I think it’s really useful to question, as you’re doing, whether there really > is any direct seeing (or understanding) of any rupa (or nama). However, by > considering the details of what these realities are and understanding a little > more how it is not self, but nama which experiences them, there will be > conditions for understanding to grow and awareness to be aware directly. > > Take ‘sound’ now. There are many, many moments of hearing of sound, even while > we read messages. If it’s a particularly loud sound, there will be conditions > to think about it and build up a story ‘I wonder who that is on the phone and > so on’. Immediately we’re ‘lost in the story’. There is no awareness of sound > and thinking as different realities, distinct from concepts and stories. Even > so, sound is just the rupa which is experienced by hearing, regardless of its > particular quality.It lasts for a brief instant and then it’s gone. > > .................... > > Herman: > > The mind never deals with reality, but with a representation of it. > Even if one could foster awareness of the photon hitting the back of > the retina, the sensation of the photon impacting the retina is not > the same as the event. > > .................... > > Sarah: > > May I say that awareness cannot be fostered, but it can develop. When it is > aware of sound or visible object, there is no idea of photons or retina. It’s > actually much simpler, to my way of thinking. It’s just aware of what > ‘appears’. > > .................... > > Herman: > > Direct seeing sounds very mysterious to me. It somehow seems to > combine being and knowing... > > .................... > > Sarah: > > I think I prefer the ‘knowing’ without the ‘being’. Let’s call the ‘seeing’, > pa~n~na, which directly knows or understands a nama or rupa. For panna to arise > and develop, there has to be clear (intellectual) understanding of what namas > and rupas are to be known. Like you said (sorry, I just accidentally lost your > sentence on the screen), namas and rupas are dependent on each other and > condition each other. > > Is this Abhidhamma or Sutta stuff? Both. When we read about ‘The All’ and ‘The > World’. these are the very same realities which are being discussed. > > .................... > > Ken O: > > Hmm let me clarify my position. I am more concern over the word > "absolute" because to me it could be misleading as I stated in my previous > posts. Actually I agree with you that it starts with right understanding. > My reservations is that if we classify this as absolute then how do pple > like us who are convention in the first place to learn what is absolute. > It is just word bias. Sorry to cause such confusion. > > .................... > > Sarah: > > You’re not causing any confusion and these are really good questions. > > Absolute (paramattha) dhammas refer to those realities which really exist > momentarily, not just in our thoughts and imagination. We can say we live in a > conventional world in the sense that without any understanding we think there > is a self and a computer in actuality. In fact, we live in a world of absolute > realities. Whether or not there is any understanding, self and computer do not > exist in actuality..they are merely terms and labels and ideas that are given > to a combination of namas and rupas, the absolute realities. > > So it’s not that the world or the ‘all’ changes. What is seen, heard and so on > is just the same as before. The only difference is that as understanding grows > and ignorance reduces, the blinkers are slowly removed and panna begins to > ‘see’ what is there. > > We don’t have to use the term ‘absolute’ at all (especially if it sounds > ‘godly;-) we can just talk about feeling, hardness, like and dislike instead, > for example (or find a Chinese term we like better;-). > > Look forward to hearing more on these really (to my mind) useful points of > discussion.... > > Sarah > > Recommended reading > 1) ‘Realities and Concepts’ by K.Sujin > http://www.abhidhamma.org/ > > 2) Useful Posts plenty of past discussion on this: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > 8714 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:31pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Herman > "Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something > at all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa?" > > You cannot. An example would be bitten by an ant. Let us assume that you > are bitten while Robert is not. The pain (which is a stream of citta) is > experienced by you and not Robert. But I may be affectede by seeing Herman in pain, or upon hearing him tell about it, I may exprience something akin to it. So experience can be shared, just not in a certain way. Robert Ep. 8715 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:34pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Sarah wrote: 'Vist Savathi, one of the most important places asscociated with the life of > the Buddha. he spent his 14th pansa here and came back again for the 21st > pansa and the spent all the remaining pansa here -except the very last). in > all 25 rainy seasons were spent here. The Buddha delivered the major part of > his discourses also at Savatthi. It was here that the most famous of his > monasteries, the Jetavana, was situated- a gift from the rich merchant > Anathapindaka. Also visit Jetavana Vihara, a unique feature of this Vihara is > the paintings in the main shrine room. There are 31 panels in all illustrating > episodes in the life of the Buddha, with particular emphasis on those events > that have taken place at Savatthi.' > > Hope this gives you something other than computer problems to reflect on..... > > Sarah thanks! :] Robert 8716 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:47pm Subject: Namas and rupas (Rob.ep) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > > --- Herman wrote: > > > > > > Does it follow from our discussion that there is more than one > > stream > > > of namas and rupas?