8800 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 11:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... --- Howard wrote: So, indeed, we cannot change rock to water, > though I wouldn't rule out on the face of it the possibility of certain > advanced ariyans being able to change water to wine! ;-)) So, Howard, do you think Jesus studied that in the East? Best, Robert Ep. 8801 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 7:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/21/01 1:37:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- Howard wrote: > > ...I don't think that is what "Buddha Nature" > > is intended to mean. I believe it refers, rather, to the capacity of all > > sentient beings for enlightenment, and is related to the mind being > > inherently luminous (but defiled by adventitious elements). > > Howard, > I don't mean to switch sides, but I want to ask you a question or two I > would like > to be able to answer: > > If the mind is inherently luminous, yet obscured by defilements, can you > tell me: > > What does this mind look like? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Like nothing I've ever seen, actually. There is no mind, at least no "thing" called "mind". The term 'mind' is a conventional reference to a bunch of functions/operations within, apparently, a field of potential awareness. ----------------------------------------------------- > What space does it occupy? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: The question doesn't seem to make sense. ---------------------------------------------------- > hat is its nature, beyond being luminous, and how does it function? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: In a worldling, something along the lines of what is traditionally described as the five khandhas affected by clinging. When freed of defilement .. well, I shall have to wait to find out. There are numerous attempts to describe it, but I have no means of properly evaluating them. One which has some appeal to me is found in the Garland Sutra. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Hope you understand the spirit in which these questions are asked. > > [This is only a test] -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm sure I failed. If not, you are much too easy a grader! ;-)) -------------------------------------------------------- > > Best Regards, > 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) 8802 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 11:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah --- Sarah wrote: > Anyway, I still agree with the main message that by understanding more about > all these realities, we begin to see that what are taken usually for realities, > are in fact mere concepts. > > However, now, I'll have to pause before opting for that easy life of > just agreeing with you once in a while;-) But I like it when you agree with me! Robert Ep. 8803 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 11:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Howard wrote: > > In a message dated 10/21/01 1:37:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > If the mind is inherently luminous, yet obscured by defilements, can you > > tell me: > > > > What does this mind look like? > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Like nothing I've ever seen, actually. There is no mind, at least no > "thing" called "mind". The term 'mind' is a conventional reference to a bunch > of functions/operations within, apparently, a field of potential awareness. > -------------------------------------------------------- Can you say a little more about a field of potential awareness? -------------------------------------------------------- > > > What space does it occupy? > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The question doesn't seem to make sense. > ---------------------------------------------------- Well, is it in the 'brain', is mind without form and without location? Is it equal to the space of all phenomena? etc. ------------------------------------------------------ > > What is its nature, beyond being luminous, and how does it function? > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > In a worldling, something along the lines of what is traditionally > described as the five khandhas affected by clinging. When freed of defilement > .. well, I shall have to wait to find out. There are numerous attempts to > describe it, but I have no means of properly evaluating them. One which has > some appeal to me is found in the Garland Sutra. > -------------------------------------------------------- That sounds right. I'll have to take a look at the Garland Sutra some time. -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hope you understand the spirit in which these questions are asked. > > > > [This is only a test] > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm sure I failed. If not, you are much too easy a grader! ;-)) Just thought I'd take us on a bit of a Dharma romp, but I'm sure my questions were also not quite up to par! -------------------------------------------------------- Best Regards, Robert Ep. 8804 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 7:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 10/21/01 2:04:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Sorry Howard, I get carry away with the last part on Buddha Nature, let us > not further discuss abt it, before my good post mate Robert Ep come after > me again :). Let us focus on your questions again on your earlier email. > > > The entire citta/dhamma theory troubles me! Just one aspect of my > "problem": At a given point in time, for a quite miniscule period, a > citta is in effect (or occurs) together with a whole bunch of cetasikas, > this entire event having arisen due to causes and conditions no longer in > effect. What changes, then, result in that citta ceasing? The conditions > which resulted in its arising have *already* ceased! Moreover, that citta, > *while it is in effect*, is independent of any other conditions (it is > currently the whole enchilada), and when it ceases, it is completely > gone; this suggests to me a theory which simultaneously countenances both > substantialism and annihilationism! > > k: Let us use the word present and absent. Take for eg listening to a > song. When the the song is play, there is a presence of cittas to > perceive the songs. When it stops playing, we did not hear the song, then > there is an absence of cittas. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is correct. And at that time, there is no hearing of music. The previous hearing of music ceased, leaving in its wake, of course, various effects, including memory, for example. ------------------------------------------------------------- > Then we play again. If we followed your defintion that if cittas cease > (your definition is total annihilated) then we should not be able to hear > again. But in fact we could hear again. Why? > -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The ceasing of the previous hearing was just that. That previous hearing no longer exists, but its cessation didn't destroy the ability to hear, and with the coming together of appropriate conditions, there can be new hearing (with new "cittas"). --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Because in fact citta do not cease, they appear to cease but in fact they > just mere absent. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. When the old "cittas", to speak that way, ceased, they became absent, and when they became absent, they ceased. Two ways of saying the same thing. This does not preclude new "cittas" from arising when appropriate conditions are in place. Of course, the "new" cittas are not essentially new in the sense of being independent of everything else. Nothing is new in that sense. The whole business of perceiving separate, independent, self-existent "things" is a fundamental error to begin with, as is seeing a single, homogeneous "thing", as is seeing a total nothingness. There is a whole variety of alternative ways we worldlings misperceive the way things are. Eternalism is one of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The right causes and conditions are not there for it to be present. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, we agree on that except terminologically. Your terminlogy is based on the essentialist view of the Surangama Sutra which views hearing/auditory consciousness as a permanent "thing", much along the lines of the Sarvastivadins, rather than simply as a function which can arise from time to time when appropriate conditions are present. BTW, that Sutra was one of my favorites when I was moving from Vedanta to Dhamma, because it wasn't a big step. ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Let me say again, cittas do not cease, they are just absent. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I have given my reply. Our approach is different here. --------------------------------------------------------------- They will be > present when there is right causes and conditions and vice versea. that is > how citta functions. They are there but not present if the right causes > and conditions are not there. > > Why cittas functions like that or what makes them act like that, it is a > question of origination. > > I hope this helps. For your kind comments please > > > > > Kindest regards. > Kenneth Ong > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8805 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 7:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re streams of namas/rupas... Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 10/21/01 5:01:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Hi Robert Ep, > > I every reluctant to answer your question in Mahayana way. Yes, honestly > speaking, all exist in the mind (the mind of absolute reality). We are > clouded by this condition hence we thought there is outer and there is > inner. > > (Surangama Sutra). > All these six senses, the twelve ayatanas(six sense organs and six sense > data) and the eighteen realms of sense are appearing and dispearing within > the nature of the Tathagata store. These five aggregates fundamentally > are the same nature of the Tathagata store. > > > > For your kind comments please > > Kenenth Ong > =============================== Aiyeee! ;-)) You write " ... all exist in the mind (the mind of absolute reality)" This is why I say that the "Mahayana" of the Surangama Sutra is not far from Vedanta (and likewise for the substantialist idealism of the Lankavatara Sutra, another old love of mine). In what I quoted oy your writing above, one doesn't have to search hard to find Brahman! (Mind you, there is nothing wrong with being a cryto-Vedantist, or even a straight-out Vedantist. But I think I'm not mistaken when I see it as present.) 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) 8806 From: m. nease Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 0:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] dsg friends in India Great anecdotes RobEp--thanks very much for sharing. mike --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > This afternoon/evening, they're travelling to > Varanasi (Banares) where i hope > > to have contact. They'll be staying in Varanasi > for 3nts to visit Sarnath and > > Kosambi. > > Dear Sarah, > Just thought I'd mention that I've been to both > Varanasi and Sarnath twice before. > I went just for my own 'amusement' in 1989, then > again in 1996 when I dragged my > wife along for our honeymoon. That first time I was > on my own. I just had an > urge to see Nepal and India and also to visit a > couple of the places where the > Buddha had been. I really had no agenda. > > I ate some 'roadside chicken' with some of the > Nepalese guides in Nepal during a > bus trip to Pokhara, and my greed was rewarded with > a horrible illness. It > recurred again back in Katmandu. I had a high fever > to the point where I started > having sort of hallucinations. I was pretty scared, > but I was determined to get > to India, and not go home to the U.S. > > So I developed the idea that I would 'go to India to > get well'. In my slightly > altered state of consciousness, I thought this was a > very funny idea, since many > friends had warned me that I would get 'sick in > India'. So I thought, well, I'll > get well in India instead, since I'm already sick. > Funny arising cittas, eh? > > Well, I took a short plane ride from back in > Katmandu to Varanasi [45 minutes] and > got off in the middle of the night in Varanasi with > no plan and nowhere to go, > quite quite ill. I attached myself to a British > guy, and told him quite flatly > that I was going to go wherever he went! He > accepted and told me he wanted to be > close to the Ganges, so that he could go down there > at dawn and see folks coming > down for their prayers, etc. So he was not going to > stay at a 'good' hotel, but > one of the cheaper ones by the river. Well, I went > with him. And the place we > 'chose' was built of old green metal that had been > oxidized over many years. It > had bars on the windows and a shared bathroom and > shower in the hall. > > I went to sleep thinking 'Well if I die here at > least I'm in India and Varanasi is > supposed to guarantee a good death' [of course this > is on the Hindu side of > things]. My new friend woke me up at 5 in the > morning to go down to the river, > and guess what? I was all better. The fever had > broken and I just wasn't sick > anymore. I went down to the Ganges and went out in > a boat to watch the amazing > sunrise over the Ganges. > > I repeated the *good* part of this experience with > my wife when we went several > years later. She loved this part. Unfortunately we > got a bit sick again in India > this time, and wound up recuperating up in Simla in > the Himalayan foothills. But > that's another story. > > Anyway, Varanasi was quite amusing in a certain way. > The folks there had such a > long history, it made me laught to be an American > with our 200 year history! I > was talking to a restaurant owner, and he said > blithely: 'Well, my family has been > in this area for only 10, 000 years'. Boy, did I > have a laugh over that. In the > west, we really don't have that sense of continuity, > that brings us back to > ancient scriptures and makes us feel that we're > still connected to that reality. > > In India, it seemed that the results of arising > cittas was much more direct. I > would literally think of something and it would > manifest a little while later. > This happened several times. > > When I was up North in Haldwani in Uttar Pradesh > [trying to find a mysterious > ashram in the woods!] I kept getting lost in the > town. I would try to wander over > to my favorite Chinese restaurant [a little place > established there by a Chinese > guy who made his own type of food - it was great] > and then wander back to my > little hotel, and I would invariably get lost every > time. > > About three times when I was wandering around trying > to find my way, this young > guy on a motorcycle who spoke little English would > come and find me. He didn't > say anything, neither did I ever find out how he > knew me or how he happened to > come by when I was lost. He would motion for me to > hop on the motor bike behind > him, and he would drive me back to my hotel. I > always thanked him. He would > smile and drive off. I have no idea how this took > place, but I was very grateful > to be 'found' each time. > > When I went to Sarnath I went to the museum there. > They have a wonderful > collection of first century sculptures of the > Buddha. I found them quite > compelling. The giant Stupa at Sarnath is amazing, > marking the spot where Buddha > gave his first Sermon, if I've got it right. It was > quite wonderful to know I was > standing on that ground, and I can only imagine how > the current group feels going > to all those amazing spots. > > Thanks for sharing their ongoing journey. It makes > me feel that I'm back in that > area again. > > Regards, > Robert Ep. > > 8807 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 9:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Robert - This will be most unsatisfying, I am sure. In a message dated 10/21/01 11:31:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > Howard: > > Like nothing I've ever seen, actually. There is no mind, at least > no > > "thing" called "mind". The term 'mind' is a conventional reference to a > bunch > > of functions/operations within, apparently, a field of potential > awareness. