9000 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 5:18am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cittas- Howard Dear Rob Ep, I apprecdiated this post of yours, Rob, and the questions and comments raised. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for your help. I found it very clear. I do have a couple of > questions: > > Is there any reason given why only one citta can arise at a time? Why must > they > be sequential? If there is no 'mind' in which they are to occur, why or how > are > they coordinated in a tight sequential string? I think I can only say to the first 2 questions that this is how it is...and our task is to understand the ‘descriptive’ rather than to reason why.....The only other answer I may add is that they must be exactly this way and cannot be any other way because of the complex way conditions (paccaya) cause them to be like this. So the citta now arises sequentially because of anantara paccaya which means it is conditioned by the preceeding citta to arise sequentially and so many, many other conditions to make it be this citta and no other citta arising. So imagine a puppet on thousands of strings, each coordinated and having effect. The way the puppet moves sequentially is a result of these complex moves and adjustments (read conditions). Or to keep a lingering Indian thread alive, why does an Indian curry on any day taste just the way it does? Isn’t it because of the particular ingredients, the quantities of those ingredients on that day, the order and timing they are added and of course the nature of the tasting, the taste buds, the temperature, the previous experiences, the place and time of tasting and so on and so on. Only the Buddha can really see and understand all the conditions for a reality to arise at any time. However, by reading and considering a little more about conditions (I’m resisting from reminding you of more homework), it helps to see there is no mind, form or body as we usually understand. > If sati is an 'accompaniment' of a citta when it does occur, rather than a > citta > itself, what is it? Where or how does sati arise? Does it 'piggyback' on > its > associated citta(s)? Does it also last for specific number of cittas as a > rupa > does? How would you define sati? I always thought of mindfulness as being > 'an > awareness of being aware'. In other words, for those moments, one is aware > that > there is a process of consciousness taking place, rather than merely > participating > in the consciousness without realizing it. Is this a definition you would > accord > with? Excellent questions and considerations, Rob, but I’m not sure my answer will do them justice Yes, sati (awareness) is a mental factor which sometimes accompanies citta (consciousness). It accompanies all wholesome (kusala) cittas and is aware of the object for those moments only. It can be aware of any reality, but is not necessarily (read very seldom if at all) at the level of satipatthana which is aware of a reality as not self. So for example, if there is generosity or kindness without ever having heard the Buddha’s teachings, at the moments these mental states arise with the wholesome cittas, there is sati which is mindful of what is skilful and prevents that which is unskilful, but not necessarily accompanied by wisdom. Mindfulness “does not allow the floating away of moral states” (Atth.) Awareness can be aware of any reality, including awareness (sati). As we’ve discussed recently, strictly speaking, it is not aware of itself but of the characteristic of sati which has just fallen away. Sati is not aware of a process, but just of one reality at these times. It’s thinking which thinks about a process of consciousness. In ‘Cetasikas’, Nina quotes from the Atthasalini: ‘...Mindulness has “not floating away” as its characteristic, unforgetfulness as its function, guarding, or the state of facing the object, as its manifestation, firm remembrance (sanna) or application in mindfulness as regards the body, etc., as proximate cause. It should be regarded as a door-post from being firmly established in the object, and as a door-keper from guarding the door of the senses.’ Like all other cetasikas (mental factors), sati arises momentarily by conditions, performs its task and falls away. It’s not self, doesn’t last and is inherently unsatisfactory and not worthy of being clung to. However, when it is highly developed with panna, it is an indriya (controlling faculty) and ‘a “leader” of the citta and accompanying cetasikas in its function of heedfulness, of non-forgetfulness of what is wholesome.’ It is also one of the 8-fold factors and an enlightenment factor. > Would it be fair to say that the process that sati 'awakens' to in insight > moments > and eventually in Nibbana, is an awareness that all that seems to be a > relation > with real objects is really a relation of mind with objects of mind? I’m a little lost here. I think it’s most useful to consider what are the realities being experienced at the present moment. By beginning to be aware (sati being aware) of a nama or rupa (mental or physical phenomena) now, such as seeing or visible object, feeling or hardness and so on, this is the way sati develops. Being aware of these different realities, and understanding the difference between them, is the only way to develop detachment from the idea of a self or a lasting consciousness. Sati is very precise and has a very specific function and characteristic. > Gee, I really have no hesitation to give you a hard time while your dear > friends > and associates are away. If I'm being overly inquisitive, just let me know. > I > know you have a schedule beyond our little 'chats'! I hope to hear more of these questions. You’re not giving me a hard time at all and our little ‘chats’ are a joy, even if I sometimes misunderstand your point, can’t always provide the answers or am rather slow;-). I’m particularly interested in anything further you have to say on this thread which is so directly related to the present moment and realities to be known now. Sarah 9001 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 5:27am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 4 Hi