__________ > > > > Dear Herman, > > Yes, I think we can say that. For instance, the stream of namas amd > > rupas that is conventionally known as Herman is a different from the > > stream conventionally known as Robert. > > best wishes > > robert >________ > So each stream of namas and rupas is associated with the appearance and function > of a particular body. > Robert Ep. __________ dear Robert E., It depends what we mean by 'associated with the ...." As I said to Herman: "Let's first mentally check that we aren't having any idea of permanence or self in what we call Robert or Herman." Sometimes when we are talking about paramattha dhammas we might still have an idea that, say, herman or robert really exist. There is no Robert in the truest sense. However, there really are moments of changing phenomena. But let us be careful not to imagine that "Robert" is something different from these processes or that "Robert" is these processes, or that Robert is in these processes. Robert is simply a useful designation, a concept, but no reality. best wishes robert 8717 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 3:54pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... Hi Robert Ep, Hmm I am not an expert in Kamma :). Yes it is true that we do affect each other but it is still up to us to react. To my understanding here must be a point, we should not be affected by others or not how to attain Nibbana :) kind regards Kenneth Ong --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Herman > > > > Please excuse me for butting in. Below are my personal views. > > > > "Is the stream conventionlly known as Herman totally separate to the > > stream known as Robert?" > > > > They are of no difference it is only the different accumulations of > each > > stream that separate us from you and me. There is why some of us are > born > > rich or more intelligence or have different habits and our future > > rebirth:) > > > > "Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something at > > all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa?" > > > > They cannot overlap, if they overlap, kamma definition will be totally > > refuted. > > Dear Kenneth, > I don't totally agree with the above. I think in many instances, we are > each > other's assigned karma, and in that way we are designated to affect each > other. > > As Sartre put it in his dramatic way, "Hell is other people". > > Robert Ep. > > 8718 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:08pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah Hi Robert Ep, "> I agree with this. the only thing I would question is the idea that you > know the rupa is a rupa. Since you only see it through nama, you have no way of knowing what the rupa really is, except that it appears and is interpreted by you in one way or another as an object." When we know rupa is rupa is due to our to our habit of looking at things since countless lives. I think Buddha and Arahants would see rupa as what it really is. "All you can know with greater clarity is how the mechanism of your own mind works, and how the objects it contains are constructed." Hmm I think this should be our point of focus as now we are still condition by what is inside. It always interesting to talk to you :) Kindest regards Kenneth Ong 8719 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... Hi Robert Ep "But I may be affectede by seeing Herman in pain, or upon hearing him > tell about it, I may exprience something akin to it. So experience can be shared, just not in a certain way." I can't help myself not to smile at you. You are complicating matters. When I talk abt these streams, I meant internal conditions not external ones. I assuming that type of situations as external conditions. We do affected by external conditions but it is still internal that decides how we react :) Kind regards Kenneth Ong --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Herman > > > "Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something > > at all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa?" > > > > You cannot. An example would be bitten by an ant. Let us assume that > you > > are bitten while Robert is not. The pain (which is a stream of citta) > is > > experienced by you and not Robert. > > But I may be affectede by seeing Herman in pain, or upon hearing him > tell about > it, I may exprience something akin to it. So experience can be shared, > just not > in a certain way. > > Robert Ep. > 8720 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 5:05pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Robert Ep, I hope I am not asking you to cover old ground, if so , just point to the old ground, and I'll cover it :-) but you say that the computer is a collection of cittas, cetasikas, and rupas. Do you allow for the possibility that there are rupas arising all the time without sense bases to impinge on? If so, would you say that these rupas were inconsequential/without effect? Happy to hear your views Herman --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Drear