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Can you say a little more about a field of potential awareness? ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I wish I could, but, no, not really. This notion of mine is quite vague. I'm sorry. I have a good sense of it, but not good enough to say anything very useful. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > What space does it occupy? > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > The question doesn't seem to make sense. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Well, is it in the 'brain', is mind without form and without location? Is > it > equal to the space of all phenomena? etc. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: 'Mind' is the term we use for all our mental functions, but thought of as an aggregate. Certainly, when a sentient being is a human being or higher animal, the brain is associated with mental function. That is undisputable, I think. But if this question of brain and physical location presupposes an "external world" which underlies and exists independent of (potential) experience, then the question is ill-formed for me. To me, speaking of brains and places and people and the entire variety of "external" phenomena is just that, a mere manner of speaking, albeit a useful one. (As a metaphor: When talking about a movie seen up on a screen, it is quite useful to discuss how beautiful a garden pictured there is, but, of course, there really is no garden there at all. But the metaphor breaks down, because, when it comes to the "mind", there really is no screen either!!) BTW, this must sound very much like I am espousing an idealism such as in the Lankavatara Sutra. Honestly, though, I am not. It is much closer to a kind of phenomenalism. ============================== 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) 8808 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 1:27am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Howard, You are confusing this with Surangama. There is nothing surangama here. I am most happy to discuss with anyone here who will say cittas cease (as defined by you as totally annihilated) during such a process (except for Nibbana). There is a whole world of difference between these two words, cease and absent. When we talk abt impermenance, it is not abt destruction and creation as they are mutally dependent. It is abt ever changing state. But what is this nature of ever changing state. Nobody can answer. Same as cittas, there are in ever changing state but what is its nature of this ever changing. Nobody can answer. Does its nature cease, it cannot because it is manifested when the right condition arise, but does its nature last forever, it cannot because it is ever changing. By the way my main book of Mahayana Doctrine is not Surangama, I have no fixed book of Mahayana Sutta. It is because of the questions ask here I got to use Surangama sutra as the five aggregates is widely discuss in Surangama. Actually if you really like to talk abt Mahayana, you are most weclome with me. It is just that I do not wish to explore certain area further as this list is not abt Mahayana. Kindest regards. Kenneth Ong --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Kenneth - > > In a message dated 10/21/01 2:04:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Kenneth Ong writes: > > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Sorry Howard, I get carry away with the last part on Buddha Nature, > let us > > not further discuss abt it, before my good post mate Robert Ep come > after > > me again :). Let us focus on your questions again on your earlier > email. > > > > > The entire citta/dhamma theory troubles me! Just one aspect of my > > "problem": At a given point in time, for a quite miniscule period, a > > citta is in effect (or occurs) together with a whole bunch of > cetasikas, > > this entire event having arisen due to causes and conditions no > longer in > > effect. What changes, then, result in that citta ceasing? The > conditions > > which resulted in its arising have *already* ceased! Moreover, that > citta, > > *while it is in effect*, is independent of any other conditions (it is > > currently the whole enchilada), and when it ceases, it is completely > > gone; this suggests to me a theory which simultaneously countenances > both > > substantialism and annihilationism! > > > > k: Let us use the word present and absent. Take for eg listening to > a > > song. When the the song is play, there is a presence of cittas to > > perceive the songs. When it stops playing, we did not hear the song, > then > > there is an absence of cittas. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That is correct. And at that time, there is no hearing of music. > The > previous hearing of music ceased, leaving in its wake, of course, > various > effects, including memory, for example. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Then we play again. If we followed your defintion that if cittas cease > > (your definition is total annihilated) then we should not be able to > hear > > again. But in fact we could hear again. Why? > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The ceasing of the previous hearing was just that. That previous > hearing no longer exists, but its cessation didn't destroy the ability > to > hear, and with the coming together of appropriate conditions, there can > be > new hearing (with new "cittas"). > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Because in fact citta do not cease, they appear to cease but in fact > they > > just mere absent. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No. When the old "cittas", to speak that way, ceased, they became > > absent, and when they became absent, they ceased. Two ways of saying the > same > thing. This does not preclude new "cittas" from arising when appropriate > > conditions are in place. Of course, the "new" cittas are not essentially > new > in the sense of being independent of everything else. Nothing is new in > that > sense. The whole business of perceiving separate, independent, > self-existent > "things" is a fundamental error to begin with, as is seeing a single, > homogeneous "thing", as is seeing a total nothingness. There is a whole > variety of alternative ways we worldlings misperceive the way things > are. > Eternalism is one of them. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The right causes and conditions are not there for it to be present. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, we agree on that except terminologically. Your terminlogy > is > based on the essentialist view of the Surangama Sutra which views > hearing/auditory consciousness as a permanent "thing", much along the > lines > of the Sarvastivadins, rather than simply as a function which can arise > from > time to time when appropriate conditions are present. BTW, that Sutra > was one > of my favorites when I was moving from Vedanta to Dhamma, because it > wasn't a > big step. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Let me say again, cittas do not cease, they are just absent. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I have given my reply. Our approach is different here. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > They will be > > present when there is right causes and conditions and vice versea. > that is > > how citta functions. They are there but not present if the right > causes > > and conditions are not there. > > > > Why cittas functions like that or what makes them act like that, it is > a > > question of origination. > > > > I hope this helps. For your kind comments please > > > > > > > > > > Kindest regards. > > Kenneth Ong > > 8809 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 10:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 10/21/01 1:28:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Hi Howard, > > You are confusing this with Surangama. There is nothing surangama here. I > am most happy to discuss with anyone here who will say cittas cease (as > defined by you as totally annihilated) during such a process (except for > Nibbana). There is a whole world of difference between these two words, > cease and absent. > > When we talk abt impermenance, it is not abt destruction and creation as > they are mutally dependent. It is abt ever changing state. But what is > this nature of ever changing state. Nobody can answer. Same as cittas, > there are in ever changing state but what is its nature of this ever > changing. Nobody can answer. Does its nature cease, it cannot because it > is manifested when the right condition arise, but does its nature last > forever, it cannot because it is ever changing. > > By the way my main book of Mahayana Doctrine is not Surangama, I have no > fixed book of Mahayana Sutta. It is because of the questions ask here I > got to use Surangama sutra as the five aggregates is widely discuss in > Surangama. Actually if you really like to talk abt Mahayana, you are most > weclome with me. It is just that I do not wish to explore certain area > further as this list is not abt Mahayana. > > > > > Kindest regards. > Kenneth Ong > ===================== It seems to me that you are presuming some underlying something that continues, yet changes state. That underlying something is not, as I see it, appreciably different from Brahman, or, on a less grand scale, the usual sense of self/I that we worldlings typically have. It is permanent, eternal, yet it changes. All that is needed to turn this into Vedanta is to say that the changing is mere illusion superimposed (somehow) on a substantial, undifferentiated reality. As I understand "Buddhist reality" it is neither eternal substance, nor momentary realities that are cut off, nor both, nor neither. I think that Nagarjuna understood it well, and he did amazingly well in expressing the inexpressible. Once we see, thoroughly, through and through, that no things remain, even for a moment, and that no things have separate being, then we also come to see that change, itself, is empty, there being no real existents which change. Then all is seen as unborn and unceasing, as in the Udana. But here I am pointing beyond my understanding and 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) 8810 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 3:08am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Howard wrote: > ....When the old "cittas", to speak that way, ceased, they became > absent, and when they became absent, they ceased. Two ways of saying the same > thing. This does not preclude new "cittas" from arising when appropriate > conditions are in place. Of course, the "new" cittas are not essentially new > in the sense of being independent of everything else. Nothing is new in that > sense. The whole business of perceiving separate, independent, self-existent > "things" is a fundamental error to begin with, as is seeing a single, > homogeneous "thing", as is seeing a total nothingness. There is a whole > variety of alternative ways we worldlings misperceive the way things are. > Eternalism is one of them. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The right causes and conditions are not there for it to be present. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, we agree on that except terminologically. Your terminlogy is > based on the essentialist view of the Surangama Sutra which views > hearing/auditory consciousness as a permanent "thing", much along the lines > of the Sarvastivadins, rather than simply as a function which can arise from > time to time when appropriate conditions are present. BTW, that Sutra was one > of my favorites when I was moving from Vedanta to Dhamma, because it wasn't a > big step. Hi Howard. Let me ask you, how do you distinguish the belief in an 'underlying field' of awareness that is potential until conditions arise to activate it from the eternalism of something continuing without beginning or end, and from the essentialism of believing that there is a 'real' existent thing or quality that does not arise or cease? I ask this because I believe as you do, in an underlying awareness or unmodified consciousness, and I'm trying to clear up the challenges that might be thrown at this. Hope you don't mind, Robert Ep. 8811 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 3:18am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] dsg friends in India --- "m. nease" wrote: > Great anecdotes RobEp--thanks very much for sharing. > > mike Thanks, Mike. I don't know why it is, but I really love being in that part of the world. Others sometimes see it as a difficult and even unpleasant terrain, especially aspects of travelling and accomodations in some of the areas, especially folks in U.S. or Western Europe. But I just love it. I knew I'd love it before I went, and went with no agenda, because I just wanted to travel freely for once in my life, and not have a schedule. I started out with two friends, but we split up before leaving Nepal. And being alone travelling in an unknown place was one of my best 'meditations'. I really couldn't hold onto either my idea of things or myself. I just had to accord with conditions and enjoy the moments. It was great. I would have gone back sooner than this for a third time if I hadn't gotten married and now have a three-year-old [who is an ideal meditation in and of her charming self!]. I have felt for a long time that India [including Nepal in my personal geography] is the 'motherland' in some way. I must have a strong karmic history with that region. Somehow I feel that just being in India is justification enough for being alive, and that I didn't really have to do anything to feel that I was accomplishing something. It's funny. I guess some people feel that way about California. That's just a joke!! I had planned to possibly go back to India with my wife, whose interests are a little different from mine, although she loved some of the sights, such as the Ganges at Varanasi, and the Taj Mahal. Wow it really is something. Anyway, when I said to my wife, 'Let's go back to India perhaps for our Fifth Anniversary' she looked me in the eye and said: 'I'm never going back to India again.' ha ha. Well, we just had our fifth anniversary [we married late, after 'assessing' each other for about 6 years previous] and still no talk of India. But I'm going to go eventually....hey, maybe in 2003 with this nice group!!! Best, Robert Ep. ============================== > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > > > This afternoon/evening, they're travelling to > > Varanasi (Banares) where i hope > > > to have contact. They'll be staying in Varanasi > > for 3nts to visit Sarnath and > > > Kosambi. > > > > Dear Sarah, > > Just thought I'd mention that I've been to both > > Varanasi and Sarnath twice before. > > I went just for my own 'amusement' in 1989, then > > again in 1996 when I dragged my > > wife along for our honeymoon. That first time I was > > on my own. I just had an > > urge to see Nepal and India and also to visit a > > couple of the places where the > > Buddha had been. I really had no agenda. > > > > I ate some 'roadside chicken' with some of the > > Nepalese guides in Nepal during a > > bus trip to Pokhara, and my greed was rewarded with > > a horrible illness. It > > recurred again back in Katmandu. I had a high fever > > to the point where I started > > having sort of hallucinations. I was pretty scared, > > but I was determined to get > > to India, and not go home to the U.S. > > > > So I developed the idea that I would 'go to India to > > get well'. In my slightly > > altered state of consciousness, I thought this was a > > very funny idea, since many > > friends had warned me that I would get 'sick in > > India'. So I thought, well, I'll > > get well in India instead, since I'm already sick. > > Funny arising cittas, eh? > > > > Well, I took a short plane ride from back in > > Katmandu to Varanasi [45 minutes] and > > got off in the middle of the night in Varanasi with > > no plan and nowhere to go, > > quite quite ill. I attached myself to a British > > guy, and told him quite flatly > > that I was going to go wherever he went! He > > accepted and told me he wanted to be > > close to the Ganges, so that he could go down there > > at dawn and see folks coming > > down for their prayers, etc. So he was not going to > > stay at a 'good' hotel, but > > one of the cheaper ones by the river. Well, I went > > with him. And the place we > > 'chose' was built of old green metal that had been > > oxidized over many years. It > > had bars on the windows and a shared bathroom and > > shower in the hall. > > > > I went to sleep thinking 'Well if I die here at > > least I'm in India and Varanasi is > > supposed to guarantee a good death' [of course this > > is on the Hindu side of > > things]. My new friend woke me up at 5 in the > > morning to go down to the river, > > and guess what? I was all better. The fever had > > broken and I just wasn't sick > > anymore. I went down to the Ganges and went out in > > a boat to watch the amazing > > sunrise over the Ganges. > > > > I repeated the *good* part of this experience with > > my wife when we went several > > years later. She loved this part. Unfortunately we > > got a bit sick again in India > > this time, and wound up recuperating up in Simla in > > the Himalayan foothills. But > > that's another story. > > > > Anyway, Varanasi was quite amusing in a certain way. > > The folks there had such a > > long history, it made me laught to be an American > > with our 200 year history! I > > was talking to a restaurant owner, and he said > > blithely: 'Well, my family has been > > in this area for only 10, 000 years'. Boy, did I > > have a laugh over that. In the > > west, we really don't have that sense of continuity, > > that brings us back to > > ancient scriptures and makes us feel that we're > > still connected to that reality. > > > > In India, it seemed that the results of arising > > cittas was much more direct. I > > would literally think of something and it would > > manifest a little while later. > > This happened several times. > > > > When I was up North in Haldwani in Uttar Pradesh > > [trying to find a mysterious > > ashram in the woods!] I kept getting lost in the > > town. I would try to wander over > > to my favorite Chinese restaurant [a little place > > established there by a Chinese > > guy who made his own type of food - it was great] > > and then wander back to my > > little hotel, and I would invariably get lost every > > time. > > > > About three times when I was wandering around trying > > to find my way, this young > > guy on a motorcycle who spoke little English would > > come and find me. He didn't > > say anything, neither did I ever find out how he > > knew me or how he happened to > > come by when I was lost. He would motion for me to > > hop on the motor bike behind > > him, and he would drive me back to my hotel. I > > always thanked him. He would > > smile and drive off. I have no idea how this took > > place, but I was very grateful > > to be 'found' each time. > > > > When I went to Sarnath I went to the museum there. > > They have a wonderful > > collection of first century sculptures of the > > Buddha. I found them quite > > compelling. The giant Stupa at Sarnath is amazing, > > marking the spot where Buddha > > gave his first Sermon, if I've got it right. It was > > quite wonderful to know I was > > standing on that ground, and I can only imagine how > > the current group feels going > > to all those amazing spots. > > > > Thanks for sharing their ongoing journey. It makes > > me feel that I'm back in that > > area again. > > > > Regards, > > Robert Ep. 8812 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 11:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/21/01 3:09:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- Howard wrote: > > > ....When the old "cittas", to speak that way, ceased, they became > > absent, and when they became absent, they ceased. Two ways of saying the > same > > thing. This does not preclude new "cittas" from arising when appropriate > > conditions are in place. Of course, the "new" cittas are not essentially > new > > in the sense of being independent of everything else. Nothing is new in > that > > sense. The whole business of perceiving separate, independent, > self-existent > > "things" is a fundamental error to begin with, as is seeing a single, > > homogeneous "thing", as is seeing a total nothingness. There is a whole > > variety of alternative ways we worldlings misperceive the way things are. > > Eternalism is one of them. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > The right causes and conditions are not there for it to be present. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Well, we agree on that except terminologically. Your terminlogy is > > based on the essentialist view of the Surangama Sutra which views > > hearing/auditory consciousness as a permanent "thing", much along the > lines > > of the Sarvastivadins, rather than simply as a function which can arise > from > > time to time when appropriate conditions are present. BTW, that Sutra was > one > > of my favorites when I was moving from Vedanta to Dhamma, because it > wasn't a > > big step. > > Hi Howard. > Let me ask you, how do you distinguish the belief in an 'underlying field' > of > awareness that is potential until conditions arise to activate it from the > eternalism of something continuing without beginning or end, and from the > essentialism of believing that there is a 'real' existent thing or quality > that > does not arise or cease? > > I ask this because I believe as you do, in an underlying awareness or > unmodified > consciousness, and I'm trying to clear up the challenges that might be > thrown at > this. > > Hope you don't mind, > Robert Ep. > > ======================= I actually expected to be challenged on that, and exactly as you have done! ;-)) As I said, I am unclear about this concept, and am not invested in it. However, roughly what I mean by a "field of awareness" is a range of potential experience available to us at any time, and from which we "actualize" specific experience due to a variety of factors including kamma and personal interest. That range of potential experience, i.e., what we can observe, is a joint creation of the kamma of many sentient beings. Perhaps it corresponds to the notion of 'dharmadhatu' in Mahayana, but I don't understand that concept sufficiently to say yes or no. In any case, I do *not* think of a field of awareness as some sort of undifferentiated, cosmic consciousness, as some sort of mental "substance", or as an underlying "reality", but just as a range of potential experience. Whether this helps or not I don't know. I apologize for the inchoateness of my formulation. It matches my understanding! ;-)) 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) 8813 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 3:30am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > This will be most unsatisfying, I am sure. In a message dated 10/21/01 > 11:31:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > > > > Howard: > > > Like nothing I've ever seen, actually. There is no mind, at least > > no > > > "thing" called "mind". The term 'mind' is a conventional reference to a > > bunch > > > of functions/operations within, apparently, a field of potential > > awareness. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Can you say a little more about a field of potential awareness? > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I wish I could, but, no, not really. This notion of mine is quite > vague. I'm sorry. I have a good sense of it, but not good enough to say > anything very useful. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > What space does it occupy? > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > The question doesn't seem to make sense. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Well, is it in the 'brain', is mind without form and without location? Is > > it > > equal to the space of all phenomena? etc. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > 'Mind' is the term we use for all our mental functions, but thought of > as an aggregate. Certainly, when a sentient being is a human being or higher > animal, the brain is associated with mental function. That is undisputable, I > think. But if this question of brain and physical location presupposes an > "external world" which underlies and exists independent of (potential) > experience, then the question is ill-formed for me. To me, speaking of brains > and places and people and the entire variety of "external" phenomena is just > that, a mere manner of speaking, albeit a useful one. (As a metaphor: When > talking about a movie seen up on a screen, it is quite useful to discuss how > beautiful a garden pictured there is, but, of course, there really is no > garden there at all. But the metaphor breaks down, because, when it comes to > the "mind", there really is no screen either!!) BTW, this must sound very > much like I am espousing an idealism such as in the Lankavatara Sutra. > Honestly, though, I am not. It is much closer to a kind of phenomenalism. > ============================== > With metta, > Howard Dear Howard, Why on earth would you think this would be unsatisfying to me? I love it. The cittas are flying. The cetasikas are working overtime. I may have even produced a few new brain cells, or at least newly wired synaptic connections, although I know that is only a metaphor for the kinds of twisting citta-combinations that the roller-coaster-like 'mind' [also a metaphor] can come up with at times. Okay, I'll calm down and stop kidding around. Your answer starts to address some of the issues I am aiming at. I take it that you agree with me, then, in my answer to Kenneth, that one cannot assume a 'real world of objects' just because one's perception of them seems to repeat in a kind of stable fashion. This can be an attribute of the way thoughts and perceptions interpret incoming pheneomena. Where and how the phenomena come in to be processed is uncertain, and comes from an uncertain source from our human standpoint. The idea of a projected movie, but without a screen, and perhaps even without a projector, makes sense to me. From within the experience of a dream, the dream figures seem to follow certain stable laws, of hardness, opacity, etc. There is a relationship of action and sometimes perception between dream subjects and objects. Yet, when one awakens, it is all seen to be a fabrication, real as a dream, but only as a projection of consciousness. One realizes when awakening from a dream that one has not only slept and dreamed this entire tale, but that the tale never took place, and that all the consequences of the dream never took place at all. I wonder if karma is like this as well. Obviously, that which is left over in Nibbana, whether it is pure cessation, as some here think, or an empty canvas of consciousness, as some of us think, has no more karmic impingements, and all of the problems of the kandhas and kammas are dissolved like smoke. One may disagree over whether there is anything at the end of the journey that resembles a 'true self' or a foundational consciousness, but we all pretty much agree that all that has seemed to impinge on 'us' was not really affecting any reality of our existence, and in fact the 'us' that may have been impinged was not 'us' after all. We are either a 'pure conscoiusness' at root, for those who cling to such a notion, such as myself, or we are a 'pure arising of phenomena' with no self at center. If such a being loses a leg, for instance, we can bemoan our fate, but it is not really our fate and not really our body, seen at a higher level. So the dream or projected film metaphors function on that level. Phew. Better stop rambling. I have no idea what sorts of kammic uprisings I may have engendered from the content of such a diatribe. But I thank you, Howard, for responding to all of my