Rob Ep and Ken O, > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote > > > > > Yeah, Kenneth, I think the point would be along the lines you say, that by > > seeing > > > what conventional truth really is, we see the absolute truth. > > > > I'd put it the other way round - by seeing or understanding absolute truth, we > > understand what conventional truth is. without the understanding of absolute > > truth, i.e. namas and rupas, we take computers and other conceptual truths for > > being absolute truths. > > > > Sarah > > Actually, I think we're saying the exact same thing: > > The absolute truth of conventional truth is what conventional truth really is. > > The truth (absolute truth) of what a computer (conventional truth) is, is that it > is not a computer (conventional truth) but a collection of cittas, cetasikas, and > rupas that partake of no quality of self or permanent existence (absolute truth). > > Robert Ep. 8721 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 5:30pm Subject: Sad News Dear Friends, I just got a message with the first bit of sad news from India. Amara, who has many friends here, has had to cut short her trip and return to Bangkok where her mother is sick. I don't know more details but have just sent her a note expressing my sympathy at hearing that she has to rush back, with all the worry for the long journey, and also for her mother who is a a really wonderful lady...very, very kind and with very good understanding and appreciation of the dhamma. I'm just mentioning this here, as I know some of you will wish to know and contact her. Sarah 8722 From: Herman Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 6:26pm Subject: Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... Kenneth, Next time please let the ant bite someone else. It did hurt :-) Sorry about that. Please explain more about internal and external. Are you just speaking conventionally? You're probably half joking when you say to Rob E that he's complicating matters, and I'm not really looking for a serious answer, but when was the last time you came across something that was simple, not compounded, not an aggregate, easy to understand :-) All the best Herman --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert Ep > > "But I may be affectede by seeing Herman in pain, or upon hearing him > > tell about it, I may exprience something akin to it. So experience can > be shared, just not in a certain way." > > I can't help myself not to smile at you. You are complicating matters. > When I talk abt these streams, I meant internal conditions not external > ones. I assuming that type of situations as external conditions. We do > affected by external conditions but it is still internal that decides how > we react :) > > > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Hi Herman > > > > > "Or is there some overlap? Can Herman be a condition for something > > > at all to arise or fail to arise in Robert, and vice versa?" > > > > > > You cannot. An example would be bitten by an ant. Let us assume that > > you > > > are bitten while Robert is not. The pain (which is a stream of citta) > > is > > > experienced by you and not Robert. > > > > But I may be affectede by seeing Herman in pain, or upon hearing him > > tell about > > it, I may exprience something akin to it. So experience can be shared, > > just not > > in a certain way. > > > > Robert Ep. > > > > > > 8723 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 7:08pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... Hi Herman Yup when we start getting all those aggregates combined together, things gets confusing. But that is the fun and interesting part by separating them again. Hmm I like conventional words to explain things because honestly I am not good at saying namas or rupas or cittas. I do not know how to explain internal and external in absolute terms. Kind regards Kenneth Ong --- Herman wrote: > Kenneth, > > Next time please let the ant bite someone else. It did hurt :-) Sorry > about that. > Please explain more about internal and external. Are you just > speaking conventionally? > > You're probably half joking when you say to Rob E that he's > complicating matters, and I'm not really looking for a serious > answer, but when was the last time you came across something that was > simple, not compounded, not an aggregate, easy to understand :-) > > All the best > > Herman > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep > > > > "But I may be affectede by seeing Herman in pain, or upon hearing > him > > > tell about it, I may exprience something akin to it. So > experience can > > be shared, just not in a certain way." > > > > I can't help myself not to smile at you. You are complicating > matters. > > When I talk abt these streams, I meant internal conditions not > external > > ones. I assuming that type of situations as external conditions. > We do > > affected by external conditions but it is still internal that > decides how > > we react :) > > > > > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > > 8724 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Sarah > > Actually, I think we're saying the exact same thing: > > The absolute truth of conventional truth is what conventional truth really > is. > > The truth (absolute truth) of what a computer (conventional truth) is, is > that it > is not a computer (conventional truth) but a collection of cittas, cetasikas, > and > rupas that partake of no quality of self or permanent existence (absolute > truth). ...................... Yes, good..that was easy, thanks;-)) sarah p.s Herman, have you done one of your calculations of Rob ep's typing speed (remember to allow for posts that get gobbled up too;-)) 8725 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable?- Ranil (was kusa... Dear Ranil, --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > If there is an enlightened person (an Arahath) that person should live in > the world according to the "excepted standard" (there should be a better > word to put here). That is, Buddha knew that actually there is no person or > self other than just punchas-scanda (rupa, vedana, sangna, sankara, > vingnana). But Buddha did not call people like "come here you > punchas-scanda", instead used the name of the person. So the "name" is an > "excepted standard". I am known as "Ranil" to the world though there is > actually nothing called "Ranil" - just a punchas-scanda. .................. very well put, Ranil ....I think it should be 'accepted standard' and I like this expression very much....to me it's like 'live normally' or 'naturally'... > Well, that was a small addition from me... look forward to many more, > ~mettha to all ...and to you too. Sarah 8726 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:44pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Dear Sarah and Rob. Ep., A finicky point: computers are "a collection of CITTAS, CETASIKAS and rupas"? robert Sarah wrote: > Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Sarah > > > > Actually, I think we're saying the exact same thing: > > > > The absolute truth of conventional truth is what conventional truth really > > is. > > > > The truth (absolute truth) of what a computer (conventional truth) is, is > > that it > > is not a computer (conventional truth) but a collection of cittas, cetasikas, > > and > > rupas that partake of no quality of self or permanent existence (absolute > > truth). > ...................... > > Yes, good..that was easy, thanks;-)) > > sarah > > p.s Herman, have you done one of your calculations of Rob ep's typing speed > (remember to allow for posts that get gobbled up too;-)) > > 8727 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:55pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Dear Sarah and Rob. Ep., > A finicky point: computers are "a collection of CITTAS, CETASIKAS and > rupas"? > robert Thanks Rob K for being finicky.....Rob Ep I'll have to get my stick out again......and check more carefully;-) S. 8728 From: Suan Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 11:51pm Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard: To Ken Dear Ken How are you? You wrote: "At times, I just can't resist to let go one or two from non-Thervada" According to Sigmund Freud, resistance to speak freely (stopping free association) is a problem that a psychoanalyt would try their best to solve by all means. So, personally I see no problem in you putting forward your learnt views. We could even benefit from knowing different views, couldn't we?. Gotama the Buddha had even delivered a special discourse (Brahmajaala Suttam) devoted to the discussion of 62 non-Theravada views in order to equip us with the ability to distinguish between Theravada view and non-Theravada or non- Buddhist views. So, if you need to think aloud from whatever perspective, you are welcome to do so. I believe that other dhamma friends on dsg also share the same sentiment. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org/ --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Suan > > I believe both me and Robert Ep knows that our views are not Thervada when > we discuss that :). At times, I just can't resist to let go one or two > from non-Thervada :) > > > > Cheers > Kenneth Ong > > > --- Suan wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Mike, Sarah, Ken, and Robert Epstein > > > > How are you? > > > > Sarah wrote: > > > > "I think we all appreciate the fine example of Mike's gentle speech > > and other excellent examples. Like you, I learn a lot from these." > > > > I agree with Sarah. > > > > I have been following the dialogues between Mike on one hand and Ken > > and Robert Epstein on the other hand- regarding bhavanga and etc. In > > fact, I did compose a supporting message to Sarah's remark on Mike's > > messages as gentle speech. Guess what? While I was reviewing the > > message before posting, Windows unexpectedly shut down and I lost > > what has been written. And it was after 2 a.m, and I was too sleepy > > to write a new message. > > > > The main points I made in the lost message were the way Mike tackled > > Ken O's and Robert's views from the standpoint of Theravada while at > > the same time letting them have their own views freely. Mike only > > made sure that they knew their views were not from Theravada. > > > > In short, Mike's messages clearly demonstrated that he had no > > intention of imposing on them Theravada views, and that he also had > > no intention of letting them consider their views as part of > > Theravada teaching. > > > > And Mike made sure that he achieved these goals with skill and > > gentleness. > > > > > > With regards, > > > > Suan > > > > > > http://www.bodhiology.org/ > > > > 8729 From: Suan Date: Fri Oct 19, 2001 0:51am Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard: To Robert Epstein Dear Robert E How are you? I am glad to hear from you. Thank you for correcting me with your refine argument. You wrote: "I think it is important to make this distinction, because it seems