cosmic queries with such equanimity. Regards, Robert Ep. 8814 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 3:40am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Kenneth, I think the answer for most on this list is that the deepest nature of both beings and phenomena are anatta and anicca. I have not been used to looking at anatta as a 'nature' or essence, since it is a negation and thus doesn't indicate anything to me. But that is exactly, I think, the point of the pure Theravadins on this list: that anatta being the deepest nature of everything, there is absolutely nothing to hang onto about oneself or any effect that is caused or any arising phenomena. They are all absolutely freely arisen with no causal factor other than the factors that have arisen and vanished in the arising conditions immediately prior, and previous material or influences which that immediately arising and ceasing condition has carried with it and passed to the next arising set of co-arising conditions. Anicca is the complementary component to anatta, because if something has no central entity, it also has nothing that can outlast the moment. So impermanence and non-entity work together to insure that there is nothing to identify as a real self, and nothing to hold onto in the shifting stream of time and shifting conditions and effects. There is nothing to do but sit back and become more discerning of what is happening. There is no action to take which is not ordained by some other action. I think this is a very deep and comprehensible philosophy, with a little effort. But it is very difficult to take. I think this philosophy is even a good medicine for those like myself who believe that there is something else involved in the process. Why? Because it erases or reveals the slightest clinging to a notion of self. Even if there were that primordial consciousness at the end of the rainbow which I feel is there, any notion I may have of it or cling to is in fact not 'it', because it is also, whatever it is, necessarily beyond clinging to self or possession. The surest medicine for everyone, Theravadin or Mahayanist, is to know that every notion we have of self or dhamma or Nibbana, is false, and is just grist for the mill of discernment. Whatever is at the end of the journey, this is still the medicine that erases and reveals all clingings. I think that is why some of us that tend towards Mahayana have been attracted to this list and its understandings. We who tend to be idealist need a good dose of anatta to reveal our subtle clingings to self, and there is no real substitute for this. It is a rigorous and demanding process, to eradicate the notion of something there to hold onto or to 'salvage' from the enlightenment process. We will all agree, I think, that even our most precious notions will have to be washed out in the trickle and eventual flood of discernment. Regards, Robert =========================== --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Howard, > > You are confusing this with Surangama. There is nothing surangama here. I > am most happy to discuss with anyone here who will say cittas cease (as > defined by you as totally annihilated) during such a process (except for > Nibbana). There is a whole world of difference between these two words, > cease and absent. > > When we talk abt impermenance, it is not abt destruction and creation as > they are mutally dependent. It is abt ever changing state. But what is > this nature of ever changing state. Nobody can answer. Same as cittas, > there are in ever changing state but what is its nature of this ever > changing. Nobody can answer. Does its nature cease, it cannot because it > is manifested when the right condition arise, but does its nature last > forever, it cannot because it is ever changing. > > By the way my main book of Mahayana Doctrine is not Surangama, I have no > fixed book of Mahayana Sutta. It is because of the questions ask here I > got to use Surangama sutra as the five aggregates is widely discuss in > Surangama. Actually if you really like to talk abt Mahayana, you are most > weclome with me. It is just that I do not wish to explore certain area > further as this list is not abt Mahayana. > > > > > Kindest regards. > Kenneth Ong 8815 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 11:40pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/21/01 3:31:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > Dear Howard, > Why on earth would you think this would be unsatisfying to me? I love it. > The > cittas are flying. The cetasikas are working overtime. I may have even > produced > a few new brain cells, or at least newly wired synaptic connections, > although I > know that is only a metaphor for the kinds of twisting citta-combinations > that the > roller-coaster-like 'mind' [also a metaphor] can come up with at times. > > Okay, I'll calm down and stop kidding around. > ------------------------------------------------- ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ > Your answer starts to address some of the issues I am aiming at. I take it > that > you agree with me, then, in my answer to Kenneth, that one cannot assume a > 'real > world of objects' just because one's perception of them seems to repeat in > a kind > of stable fashion. This can be an attribute of the way thoughts and > perceptions > interpret incoming pheneomena. Where and how the phenomena come in to be > processed is uncertain, and comes from an uncertain source from our human > standpoint. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. We agree. Perhaps my position is a bit more radical. I take the pragmatic position that what is in principle unknowable (in this discussion, a neumenon underlying phenomena) is as good as non-existent. --------------------------------------------- > > The idea of a projected movie, but without a screen, and perhaps even > without a > projector, makes sense to me. From within the experience of a dream, the > dream > figures seem to follow certain stable laws, of hardness, opacity, etc. > There is a > relationship of action and sometimes perception between dream subjects and > objects. Yet, when one awakens, it is all seen to be a fabrication, real > as a > dream, but only as a projection of consciousness. One realizes when > awakening > from a dream that one has not only slept and dreamed this entire tale, but > that > the tale never took place, and that all the consequences of the dream never > took > place at all. > > I wonder if karma is like this as well. Obviously, that which is left over > in > Nibbana, whether it is pure cessation, as some here think, or an empty > canvas of > consciousness, as some of us think, has no more karmic impingements, and > all of > the problems of the kandhas and kammas are dissolved like smoke. One may > disagree > over whether there is anything at the end of the journey that resembles a > 'true > self' or a foundational consciousness, but we all pretty much agree that > all that > has seemed to impinge on 'us' was not really affecting any reality of our > existence, and in fact the 'us' that may have been impinged was not 'us' > after > all. We are either a 'pure conscoiusness' at root, for those who cling to > such a > notion, such as myself, or we are a 'pure arising of phenomena' with no > self at > center. If such a being loses a leg, for instance, we can bemoan our fate, > but it > is not really our fate and not really our body, seen at a higher level. > > So the dream or projected film metaphors function on that level. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that dream analogy is *very* useful! --------------------------------------------------- > > Phew. Better stop rambling. I have no idea what sorts of kammic uprisings > I may > have engendered from the content of such a diatribe. But I thank you, > Howard, for > responding to all of my cosmic queries with such equanimity. > > Regards, > Robert Ep. > ============================ A pleasure "talking" with you, 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) 8816 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 3:45am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/21/01 3:09:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > > > ....When the old "cittas", to speak that way, ceased, they became > > > absent, and when they became absent, they ceased. Two ways of saying the > > same > > > thing. This does not preclude new "cittas" from arising when appropriate > > > conditions are in place. Of course, the "new" cittas are not essentially > > new > > > in the sense of being independent of everything else. Nothing is new in > > that > > > sense. The whole business of perceiving separate, independent, > > self-existent > > > "things" is a fundamental error to begin with, as is seeing a single, > > > homogeneous "thing", as is seeing a total nothingness. There is a whole > > > variety of alternative ways we worldlings misperceive the way things are. > > > Eternalism is one of them. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > The right causes and conditions are not there for it to be present. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Well, we agree on that except terminologically. Your terminlogy is > > > based on the essentialist view of the Surangama Sutra which views > > > hearing/auditory consciousness as a permanent "thing", much along the > > lines > > > of the Sarvastivadins, rather than simply as a function which can arise > > from > > > time to time when appropriate conditions are present. BTW, that Sutra was > > one > > > of my favorites when I was moving from Vedanta to Dhamma, because it > > wasn't a > > > big step. > > > > Hi Howard. > > Let me ask you, how do you distinguish the belief in an 'underlying field' > > of > > awareness that is potential until conditions arise to activate it from the > > eternalism of something continuing without beginning or end, and from the > > essentialism of believing that there is a 'real' existent thing or quality > > that > > does not arise or cease? > > > > I ask this because I believe as you do, in an underlying awareness or > > unmodified > > consciousness, and I'm trying to clear up the challenges that might be > > thrown at > > this. > > > > Hope you don't mind, > > Robert Ep. > > > > > ======================= > I actually expected to be challenged on that, and exactly as you have > done! ;-)) As I said, I am unclear about this concept, and am not invested in > it. However, roughly what I mean by a "field of awareness" is a range of > potential experience available to us at any time, and from which we > "actualize" specific experience due to a variety of factors including kamma > and personal interest. That range of potential experience, i.e., what we can > observe, is a joint creation of the kamma of many sentient beings. Perhaps it > corresponds to the notion of 'dharmadhatu' in Mahayana, but I don't > understand that concept sufficiently to say yes or no. In any case, I do > *not* think of a field of awareness as some sort of undifferentiated, cosmic > consciousness, as some sort of mental "substance", or as an underlying > "reality", but just as a range of potential experience. Whether this helps or > not I don't know. I apologize for the inchoateness of my formulation. It > matches my understanding! ;-)) Dear Howard, You also said something else that was interesting: I think it was you....You postulated that one might have Nibbana without cessation of experience but with cessation of attachment. Was that you? In any case I thought it was very interesting. Obviously if one were past having any defiled response or clingings to things, the flow of phenomena could continue without impinging in any way. No? I think this may define Nibbana for some folks here, but not Parinibbana, in which even the unattached arising of phenomena ceases permanently. But then, one has to ask, ceases for whom? If it ceases, hasn't one postulated an entity by its absence? I am really getting deep today. [deep into trouble that is!] Robert Ep. 8817 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 3:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Howard wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think that dream analogy is *very* useful! > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Phew. Better stop rambling. I have no idea what sorts of kammic uprisings > > I may > > have engendered from the content of such a diatribe. But I thank you, > > Howard, for > > responding to all of my cosmic queries with such equanimity. > > > > Regards, > > Robert Ep. > > > ============================ > A pleasure "talking" with you, Robert. > > With metta, > Howard :] 8818 From: craig garner Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 3:59am Subject: is time that I got In to you might be a better way to say it. I spoke to Barry which was good as allways and I am glad all is falling in to place just like I said it would(what a big head!) well I have to be good at something. 8819 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 7:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Horses and medicine [Erik] Hi Erik, I'm in a Monday-morning-rush, but just wanted to say that I thought your post was hysterical...in fact when Jon called me from the gas station in the middle of nowhere in Indiaand asked about my wekend, I started telling him about it (he had no idea what I was talking about ;-) I'm just waiting with lots of lobha for Dan's response....(Dan, just beg your wife and kids for a little extra time to continue this;-) Btw, you guys, the Buddha was an expert on horses and you might like to incorporate any of these suttas: 1. Four Thoroughbreads AN 1V, 113 (p105 BB's Numerical discourses) 2. The Thoroughbred AN. V111, (1V,188 pali) (PTS AN1V p130) 3. Kesi Sutta, AN 1V, 111 2.--- rikpa21 wrote: > --- Dan D wrote: Btw, Dan, i hope your wife is still reading some of the posts..pls tell her we'd be delighted to hear from her anytime as well....she doesn't need your wit and style;-) Erik, you could suggest this great new style of yours to other Tibetan debaters for a change - very refreshing;-) Thanks both of you, Sarah (still chuckling) > Howdy, Dan, > > > At the same time, it should be recognized that "applying medicine" > is > > not the Path and not a part of the Path, though kusala it may at > > times be. I think we are even in agreement on this, despite the > > differences in nuance about what we understand the word "Path" to > > mean. > > Whoa there, pard'ner! Sounds like you been practicin' a-twirlin' that > lasoo a bit lately, and plumb forgot that the Trail to the Promised > Land we're all a-ridin' also means, in addition to knowing the > destination (Right View), things like Right Livelihood (we ain't > leadin' no calves to slaughter now, I hope!), and the occasional kick > with the spurs of Right Effort to keep our direction a-forward-movin' > and steadfast, the right clicks of the tongue and whistles with Right > Speech to keep our trusty steeds in line, and keepin' our eyes on the > trail ahead of us with Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration if'n > we want to avoid taking the trail that leads down into some steep > gully our horses can't get back out of again! 