that you are trying to draw a clear line between what views accord to Theravada and which do not." I am afraid not, sir. As "Mike tries to give his own best assessment of what is true in a certain discussion,.." as you wrote, I merely tried to make sense of some of Mike's messages as best I can. Mike did point out in his messages that certain views were not according to Pali texts. I may have equated Pali texts with Theravada. If this were the issue, I apologize to you. You wrote: "I don't believe Mike would go so far as to say that he has a handle of what is or isn't 'Theravada', except according to his own sincere but necessarily limited understanding, as would we all.." If I remember correctly, Mike did go all the way to say that certain views did not (or might not) have backing from the Pali texts. In any case, if my message offended your sensitivities somehow, please kindly accept my apology. It is too late to withdraw it now! With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org/ --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Suan wrote: > > > In short, Mike's messages clearly demonstrated that he had no > > intention of imposing on them Theravada views, and that he also had > > no intention of letting them consider their views as part of > > Theravada teaching. > > Hi, Suan, > With respect, I don't believe that Mike's intention was to show us that our views > 'were not part of Theravada'. My experience of Mike is that he tries to give his > own best assessment of what is true in a certain discussion, and has no general > agenda to point out what is or is not 'Theravada' as a general category. > > I think it is important to make this distinction, because it seems that you are > trying to draw a clear line between what views accord to Theravada and which do > not. While one may argue for this, I think it would be a mistake to assume that > you or anyone else knows whether someone else is ultimately in accord with the > teachings or not. The most sincere people can do is give their own assessment, > without, as you say, disaparaging the sincere attempts to understand of others. > > I don't believe Mike would go so far as to say that he has a handle of what is or > isn't 'Theravada', except according to his own sincere but necessarily limited > understanding, as would we all. None of us are Buddhas, so it may not be our job > to judge. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > 8730 From: Howard Date: Thu Oct 18, 2001 11:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Robert (and Kenneth and Suan) - In a message dated 10/18/01 3:17:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > Howard, who certainly believes in > Nibbana being an extinguishment of defilements, thinks that there is > something > else in the process not easily discerned. So we are working in the dark at > this > particular frontier, and I don't think it should be asserted that this > investigation is 'outside of Theravada'. > ============================ Yes, something else involved. However, it may be no more than the perception of matters (to use an insipidly neutral term) as they actually are, and not misperceived as with a samsaric mind. So-called unmanifestive discernment need not be a contentless awareness, an amorphous "cosmic consciousness", but simply an awareness radically different from that reifying consciousness of the worldling so terribly defiled by the three poisons. We can attempt all sorts of characterizations involving terms such as 'non-dual', 'vast emptiness', 'neither arising nor ceasing', 'unborn', etc, etc, but the bottom line is, I think, that these are all proverbial moon-pointing fingers some of which may actually not even be pointing in the right direction! 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) 8731 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 19, 2001 4:57am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Ranil, If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there's nothing wrong with using conventional terms to refer to people and things, as the Buddha and the arahantas did. I do agree. Unfortunately I'm afraid I'm very clumsy when I try to alternate between conventional and 'abhidhammic' speech. Maybe enough just to bear in mind that these conventions are merely useful tools for handling concepts. As Robert K. said recently, "Robert is simply a useful designation, a concept, but no reality". --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > Dear Ken and m.nease > > > >>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. > > > >This is where we may disagree. The Buddha did > often > >give very mundane advice (the advantages of > >teeth-cleaning, e.g.). I'm not willing to say > that, > >because it isn't Abhidhamma, it isn't Dhamma. I > do, > >however, accept that Abhidhamma is somewhat more > >important than teeth-cleaning(!) and underlies and > is > >essential to all the Dhammavinaya. > > > I read your very interesting discussion. I also > would like to add a small > point to m. nease's comments. Buddha once said > ... > kusalo vidithwa, > Vohara maththena Soo vohareiya > > If there is an enlightened person (an Arahath) that > person should live in > the world according to the "excepted standard" > (there should be a better > word to put here). That is, Buddha knew that > actually there is no person or > self other than just punchas-scanda (rupa, vedana, > sangna, sankara, > vingnana). But Buddha did not call people like "come > here you > punchas-scanda", instead used