8820 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 8:43am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Howard, > As I understand "Buddhist reality" it is neither eternal > substance, nor momentary realities that are cut off, nor both, nor neither. I think that Nagarjuna understood it well, and he did amazingly well in expressing the inexpressible. Once we see, thoroughly, through and through, that no things remain, even for a moment, and that no things have separate being, then we also come to see that change, itself, is empty, there being no real existents which change. Then all is seen as unborn and unceasing, as in the Udana. But here I am pointing beyond my understanding and experience. k: Buddist reality is beyond is and is not, beyond dualism and oneness. that is why Buddha Nature as said by Nagarjuna is beyond expression, how do we express something that is incomprensible by our conditional mind. We could only infer meaning to. Actually I would like to address Robert Ep question again in a more conventional way. Let us use the objects of the mind as discussed between me and Robert Ep , If objects of the mind is in the mind, then the mind must be able to locate it (or the mind must be heavy with objects). if it does not in the mind, how do we perceived it in the first place. The problem with pple like me, we tend to see things as "is" and hence the teachings is seen to be taught as "is not". In fact the pivotal teaching of Sati is based on neither "is" nor "is not". The nature of cittas is in fact not explain in Thervada and is everybody guess. I am implying that nature of cittas is Buddha Nature as it is also unexplainable. The reason is because Buddha said that Buddha nature is in us, that is how I infer it. Even if you assume that what Nagarjuna said that it is inexpressible, isn't it also a problem of substantiality. Similarily, isn't Nibbana also a substantiality problem. I have told you in my previous email, there is always this problem of substantiality in Buddhism due to words that is expressing the inexpressible. Hence I am relunctant to engage anyone to discuss Buddha Nature because we will eventually got this problem of substantiality due to words. Similarly to your questions of Luminious mind, isn't it also a question of substantility. If it is not why should we talk abt the luminious mind in the first place, what are we hoping for. Even if we know, does it help us understand what is inexpressible in the first place. Kindest regards Kenneth Ong --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Kenneth - > > In a message dated 10/21/01 1:28:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Kenneth Ong writes: > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > You are confusing this with Surangama. There is nothing surangama > here. I > > am most happy to discuss with anyone here who will say cittas cease > (as > > defined by you as totally annihilated) during such a process (except > for > > Nibbana). There is a whole world of difference between these two > words, > > cease and absent. > > > > When we talk abt impermenance, it is not abt destruction and creation > as > > they are mutally dependent. It is abt ever changing state. But what > is > > this nature of ever changing state. Nobody can answer. Same as > cittas, > > there are in ever changing state but what is its nature of this ever > > changing. Nobody can answer. Does its nature cease, it cannot > because it > > is manifested when the right condition arise, but does its nature last > > forever, it cannot because it is ever changing. > > > > By the way my main book of Mahayana Doctrine is not Surangama, I have > no > > fixed book of Mahayana Sutta. It is because of the questions ask here > I > > got to use Surangama sutra as the five aggregates is widely discuss in > > Surangama. Actually if you really like to talk abt Mahayana, you are > most > > weclome with me. It is just that I do not wish to explore certain > area > > further as this list is not abt Mahayana. > > > > > > > > > > Kindest regards. > > Kenneth Ong > > > ===================== > It seems to me that you are presuming some underlying something > that > continues, yet changes state. That underlying something is not, as I see > it, > appreciably different from Brahman, or, on a less grand scale, the usual > > sense of self/I that we worldlings typically have. It is permanent, > eternal, > yet it changes. All that is needed to turn this into Vedanta is to say > that > the changing is mere illusion superimposed (somehow) on a substantial, > undifferentiated reality. > As I understand "Buddhist reality" it is neither eternal > substance, > nor momentary realities that are cut off, nor both, nor neither. I think > that > Nagarjuna understood it well, and he did amazingly well in expressing > the > inexpressible. Once we see, thoroughly, through and through, that no > things > remain, even for a moment, and that no things have separate being, then > we > also come to see that change, itself, is empty, there being no real > existents > which change. Then all is seen as unborn and unceasing, as in the Udana. > But > here I am pointing beyond my understanding and 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) > 8821 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 9:06am Subject: Re: Where do cittas and cetasikas arise? Dear Robert, I value these posts enormously. The sense bases are rupas. What is the mind base/door? Thank you Herman --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > > > > > ROBERT K: ...Cittas are conditioned phenomena and different cittas > > > need different bases to arise. the type of citta that is cakkhu- > > > vinnana (eye consciousness)can only arise at that very refined > rupa > > > called cakhhu pasada (eye base). This type of rupa is conditioned > by > > > kamma and arises in the center of the eye - it is such a subtle > rupa. > > > All eye consciousness has to arise dependent on this type of rupa > and > > > cannot arise anywhere else. Another example: the body > consciousness > > > depends on very subtle rupa that pervades the body . This type of > > > consciousness can arise anywhere in the body. > > > The different types of citta are different depending on the > base. > > > > Thanks, Rob K. > > I take it from this that not only are cittas' and rupas' arising > dependent on > > occurence within a physical body, but that they are even more > specific as to what > > sense-door or mind-doors they might operate in relation to. Very > interesting. > > > > Thanks again. > Robert Epstein > > > _________________ > Dear Rob Ep. > Yes, extremely specific as to what door. The cittas that arise at the > eyedoor can only ever arise there - they cannot arise anywhere else. > Until we hear the Dhamma we have an idea that it is pretty much the > same mind that carries on. Even many Buddhists have the idea that > while the mind changes it is still "my" mind. Sometimes people are > confused about rebirth too.They think it is the same citta that > carries on. But the citta, for example, that is seeing consciouness > (cakkhu vinnana) arises and falls away there and then. It can't even > move to the ear door (for example): the citta that hears is a > different citta and arises dependent on different conditions: > Thus the Buddha says in effect according to the Majjhima nikaya > atthakatha(sutta 38) that(see bodhi note 404, p1231)"In the occurence > of consciousness there is not even the mere transmigration from door > to door[base to base], so how can this misguided sati speak of > transmigration from existence to existence". > robert 8822 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 9:24am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Robert Ep, I appreciate a lot this post of yours and I could feel your good intentions. The concept of anatta and dukkha is base on anicca. Yes, we could said that it is complementary. The problem it is view negatively because the word "impermenant" is inappropriate use to described anicca. Anicca is never abt live and die because it will be against the meaning of the middle path. Anicca is ever changing and we cannot cling something that is ever changing. Yes I agree with you that we should hold not on to this idea of clinging to anything even to the notion of Enlightment, as I said to Mike before, Thervada is clearer in their practise than Mahayana. I like Thervada for their explicit teachings of sati and anicca and I love Mahayana for is understanding what could not be explain in Thervada (kind of like having a safe haven). The more I look at Thervada the more I understand what Mahayana is pointing at and also vice versa. I got no preference be it Mahayana or Thervada because I realise each got is strength and weaknesses and each follow the concept of beyond dualism. It is just that, the old Mahayana habit is still there and the way the questions something ask cannot be answer by Thervada. (You know it don't you when you ask me abt objects of the mind :) and I always trying very hard to answer you in the Thervada way (sought of in Thervada way, please give me more time to learn to write conventional Thervada style). How can you do this to me:) ) Much thank and kindest regards Kenneth ong --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Kenneth, > I think the answer for most on this list is that the deepest nature of > both beings > and phenomena are anatta and anicca. I have not been used to looking at > anatta as > a 'nature' or essence, since it is a negation and thus doesn't indicate > anything > to me. > > But that is exactly, I think, the point of the pure Theravadins on this > list: > that anatta being the deepest nature of everything, there is absolutely > nothing to > hang onto about oneself or any effect that is caused or any arising > phenomena. > They are all absolutely freely arisen with no causal factor other than > the factors > that have arisen and vanished in the arising conditions immediately > prior, and > previous material or influences which that immediately arising and > ceasing > condition has carried with it and passed to the next arising set of > co-arising > conditions. > > Anicca is the complementary component to anatta, because if something > has no > central entity, it also has nothing that can outlast the moment. So > impermanence > and non-entity work together to insure that there is nothing to identify > as a real > self, and nothing to hold onto in the shifting stream of time and > shifting > conditions and effects. There is nothing to do but sit back and become > more > discerning of what is happening. There is no action to take which is > not ordained > by some other action. > > I think this is a very deep and comprehensible philosophy, with a little > effort. > But it is very difficult to take. I think this philosophy is even a > good medicine > for those like myself who believe that there is something else involved > in the > process. Why? Because it erases or reveals the slightest clinging to a > notion of > self. Even if there were that primordial consciousness at the end of > the rainbow > which I feel is there, any notion I may have of it or cling to is in > fact not > 'it', because it is also, whatever it is, necessarily beyond clinging to > self or > possession. The surest medicine for everyone, Theravadin or Mahayanist, > is to > know that every notion we have of self or dhamma or Nibbana, is false, > and is just > grist for the mill of discernment. Whatever is at the end of the > journey, this is > still the medicine that erases and reveals all clingings. > > I think that is why some of us that tend towards Mahayana have been > attracted to > this list and its understandings. We who tend to be idealist need a > good dose of > anatta to reveal our subtle clingings to self, and there is no real > substitute for > this. It is a rigorous and demanding process, to eradicate the notion > of > something there to hold onto or to 'salvage' from the enlightenment > process. > > We will all agree, I think, that even our most precious notions will > have to be > washed out in the trickle and eventual flood of discernment. > > Regards, > Robert > > =========================== > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > You are confusing this with Surangama. There is nothing surangama > here. I > > am most happy to discuss with anyone here who will say cittas cease > (as > > defined by you as totally annihilated) during such a process (except > for > > Nibbana). There is a whole world of difference between these two > words, > > cease and absent. > > > > When we talk abt impermenance, it is not abt destruction and creation > as > > they are mutally dependent. It is abt ever changing state. But what > is > > this nature of ever changing state. Nobody can answer. Same as > cittas, > > there are in ever changing state but what is its nature of this ever > > changing. Nobody can answer. Does its nature cease, it cannot > because it > > is manifested when the right condition arise, but does its nature last > > forever, it cannot because it is ever changing. > > > > By the way my main book of Mahayana Doctrine is not Surangama, I have > no > > fixed book of Mahayana Sutta. It is because of the questions ask here > I > > got to use Surangama sutra as the five aggregates is widely discuss in > > Surangama. Actually if you really like to talk abt Mahayana, you are > most > > weclome with me. It is just that I do not wish to explore certain > area > > further as this list is not abt Mahayana. > > > > > > > > > > Kindest regards. > > Kenneth Ong 8823 From: dalthorp Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 10:28am Subject: Re: Horses and medicine [Erik] No question that ALL the samma's are important--not just sammaditthi. My question is: how can we discern the difference between the samma's and miccha's and the vippayutta's? For example, in my second intensive meditation retreat a number of years ago, I worked so very hard sitting, walking at a snail's pace, taking an hour to eat a simple plate of food--formal practice for 12-15 hours a day, day after day, week after week. The samma's? At the time, I thought they were there almost all the time. Of course, it was obvious that sometimes they weren't, but basically I was pretty pleased with my samma's. But now I realize that for 23.99 hours per day there were no samma's. Nowadays? It's still 23.99 samma-free hours per day (on a good day!), but the difference is that I have an inkling that that's the way it is. That may not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and really it isn't--only a tiny step or two on a long, LONG path. But there is something liberating about realizing the quasi-ubiquity of being samma-free. Anyway, back to the conversation... ______________ Dan: > I meant to say that "applying medicine" is conventional wisdom and is > quite distinct from the heart of Dhamma, viz. anatta. Buddha taught > satipatthana not as a medicine, not as a technique, not as > conventional wisdom, but as the heart of Dhamma, as what the world > looks like when viewed through vision unclouded by sakayaditthi (even > if it's only for a moment of mundane insight). Erik: Just to clarify terms here: sakayaditthi merely means the VIEW of self, which isn't terminated until the view (subtle as it is) of "instrinsic self" has been seen directly as fictional construct Dan: I meant "ditthi" as a cetasika that doesn't arise in kusala cittas. I wanted specifically emphasize a particular ditthi that we had been discussing, viz. sakayaditthi. In a moment of mundane insight, sakayaditthi does not arise. But sakayaditti (in one of its many guises) is closely associated with the notion that satipatthana is like "applying medicine"; or that it is satipatthana in a mind says, "Hmmm.... There is akusala. Let me establish mindfulness to deal with it". As agreed, the view that satipatthana is a medicine to apply, something to do to remedy dosa after it arises is a conventional view, not "paramattha sacca", not Right View. Rooted as it is in sakayaditthi that wants control over cittas, it is impossible to get beyond the sequence pain->aversion->applying medicine as long as that view is held--anatta 101. 8824 From: rikpa21 Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 10:37am Subject: Re: Horses and medicine [Erik] --- Sarah wrote: \ > Erik, you could suggest this great new style of yours to other Tibetan debaters > for a change - very refreshing;-) This sort of thing's nothing new to any of the great teacher's I've studied with! I think I mentioned one time my lama had one of those battery-powered laugh-boxes he was carrying around in his robes causing all sorts of ruckus and hysteria among our sangha. And yet he's also one of Tibet's greatest and fiercest debaters at the same time (many see him as an emanataion of the wrathful Yamanataka as well). > Thanks both of you, > Sarah (still chuckling) Glad to hear you're laughing! I'm laughing too! Even when I put on my fierce debater's mask. :) 8825 From: Howard Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 7:01am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/21/01 3:47:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > Dear Howard, > You also said something else that was interesting: I think it was > you....You > postulated that one might have Nibbana without cessation of experience but > with > cessation of attachment. Was that you? > > In any case I thought it was very interesting. Obviously if one were past > having > any defiled response or clingings to things, the flow of phenomena could > continue > without impinging in any way. No? > > I think this may define Nibbana for some folks here, but not Parinibbana, > in which > even the unattached arising of phenomena ceases permanently. But then, one > has to > ask, ceases for whom? If it ceases, hasn't one postulated an entity by its > absence? > > I am really getting deep today. [deep into trouble that is!] > > Robert Ep. > ======================= No, it wasn't I who said that, but it does have an agreeable ring. ;-) 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) 8826 From: rikpa21 Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 11:09am Subject: Re: Horses and medicine [Erik] --- Dan D wrote: Hey Dan, > No question that ALL the samma's are important--not just sammaditthi. > My question is: how can we discern the difference between the samma's > and miccha's and the vippayutta's? For example, in my second > intensive meditation retreat a number of years ago, I worked so very > hard sitting, walking at a snail's pace, taking an hour to eat a > simple plate of food--formal practice for 12-15 hours a day, day > after day, week after week. The samma's? At the time, I thought they > were there almost all the time. Of course, it was obvious that > sometimes they weren't, but basically I was pretty pleased with my > samma's. But now I realize that for 23.99 hours per day there were no > samma's. How's that, if you'll pardon my asking? Thre are many, many levels of "sammas" going on, just going by the definition of the Magga- Vibhanga Sutta. It sounds almost as if you're being unduly harsh on yourself and not cutting yourself enough slack here (and being gentle with ourselves is very important, I think). If you were abstaining from lying, divisive speech, etc; if you were practicing abandoning the unskillful and developing the skillful (as I imagine you were in retreat, especially practicing mindfulness), I think there were probably a whole lot more "sammas" going on than you're admitting to, even if they don't fully fir the ideal of samma from the perspective of a Buddha or an arahat. Samma is not all that complicated, as I see it. "Perfect" samma yes. But I think that sort of "samma" is reserved for those with no more work to do. Even we lesser developed beings (assuming without any basis you're not an arahat or Buddha here to ruffle my feathers) can have many moments of samma, even if imperfect! I am not talking samma here in the sense of cittas, but rather in their broader sense--the way of viewing this that makes the most sense to me. Perhaps what I am objecting to is that all this talk about the super- fast process of cittas and how few of them are "kusala" obscures the issue, and that to simply take much of the teaching in places like the Magga Vibhanga Sutta at face-value is "good enough" to get us to the desired destination. That is all this practice has to be: good enough! Good enough because it eventually leads one to the absence of all the defilements when pursued and developed. "Good enough" samma vaca, samma kammanata, samma ajiva, for example, refined ever-more by diligent training. "Good enough" is the best we can hope for short of arahants anyway, so my thinking on this is "don't worry, be happy!! Rejoice in the kusala and "sammas" cultivated, even if imperfect! Because they will be just a bit off-mark no matter what, and to idealize a perfect "samma" this or that, I think, places an unnecessarily big pack on our horses! Magga Vibhanga Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn45-008.html Nowadays? It's still 23.99 samma-free hours per day (on a > good day!), but the difference is that I have an inkling that that's > the way it is. That may not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme > of things, and really it isn't--only a tiny step or two on a long, > LONG path. But there is something liberating about realizing the > quasi-ubiquity of being samma-free. In my case I have many moments of miccha this & that. But like you I'm much more aware of when this is the case. But I also rejoice when my practice is going well, however imperfectly that may be. That factor of rejiocing in the wholesomeness of even incremental (if imperfect) improvement I have found a great spur to develop eevn more good stuff--to the point I seek nothing les than the complete and the final cessation of dukkha, and if it doesn't happen in this lifetime I'll surely die trying. 8827 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 11:46am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Robert Ep, Come to think abt it, I am a person who like things simple. I do not like studies that is going to be complicated. Furthermore I am the type of person who is not concern whether my progress is good or there is something to obtain or whether I explore more concepts of Buddhism. I always believe, when it comes, it will come. To be honest with you, I have stop reading the suttas a few years ago, until when I come to this list again. I find myself more addicted to discussion :) to learn abt Buddhism with pple here. Honestly, maybe one day, this will also pass. At present, the strength of attachment is very strong. Cheers :) Kenneth Ong --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert Ep, > > I appreciate a lot this post of yours and I could feel your good > intentions. > > The concept of anatta and dukkha is base on anicca. Yes, we could said > that it is complementary. The problem it is view negatively because the > word "impermenant" is inappropriate use to described anicca. Anicca is > never abt live and die because it will be against the meaning of the > middle path. Anicca is ever changing and we cannot cling something that > is > ever changing. > > Yes I agree with you that we should hold not on to this idea of clinging > to anything even to the notion of Enlightment, as I said to Mike before, > Thervada is clearer in their practise than Mahayana. I like Thervada > for > their explicit teachings of sati and anicca and I love Mahayana for is > understanding what could not be explain in Thervada (kind of like having > a > safe haven). The more I look at Thervada the more I understand what > Mahayana is pointing at and also vice versa. > > I got no preference be it Mahayana or Thervada because I realise each > got > is strength and weaknesses and each follow the concept of beyond > dualism. > It is just that, the old Mahayana habit is still there and the way the > questions something ask cannot be answer by Thervada. (You know it don't > you when you ask me abt objects of the mind :) and I always trying very > hard to answer you in the Thervada way (sought of in Thervada way, > please > give me more time to learn to write conventional Thervada style). How > can > you do this to me:) ) > > > > Much thank and kindest regards > Kenneth ong > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Kenneth, > > I think the answer for most on this list is that the deepest nature of > > both beings > > and phenomena are anatta and anicca. I have not been used to looking > at > > anatta as > > a 'nature' or essence, since it is a negation and thus doesn't > indicate > > anything > > to me. > > > > But that is exactly, I think, the point of the pure Theravadins on > this > > list: > > that anatta being the deepest nature of everything, there is > absolutely > > nothing to > > hang onto about oneself or any effect that is caused or any arising > > phenomena. > > They are all absolutely freely arisen with no causal factor other than > > the factors > > that have arisen and vanished in the arising conditions immediately > > prior, and > > previous material or influences which that immediately arising and > > ceasing > > condition has carried with it and passed to the next arising set of > > co-arising > > conditions. > > > > Anicca is the complementary component to anatta, because if something > > has no > > central entity, it also has nothing that can outlast the moment. So > > impermanence > > and non-entity work together to insure that there is nothing to > identify > > as a real > > self, and nothing to hold onto in the shifting stream of time and > > shifting > > conditions and effects. There is nothing to do but sit back and > become > > more > > discerning of what is happening. There is no action to take which is > > not ordained > > by some other action. > > > > I think this is a very deep and comprehensible philosophy, with a > little > > effort. > > But it is very difficult to take. I think this philosophy is even a > > good medicine > > for those like myself who believe that there is something else > involved > > in the > > process. Why? Because it erases or reveals the slightest clinging to > a > > notion of > > self. Even if there were that primordial consciousness at the end of > > the rainbow > > which I feel is there, any notion I may have of it or cling to is in > > fact not > > 'it', because it is also, whatever it is, necessarily beyond clinging > to > > self or > > possession. The surest medicine for everyone, Theravadin or > Mahayanist, > > is to > > know that every notion we have of self or dhamma or Nibbana, is false, > > and is just > > grist for the mill of discernment. Whatever is at the end of the > > journey, this is > > still the medicine that erases and reveals all clingings. > > > > I think that is why some of us that tend towards Mahayana have been > > attracted to > > this list and its understandings. We who tend to be idealist need a > > good dose of > > anatta to reveal our subtle clingings to self, and there is no real > > substitute for > > this. It is a rigorous and demanding process, to eradicate the notion > > of > > something there to hold onto or to 'salvage' from the enlightenment > > process. > > > > We will all agree, I think, that even our most precious notions will > > have to be > > washed out in the trickle and eventual flood of discernment. > > > > Regards, > > Robert > > > > =========================== > > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > You are confusing this with Surangama. There is nothing surangama > > here. I > > > am most happy to discuss with anyone here who will say cittas cease > > (as > > > defined by you as totally annihilated) during such a process (except > > for > > > Nibbana). There is a whole world of difference between these two > > words, > > > cease and absent. > > > > > > When we talk abt impermenance, it is not abt destruction and > creation > > as > > > they are mutally dependent. It is abt ever changing state. But > what > > is > > > this nature of ever changing state. Nobody can answer. Same as > > cittas, > > > there are in ever changing state but what is its nature of this ever > > > changing. Nobody can answer. Does its nature cease, it cannot > > because it > > > is manifested when the right condition arise, but does its nature > last > > > forever, it cannot because it is ever changing. > > > > > > By the way my main book of Mahayana Doctrine is not Surangama, I > have > > no > > > fixed book of Mahayana Sutta. It is because of the questions ask > here > > I > > > got to use Surangama sutra as the five aggregates is widely discuss > in > > > Surangama. Actually if you really like to talk abt Mahayana, you > are > > most > > > weclome with me. It is just that I do not wish to explore certain > > area > > > further as this list is not abt Mahayana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kindest regards. > > > Kenneth Ong > > > > > > 8828 From: Ken Howard Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 0:42pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > 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. > > >Dear Robert This sums up our discussion beautifully. So much for my concerns that we were talking at cross purposes! You have described the platform from which you go in one direction and I in another. Is it an important parting of