the name of the > person. So the "name" is an > "excepted standard". I am known as "Ranil" to the > world though there is > actually nothing called "Ranil" - just a > punchas-scanda. > > Now this, Buddha said to an Arahath. So we just > normal people are no > exception - we "have" to live by the "excepted > standard". So living, > behaving, etc should be performed according to the > "excepted standard". No > one can live according to the "paramartha dhamma" - > (eg. I am actually not > existing). > > Well, that was a small addition from me... > > ~mettha to all > Ranil > > 8732 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Oct 19, 2001 11:52am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Mmm. The problem with nibbana as an event is that events occur, they > arise, and they are caused. I think that bodhi/enlightenment is an event, > namely the ceasing of the three poisons, whereas nibbana is not a thing or an > event, but rather is an absence, the absence of the three poisons. The moment > of complete enlightenment is the *realization* of nibbana. Nibbana does not > arise - an absence doesn't arise (except in a manner of speaking). What > happens is that the three poisons, and samsara, cease. This does indeed concur with everything I've learned and come to understand. Nibbana neither arises, nor ceases. (Hey, didn't Nagarjuna say something like that in the MMK? :) 8733 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Oct 19, 2001 0:03pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Ranil, > > If I understand you correctly, you're saying that > there's nothing wrong with using conventional terms to > refer to people and things, as the Buddha and the > arahantas did. I do agree. Unfortunately I'm afraid > I'm very clumsy when I try to alternate between > conventional and 'abhidhammic' speech. Maybe enough > just to bear in mind that these conventions are merely > useful tools for handling concepts. As Robert K. said > recently, "Robert is simply a useful designation, a > concept, but no reality". Hi Mike, And as such, this designation is "good enough". Why worry about contorting linguistic conventions to match some ideal of the emptiness of all things, when in our reality we still go "YEEEOWCH!" whenever we stub our toes!?!?! That's a much more immediate reality for those of us who tend to honesty about our collective condition, even if it isn't ultimately true there's a person in the form of a permanent entity hopping around on one foot cursing the devas! :) So long as the distinction betwen paramatta sacca and samutti sacca is understood, paramattha sacca is an excellent medicine applied at the right time (like when stubbing the toe), but it can't come at the expense of denying the samutti sacca fact there is what is termed pain arising all the same, conditioning screams, curses, etc.! Letting go of that identification (sinking our teeth into the "I" :) with the notion of a "true self" there experincing "my suffering" is the trick. Both truths can coexist harmoniously (though not in the direct perception of emptiness, when all conventional designations are temporarily annihilated). 8734 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 19, 2001 0:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah Dear Victor, sorry for the delay:-) Sarah: > 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. .................... 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: Let’s try another tack :-) Does the Buddha ever say there is a self outside the khandhas? :-) .................... Sarah: >For example, we can talk about seeing or hearing or > attachment as not self. We cannot talk about computer or any concept as having > no self because they are only concepts. .................... Victor: Rupa is impermanent. A computer is impermanent. Nama is impermanent. A concept is impermanent. .................... Sarah: As discussed elsewhere, namas and rupas are impermanent. What we take for a computer are many, many rupas. We have an idea of ‘computer’ owing to the seeing of visible objects, the perceptions, the thinking and many other conditions. ‘Computer’ itself is a concept. Anicca (impermanence) is one of the 3 characteristics that apply to all conditioned realities, not to concepts. If there is no longer thinking about ‘computer’, it’s true that there is no concept at that time. However it is the thinking that was real and now has fallen away. (Actually when I was caught out opting for an easy life and agreeing with Rob Ep over computers, I understood him to MEAN that when we take computers for being realities, it is on account of cittas, cetasikas and rupas that we do so) ..................... Victor: By speculative views I mean views that are based on assumption and speculation, views that do not lead to the cessation of dukkha. .................... Sarah: What do you understand by dukkha? What leads to the cessation of dukkha at this moment? .................... Sarah: >Do you agree that sati (and all other realities) are not self? .................... Victor: Sati is not self. Sati 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; Do you agree that all other realities are not self? .................... Victor: Sarah, how we use the word "self" reflects our understanding. .................... Sarah: How do you use ‘self’ or understand ‘self’? ..................... metta, Sarah 8735 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 19, 2001 0:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi Erik, --- rikpa21