ways? I think that would depend on how it affects the `descriptive v's prescriptive' debate. To the extent that my suggestion (that the Buddha used conventional teachings for the purposes of communication only -- that they do not form part of the `way out'), goes outside that debate, it is of no importance whatsoever. Kind regards Ken Howard 8829 From: Ken Howard Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 0:49pm Subject: Dear Christine Thanks for this post. I'm always pleased to be reminded of the late David Maurice. It was his, "The Lions Roar" and, "What the Buddha REALLY Taught" that introduced me to Buddhism back in 1976. He was one of our fellow Queenslanders as is Victor Gunasekara I believe. He (VG), has a reputation for being of the `straight talking' school, but perhaps he could learn a thing or two from dsg. That quote you have given, fails to address the dangers of wrongly thinking that by meditating, we can direct mindfulness or we can create a time and place conducive to satipatthana. From the beginning, I took to meditation like a duck to water. I had the self-hypnosis technique of creating a happy state of mind that made my face ache from smiling. But it was just clinging to feelings and reinforcing ideas of self, I'm afraid. It's so good to have put formal practices aside. Kind regards Ken Howard - "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Dear All, > > Fossicking around on Binh's site, I came across an interesting book > called Basic Buddhism by Dr. Victor A. Gunasekara. > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha104.htm > > I found it interesting that a quote in the excerpt below indicates > that stylised meditation (sitting/walking) is seen as only a > beginners practice. > Also, do you think that the first line of the second paragraph quoted > should end with the word 'not'? > And, if meditation is a beginners practice to be 'got away from' - > why start it in the first place? For calm and serenity? > > metta, > Christine > > > "The view that the awakening of wisdom can only come through intense > meditation is not only found in schools like Zen but is also held by > some teachers of Theravâda. However meditation in Buddhism is > primarily a method of mental training. It could be used to calm the > mind, to instil tranquillity, and to set the stage for the > realisation of true insight. In fact fascination with meditation can > be a distraction from the true path. A capable exponent of early > Buddhism David Maurice puts this quite well: "There is meditation at > the very beginning of the practice but the practice is to get away > from meditation". > > Even though stylised meditation may not be necessary it is > necessarily harmful. It could suit the temperament of some people, > especially those who desire a strict discipline. On the other hand > what we have termed Buddhist meditation is something that anyone can > do with profit. It may not lead to the final goal in itself, but it > could be a great help in the fulfilment of the other components of > the path." 8830 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 1:27pm Subject: dhammavicaya II hi mike, contd.. tanha => ponobhavika ( which has the strength to cause 'next' bhava ) nissaya = accompanying channovada sutta M N, " nissitassa calitam , anissitassa calitam natthi. calite asati passaddhi, passaddhiya sati nati na hoti. natiyaa asati aagati gati na hoti , aagatigatiya asati cutupapaato na hoti. cutupapaate asati, neva idha, na huram , na ubhayamantare, esevanto dukkhassa. " nissito - one who 'accompanies' something. calita - vibration, shaking, movement a nissito has calita,an anissito does not have a calita. when thers no calita, there is a calmness ( passaddhi ). when thers such calmness thers no 'bending to'. when thers no bending there are no going and coming. when there are no going and coming there is no cuti or uppatti(birth). when there is no cuti or uppatti hes not 'here' ( ne va idha ) hes not 'there' ( na huram ) hes not inbetween here and there ( na ubhayamantare ) this is the ending of dukkha ( esevanto dukkhassa ). --------------------------------------------------------------------- further on nissaya kaccanagotta sutta S N, kaccanagotta asks from buddha 'what is sammaditti?' buddha answers, " dvayanissito bvayam kaccayana loko yebhuuyena atarthanecava natthitanca. loka samudayam kho kaccayana ythabhutam sammappannaya passato ya loke natthita sa na hoti. loka nirodham kho kaccayana yathabhutam sammapannaya passato ya loke atthita sa na hoti " this world(loko) is mostly 'dvayanissito'. dvayanissito = accompnies two the two is astitva and nastitva . asti - exists , nasti - does not exist. the combined meaning is -> the world mostly accompanies two, the 'exists' or 'does not exist'. the one who knows the arising of loka perfectly as it is by samma panna, he does not have the view that 'the loka doesnt exist', the one who knows the cessation of loka by samma panna, he does not have the view that ' the loka exists', " upaayupaadaanaabhinivesavinibandho bvayam kaccana loko yebhuyyena , tanca upaayupaadanam cetaso adhitthanam abhinivesanusayam na upeti na upadiyati nadhitthati 'atta me' ti. dukkhameva uppajjamaanam uppajjati dukkham nirujjhamaanam nirujjhati, na kankhati na vichkiccati aparappaccaya nanamevassa ettha hoti ettavataa kho kaccana sammaditti hoti. " upaayupaadaanaabhinivesavinibandho = upaya + upaadaana + abhinivesa + vinibandho upaya = coming near upadana = grasping abhinivesa = getting into , getting inside and staying on the one with sammaditthi doesnt take any of these as 'self', his ditthi is that 'when arising , whats arising is just and only just a (package of, set of, bunch of) dukkha, when ceasing whats ceasing is just and only just dukkha. so he sees this as 'only dukkha'. kaccana , even with this he is a person who has samma ditthi. " sabbam atthiti kho kaccana ayam eko anto , sabbam natthiti ayam dutiyo anto. ete te kaccana ubho ante anupagamma majjhena tathagato dhammam deseti. avijjaa paccaya samkharaa, samkhara paccaya vinnanam, vinnana paccaya namarupam...( and so on ) .... evametassa kevalassa dukkakkhandassa nirodho hoti. " kaccana, 'everything exists' this is the first end 'everything doesnt exist' this is the second(other) end. without falling to both these ends, the tathagata preaches dhamma in the middleway, that is ..(avijja paccaya etc..) ( so buddha explains the paticca samuppada as the middle way ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loka sutta , devata samyutta S N " chasu loko samuppanno chasu kubbati santhavam channameva upaadaaya chasu loko vihannati " the world arises in the six, the world accompanies the six, grasping the six, the world 'gets tired' of the six six = salayatana samudaya sutta , salayatana vagga S N , " cakkhum ca paticca rupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvinnanam, tinnam samgati passo , passa paccaya vedana , vedana paccaya ...( and so on ) " contd.. rgds gayan 8831 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 1:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] dhammavicaya II Hi Gayan Many thanks for these. I like these a lot. Maybe I should find a place to frame these words. Please continue with your sharing and I awaits eagerly for your next posts. Kind regards Kenneth Ong nissito - one who 'accompanies' something. > calita - vibration, shaking, movement "a nissito has calita,an anissito does not have a calita. > when thers no calita, there is a calmness ( passaddhi ). > when thers such calmness thers no 'bending to'. > when thers no bending there are no going and coming. > when there are no going and coming there is no cuti or uppatti(birth). > when there is no cuti or uppatti > hes not 'here' ( ne va idha ) > hes not 'there' ( na huram ) > hes not inbetween here and there ( na ubhayamantare ) > this is the ending of dukkha ( esevanto dukkhassa )." the one who knows the arising of loka perfectly as it is by samma panna, > he does not have the view that 'the loka doesnt exist', > the one who knows the cessation of loka by samma panna, > he does not have the view that ' the loka exists', --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > > hi mike, > > contd.. > > > tanha => ponobhavika ( which has the strength to cause 'next' bhava ) > > nissaya = accompanying > > channovada sutta M N, > > > " nissitassa calitam , anissitassa calitam natthi. > calite asati passaddhi, passaddhiya sati nati na hoti. > natiyaa asati aagati gati na hoti , aagatigatiya asati cutupapaato na > hoti. > cutupapaate asati, neva idha, na huram , na ubhayamantare, esevanto > dukkhassa. " > > nissito - one who 'accompanies' something. > calita - vibration, shaking, movement > > a nissito has calita,an anissito does not have a calita. > when thers no calita, there is a calmness ( passaddhi ). > when thers such calmness thers no 'bending to'. > when thers no bending there are no going and coming. > when there are no going and coming there is no cuti or uppatti(birth). > when there is no cuti or uppatti > hes not 'here' ( ne va idha ) > hes not 'there' ( na huram ) > hes not inbetween here and there ( na ubhayamantare ) > this is the ending of dukkha ( esevanto dukkhassa ). > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > further on nissaya > > kaccanagotta sutta S N, > > kaccanagotta asks from buddha 'what is sammaditti?' > > buddha answers, > > " dvayanissito bvayam kaccayana loko yebhuuyena atarthanecava > natthitanca. > loka samudayam kho kaccayana ythabhutam sammappannaya passato ya loke > natthita sa na hoti. > loka nirodham kho kaccayana yathabhutam sammapannaya passato ya loke > atthita > sa na hoti " > > > this world(loko) is mostly 'dvayanissito'. > > dvayanissito = accompnies two > the two is astitva and nastitva . asti - exists , nasti - does not > exist. > > the combined meaning is -> > the world mostly accompanies two, the 'exists' or 'does not exist'. > > the one who knows the arising of loka perfectly as it is by samma panna, > he does not have the view that 'the loka doesnt exist', > the one who knows the cessation of loka by samma panna, > he does not have the view that ' the loka exists', > > > " upaayupaadaanaabhinivesavinibandho bvayam kaccana loko yebhuyyena , > tanca > upaayupaadanam cetaso adhitthanam abhinivesanusayam na upeti na > upadiyati > nadhitthati 'atta me' ti. > dukkhameva uppajjamaanam uppajjati dukkham nirujjhamaanam nirujjhati, > na kankhati na vichkiccati aparappaccaya nanamevassa ettha hoti > ettavataa > kho kaccana sammaditti hoti. " > > upaayupaadaanaabhinivesavinibandho = upaya + upaadaana + abhinivesa + > vinibandho > upaya = coming near > upadana = grasping > abhinivesa = getting into , getting inside and staying on > > the one with sammaditthi doesnt take any of these as 'self', > his ditthi is that 'when arising , whats arising is just and only just a > (package of, set of, bunch of) dukkha, > when ceasing whats ceasing is just and only just dukkha. > so he sees this as 'only dukkha'. > kaccana , even with this he is a person who has samma ditthi. > > > " sabbam atthiti kho kaccana ayam eko anto , > sabbam natthiti ayam dutiyo anto. > ete te kaccana ubho ante anupagamma majjhena tathagato dhammam deseti. > avijjaa paccaya samkharaa, samkhara paccaya vinnanam, vinnana paccaya > namarupam...( and so on ) > .... > evametassa kevalassa dukkakkhandassa nirodho hoti. " > > > kaccana, 'everything exists' this is the first end > 'everything doesnt exist' this is the second(other) end. > without falling to both these ends, > the tathagata preaches dhamma in the middleway, > that is ..(avijja paccaya etc..) > > ( so buddha explains the paticca samuppada as the middle way ) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Loka sutta , devata samyutta S N > > " chasu loko samuppanno > chasu kubbati santhavam > channameva upaadaaya > chasu loko vihannati " > > the world arises in the six, > the world accompanies the six, > grasping the six, > the world 'gets tired' of the six > > > six = salayatana > > samudaya sutta , salayatana vagga S N , > > " cakkhum ca paticca rupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvinnanam, tinnam samgati > passo > , > passa paccaya vedana , vedana paccaya ...( and so on ) " > > > > contd.. > > rgds > gayan 8832 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 2:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] dsg friends in India Dear Rob Ep, Now you’ve started me off on nostalgic memories (lots of pannatti - let’s see if there’s any awareness of the thinking and sense door objects in between;-) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Just thought I'd mention that I've been to both Varanasi and Sarnath twice > before. > I went just for my own 'amusement' in 1989, then again in 1996 when I > dragged my > wife along for our honeymoon. Thanks for sharing your amusing accounts which rang lots of bells.....pls tell your wife that I think she’s a really good sport;-) Now I’ll try to remember Victor’s mininmalist lessons, but I fear this will be a compromise at best;-) When I was really young (still young now), I did the overland-to-India-on-a-shoe-string (actually 50 UK pounds and was away for 18mths!), through Afghanistan and so on. Got to Delhi, spent a week buying a complicated 3rd class (of course) train ticket to do a grand tour of Southern India in particular, planning to visit lots of yoga ashrams along the way. Whilst filling in time in Delhi, I was given my first and last-ever (I'm glad to report) opium to smoke. That night I had a very, very vivid opium-induced sleep which I can still ‘see’ (read think about through the mind-door). It was a vivid dream about a place in a lot of detail. It meant nothing to me at the time and I didn’t attach any importance to it then or later. I never mentioned it to anyone. A couple of days later, I went to the train station with my hard-earned multi-routed train ticket. Just as I arrived at the station, the purse in my hand containing the precious ticket was whisked away. Luckily my precious little money and passport were hidden inside my skirt. I cut my losses, decided it wasn’t to be and bought a simple ticket to Varanasi instead. I shared a dormitory there for a week with the wierd and wonderful and went out by rickshaw with a couple of others to Sarnath. Now I have no sense of direction at all, am hopeless at remembering places and get lost in my local supermarkets. However, for the first and last time in my life to date, I arrived at a place (Sarnath) and immediately knew my way around without any hesitation and was able to guide the 2 other wierdos. This was exactly the place I had ‘seen’ in that opium dream. I’ve never wanted to think much about this funny little experience or attach any importance to it. We have no idea about past experiences, lives and no very little about experience now. I don’t think it’s useful to speculate, but that’s just how it was. So Sarnath is pretty special to me. The funny thing is though, that I’ve been back 2 or 3 times since and it’s just like usual, i.e. no recollection, no sense of direction, no memory of having been there. The lost train-ticket-saga meant that a week later, I ended up in Bodh Gaya where I stayed for 5 mths in a Tibetan tent for half a rupee a day (including sampa for breakfast). I spent another half rupee for another meal and that was it. Every day I’d study (simple) Buddhist books and meditate with Munindra (Mahasi style) until the dust storms made it impossible for the Tibetans or any of us to stay longer. I never felt poor, because there were always beggars around who were a lot poorer.....wow, that was nearly 30 yrs ago. Actually, I prefer staying in luxury hotels these days....I think I’ve done enough roughing it for a few lifetimes. Then I went 18mths without a thought of calling home, just relying on occasional post restante super-snail mail post. Now I like to have daily connections and there was dosa when I couldn’t make a connection with the Group’s hotel in Banares this morning. Some may suggest this shows the lack of practice or development. I think it shows the accumulation at that moment. It too can be understood instead of being clung to as ‘my dosa which should be dealt with’. Rob Ep, your stories encouraged this. Just be grateful, others, that thanks to Victor’s influence it’s not twice as long;-) Yes, it would be great to meet you and anyone else from the list in any of these places or on tour;-) Sarah 8833 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 2:40pm Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence Dear Gaga, --- Gaga wrote > > > Hello sarah, > > > > Thank you for taking the time to address the externalization of these > > thoughts > > I had. glad to hear of this. > > > > What prompted me to write in the first place was that I attended the > monthly > > meeting of the World Federation of Buddhists in Bangkok this month and the > > speaker talked about death and dying and went into great detail on the 31 > > planes. Actually, because he was speaking in conventional terms about > things > > that are unconventional, he tried to frame the whole talk in terms of a > > "soul" > > that passed from plane to plane. Simply put, whether someone is called a 'Mahayanist', 'Theravandan', 'Buddhist' or any other name, if there isn't the the development of satipatthana which is aware of realities appearing now as anatta, there is bound to be clinging to the idea of self or soul or something. As different people have commented here, this clinging to an idea of self is very insiduous, deeply-held and rooted and only eradicated by the wisdom of the sotapanna. With just a little understanding, it should be a condition for compassion for others rather than expectation that just because someone is a 'Buddhist' that they won't have any more wrong view, I think. Thanks for putting your questions in perspective. I had wondered about this. Hope to hear more from you, Gaga, in your own good time;-) Sarah 8834 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 3:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cittas- Howard Dear Howard, --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > As you might expect, I am comfortable with what you write here. The > only thing I might add is that the talk of cittas, if understood as real, and > > not just conventional, entities is something I find troublesome. The entire > citta/dhamma theory troubles me! Just one aspect of my "problem": At a given > point in time, for a quite miniscule period, a citta is in effect (or occurs) > > together with a whole bunch of cetasikas, this entire event having arisen due > > to causes and conditions no longer in effect. Howard, I was very glad to see this message and your deliberations of the details. Rob K or NUM or one of the pali experts (Jim, Suan or Gayan) may be able to give more back-up . so far, very much as I understand it, although there are still conditions having effect (including new ones) once the citta and cetasikas have arisen. For one simple example, as I was discussing with Mike, we know that cittas and cetasikas condition each other by sahagata condition (i.e being present is a condition for the others). Visible object is being seen now by arammana condition(object condition) or lobha now is present by root condition and lots and lots more. In other words, the conditions are now only causing the cittas and other realities to arise but also the different stages of them. What changes, then, result in > that citta ceasing? The conditions which resulted in its arising have > *already* ceased! Moreover, that citta, *while it is in effect*, is > independent of any other conditions (it is currently the whole enchilada), > and when it ceases, it is completely gone; this suggests to me a theory which > > simultaneously countenances both substantialism and annihilationism! Each citta has an arising, existing and falling/ceasing (I forget the pali terms for these stages - maybe Rob K can help). The arising of the citta is a condition for the 'existing' (can't think of the right English term either) and for the ceasing. So it is not 'in effect' independent of conditions at all. Like you and Rob Ep have explained to Ken O, once the citta has fallen away, it has ceased, gone, never to return. Again it's that clinging to self that clings to a lasting citta. Then this citta conditions the next one and so on. I've read about the stages of the citta (and heard K.Sujin talk about it ) but can't remember where to put my finger on the details quickly. What I also remember is that these 3 stages have a lakhana (characteristic) to be known, but just like the tri-lakhana of anicca, dukkha and anatta, no sabhava (essence). we can think and think about these details but the truth is that unless there is clear understanding and awareness of different cittas, cetasikas and rupas, there cannot possibly be the more highly developed understanding and awareness of the arising, existing and falling away of a reality (i.e the understanding of the impermanence of realities). These were very useful comments, I think, Howard and I look forward to anything any of the others may add. Sarah 8835 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 4:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cittas- Howard Hi Sarah > Like you and Rob Ep have explained to Ken O, once the citta has fallen > away, it has ceased, gone, never to return. Again it's that clinging to self that clings to a lasting citta. Then this citta conditions the next one and so on. I've read about the stages of the citta (and heard K.Sujin talk about it ) but can't remember where to put my finger on the details quickly. Assume that old cittas cease and the information abt us is transmitted to the new cittas. Does this information abt us cease?. Secondly if I follow your theory, isn't Nibbana dependent on temporary cittas to be in existence. So does that mean that Nibbana is conditioned? Secondly if cittas cease and then recreated isn't it a bit not conforming the middle path? Thirdly, how does it ceased and recreated in the first place. How does it function like that or what is make it function like that? Isn't it a question of orginality. Isn't a question of orginality is the question of Nibbana? Isn't it dependent on each other? For you comments please Kind regards Kenneth Ong --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > > > As you might expect, I am comfortable with what you write here. > The > > only thing I might add is that the talk of cittas, if understood as > real, and > > > > not just conventional, entities is something I find troublesome. The > entire > > citta/dhamma theory troubles me! Just one aspect of my "problem": At a > given > > point in time, for a quite miniscule period, a citta is in effect (or > occurs) > > > > together with a whole bunch of cetasikas, this entire event having > arisen due > > > > to causes and conditions no longer in effect. > > Howard, I was very glad to see this message and your deliberations of > the > details. Rob K or NUM or one of the pali experts (Jim, Suan or Gayan) > may be > able to give more back-up . > > so far, very much as I understand it, although there are still > conditions > having effect (including new ones) once the citta and cetasikas have > arisen. > For one simple example, as I was discussing with Mike, we know that > cittas and > cetasikas condition each other by sahagata condition (i.e being present > is a > condition for the others). Visible object is being seen now by arammana > condition(object condition) or lobha now is present by root condition > and lots > and lots more. In other words, the conditions are now only causing the > cittas > and other realities to arise but also the different stages of them. > > What changes, then, result in > > that citta ceasing? The conditions which resulted in its arising have > > *already* ceased! Moreover, that citta, *while it is in effect*, is > > independent of any other conditions (it is currently the whole > enchilada), > > and when it ceases, it is completely gone; this suggests to me a > theory which > > > > simultaneously countenances both substantialism and annihilationism! > > Each citta has an arising, existing and falling/ceasing (I forget the > pali > terms for these stages - maybe Rob K can help). The arising of the citta > is a > condition for the 'existing' (can't think of the right English term > either) and > for the ceasing. So it is not 'in effect' independent of conditions at > all. > > Like you and Rob Ep have explained to Ken O, once the citta has fallen > away, it > has ceased, gone, never to return. Again it's that clinging to self that > clings > to a lasting citta. Then this citta conditions the next one and so on. > I've > read about the stages of the citta (and heard K.Sujin talk about it ) > but can't > remember where to put my finger on the details quickly. > > What I also remember is that these 3 stages have a lakhana > (characteristic) to > be known, but just like the tri-lakhana of anicca, dukkha and anatta, no > sabhava (essence). > > we can think and think about these details but the truth is that unless > there > is clear understanding and awareness of different cittas, cetasikas and > rupas, > there cannot possibly be the more highly developed understanding and > awareness > of the arising, existing and falling away of a reality (i.e the > understanding > of the impermanence of realities). > > These were very useful comments, I think, Howard and I look forward to > anything > any of the others may add. > > Sarah 8836 From: Howard Date: Mon Oct 22, 2001 0:31pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cittas- Howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/22/01 3:05:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sarah writes: > Dear Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > > > As you might expect, I am comfortable with what you write here. > The > > only thing I might add is that the talk of cittas, if understood as real, > and > > > > not just conventional, entities is something I find troublesome. The > entire > > citta/dhamma theory troubles me! Just one aspect of my "problem": At a > given > > point in time, for a quite miniscule period, a citta is in effect (or > occurs) > > > > together with a whole bunch of cetasikas, this entire event having arisen > due > > > > to causes and conditions no longer in effect. > > Howard, I was very glad to see this message and your deliberations of the > details. Rob K or NUM or one of the pali experts (Jim, Suan or Gayan) may > be > able to give more back-up . > > so far, very much as I understand it, although there are still conditions > having effect (including new ones) once the citta and cetasikas have arisen. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: But what items are present to be conditioning each other? One citta (act of discernment) together with a number of cetasikas? If they all exist during the same time, simultaneously, what conditioning is there other than the obvious co-occurrence? ------------------------------------------------------- > or one simple example, as I was discussing with Mike, we know that > cittas and > cetasikas condition each other by sahagata condition (i.e being present is a > condition for the others). > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, that's the co-occurrence, right? ------------------------------------------------------- Visible object is being seen now by arammana > condition(object condition) or lobha now is present by root condition and > lots > and lots more. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sorry, but I don't seem to get any real content out of those terms. The first seems to be saying that an object is being discerned, which of course is the case, because that is what citta/vi~n~nana is about. That lobha is called a "root" doesn't really say what kind of same-time conditioning is going on with regard to it. ------------------------------------------------------ In other words, the conditions are now only causing the cittas > and other realities to arise but also the different stages of them. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: What are the stages of a citta? I thought a citta was a unique act of discernment together with specific, simultaneously functioning cetasikas which "flavor" the act of discernment. You make it sound, instead, like a complex process unfolding in time. ----------------------------------------------------- > > What changes, then, result in > > that citta ceasing? The conditions which resulted in its arising have > > *already* ceased! Moreover, that citta, *while it is in effect*, is > > independent of any other conditions (it is currently the whole > enchilada), > > and when it ceases, it is completely gone; this suggests to me a theory > which > > > > simultaneously countenances both substantialism and annihilationism! > > Each citta has an arising, existing and falling/ceasing (I forget the pali > terms for these stages - maybe Rob K can help). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I didn't know this. How are those stages distinguished? Do they differ in object, or in the cetasikas present? If yes, then a citta would really be an unfolding process, the progress of which is previously determined by the conditions that led to it. That would be quite interesting. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The arising of the citta is a > condition for the 'existing' (can't think of the right English term either) > and > for the ceasing. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, provided that the stages differ, as I mentioned above. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So it is not 'in effect' independent of conditions at all. ---------------------------------------------