Sarah > I’ll just add a couple of comments as I read this passage before adding > another > quote. > > The last phrase clearly applies to the unconditioned nature of nibbana. > It is > clear (to me) that nibbana is unconditioned, while being experienced by > the > conditioned. > > All the references to ‘penetration’, ‘hard to see’, ‘abstruse’, ‘logic’, > ‘wise’, ‘knowledge’,refer to the cittas and cetasikas (and in particular > to > panna) which have to be developed to ‘penetrate’ and ‘realise’ the > unconditioned ‘element’. Without this ‘ultra-profound’ development, > nibbana is > not experienced. > > Nibbana has its ‘own nature’ does not suggest any self, just as seeing, > hearing > and other realities have their ‘own nature’ which is not self too. K: Sarah, I appreciate your kind patient in imparting true understanding of the Nibbana concepts. I like to point out that I agreed with you that Nibbana is anatta. on the other hand what I trying to point out is that isn't this nature even though anatta also a "nature" on its own right. Isn't it similiar to Mahayana, concept of Buddha Nature or Unborn. I hope I am being clear abt what I think. Kind regards Ken O 9002 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 5:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello...[Erik] Erik, > > on Sunday I will be > > officially married > ============================= > Warmest congratulations, Erik!! May you have lifetimes of happiness together. > May I also wish send my bery best wishes to you and Aert. I hope you both have a very memorable and happy day on Sunday with plenty of wise reflection and mindfulness. I'm sure we'll all be thinking of you then. Who knows, Aert may be able and willing to join us on the list as well in time too;-)) Your wedding day almost falls on our anniversary (20th) a few days later, but let me assure you that we're still learning;-) With metta and best wishes, Sarah 9003 From: Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 5:47am Subject: Re: Hello...[Erik and Herman] Yes, congratulations and best wishes, Erik. Also Herman was married last month and I missed sending my good wishes. Congratulations, Herman. I'm sure your little "Brady bunch" is fortunate in having you as the father and husband. robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Erik, > > > > on Sunday I will be > > > officially married > > ============================= > > Warmest congratulations, Erik!! May you have lifetimes of happiness together. > > > > May I also wish send my bery best wishes to you and Aert. I hope you both have > a very memorable and happy day on Sunday with plenty of wise reflection and > mindfulness. I'm sure we'll all be thinking of you then. Who knows, Aert may be > able and willing to join us on the list as well in time too;-)) > > Your wedding day almost falls on our anniversary (20th) a few days later, but > let me assure you that we're still learning;-) > > With metta and best wishes, > > Sarah > 9004 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 6:01am Subject: Re: Hello...[Erik] > Fortunately you're in luck, Dan, because on Sunday I will be > officially married Sunday?! Wow! That was quick. I do wish you all the best, Erik. 9005 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 6:06am Subject: Re: Hello Welcome, Jesse! > Hello, > I just joined this list on the recommendation of a friend on IRC. I got > into Buddhism just a short while ago, and I am trying to read the various > suttas as I find them. I may not be very knowledgeable or useful in the > various discussions, so I will just watch for the time being. Thanks. > > Jesse Dhillon. > > "Subject to decay are all component things; strive earnestly to work out > your own salvation." 9006 From: Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 1:12am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1 Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 10/30/01 8:12:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn@y... writes: > > Hi Howard > > Thanks for you point of view. > > > > > > > > > >K: Nibbana can never be experienced by conditioned cittas because > > > > Nibbana is unconditional, if it is not then why classified it as > > > unconditionanal the first place. > > > > > > > > S: There’s been a lot of discussion on this issue (see ‘useful > > posts’ > > > > under nibbana perhaps...) Many people here find it very difficult to > > > accept that the unconditioned (Nibbana) is experienced by the > > conditioned > > > (lokuttara cittas), but that’s how it is in the Pali canon as > > indicated in > > > my previous quote. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Just a request for clarification: Found in which pitakas? And if > > it is found in the suttas, is it clear there that nibbana is intended > to be a positively existing separate dhamma being observed by cittas, or > is "observing nibbana" more along the lines of the mind getting a glimpse > > of what it is like to have ignorance dispelled, a glimpse of the way > things really are when seen truly? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > k: Yes Howard we can see a glimpse of it is base on the definition of > Nibbana in Mahayana terms. > > > > > > > > > k: It is the same thing when I say cittas don't die, you find it > > difficult > > > to believe me. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Ken, what do you mean by "believe me"? Are you claiming to have a > > direct line to "The Truth"? The Buddha said quite clearly that all > conditions cease. Nothing lasts. Impermanence. Are you saying that you > have directly seen that to be false? > > As far as "believing" you is concerned, the Buddha said that even > > *he* should not be taken purely on faith. Now, all my direct experience > has confirmed to me the Buddha's teaching on impermanence. With all due > > respect, on what basis do you suggest we "believe" you? > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > k: Howard you have misread me. I disagree with you that Buddha said that > all conditions cease means all things are destroyed. I have said a few > times that I disgree with you on the defintion of ceassation. Would you > like to quote me the Pali Cannon Suttas where Buddha said all cittas are > destroyed completely or annihilated. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: How's the following? *********************************************** Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.9 Anicca Sutta Impermanent Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera. For free distribution only. From Contemplation of Feeling: The Discourse-grouping on the Feelings (WH 303), translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. "The three kinds of feelings, O monks, are impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen, liable to destruction, to evanescence, to fading away, to cessation -- namely, pleasant feeling, painful feeling and neutral feeling." **************************************** I find "... liable to DESTRUCTION, to evanescence, to fading away, to CESSATION ..." [emphases mine] to be fairly clear. On the other hand, if all that you mean by impermanence not meaning destruction is that there are no truly independent, self-existing "things" to begin with, and hence none to be destroyed, I would agree with you. But that is not how you have expressed it. If you mean something else, then I'm afraid that I just don'tunderstand you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > >K: Assuming Nibbana can be experienced by conditioned if we used > > the > > > > basis > that Nibbana has the same nature of anatta as conditioned > > > cittas. But the > problem as they are anatta, whatever citta > > experienced > > > will be illusory. Because this "illusory experience" is due to the > > > speed of cittas which a self thought there is self in anatta. Nibbana > > > cannot be substantiated on this basis because in Nibbana we see > > reality, > > > which mean anatta is fully understand, hence there is no "illusory > > > experience". > > > > > > > > S: I agree there is no ilusory experience. The cittas and nibbana > > are > > > > anatta. Anatta doesn’t mean illusory. Sorry I’m having trouble > > following > > > you here. Rob Ep or Howard may be able to follow your thinking better > > > here. > > > > > > > > > k: The problem is then we thought kusala cittas is the one > > leading to > > > > > Nibbana which is not correct. Because kusala cittas are dependent > > on > > > > > akusala cittas to be in existence. If there is no akuasla citta, > > we > > > > would not know what is kuasala cittas in the first place. Cittas > > cannot > > > > > eradicate another cittas because they have the same > > charateristics. > > > > Citta is categories into four jati but to me they are not mutually > > > > exclusive. Furthermore if we look at sati, it is never abt getting > > > rid, it is abt knowing its coming and going. No eradication because > > > eradication or getting rid is still attached to a subtle self concept > > for > > > an "action" to be enforced whereas coming and going we let things as > > it > > > is, > > > > attachment to a self concept is also let go. That is why I keep > > > insisting that Nibbana to me is not eradication of defilements it is > > the > > > letting go of defilements and in the next moment one is in Nibbana. > > One > > > let go of conditions to reach unconditional reality. > > > > > > > S: Sorry, can you give the the text or the commentary reference you > > are > > > > referring to here as I’m not clear where these ideas come from. > > May I > > > > just stress that the characteristic of sati is to be aware of a > > reality > > > for a moment and then gone. There is no ‘one’ to let go of > > conditions or > > > defilements or anything else. If it is not the development of kusala > > > cittas (and in particular, the development of wisdom) that leads to > > > nibbana, then I wonder why the Buddha stresses this development so > > much? > > > > > > k: It is we classify those sati, metta, other wholesome practises as > > > kusala cittas and during such kusala cittas there is no akusala > > cittas. > > > Buddha urge us to do kusala cittas but he did not classify that if we > > have > > > kusala cittas there is no akusala present in this kusala itself. > > Because > > > kusala does not equate akusala. It is like using another "self" to > > > replace a "self". Furthermore as I have said earlier, kusala and > > akusala > > > both depend on each other to be in existence, hence it is not > > permanent. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I won't argue about things not being permanent! ;-)) But, as far > > as > > kusala and akusala being mutually dependent, I believe you are mixing > > two > > different senses of 'dependent' here. For sure, the *concepts* of > > 'kusala' > > and 'akusala' are mutually dependent. But that does not, in and of > > itself, > > imply that any kusala dhamma arises in dependence on an akusala one or > > vice-versa. Dependent arising of specific experienced dhammas differs > > from > > the logico-semantic interdependence of concepts. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > k: I know what you mean, I like to ask you this questions do cittas cares > whether they are kusala or akusala. Do they share the same function as > cognize. It is we when we start to differentiate that this is kusala or > that is akusala then we are in the begining of attaching to ideas again or > in short discrimination. Dan says Buddhist practise is paradoxical and I > agree with him. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' are, of course, conventional terms. Mind states are certainly just what they are. However, some are conducive to such things as calm, insight, lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity, and others are not. It is useful to distinguish those which are from those which are not. We call the first group 'kusala'. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To do kusala like metta is conventional so that the mind is more > > peaceful > > > but these do not help us to attain arahant bc all religion urges > > goodness > > > but they do not attain arahant bc they are one sided in their > > practise. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Certainly sila is not sufficient for awakening, but it is a > > necessary > > part of the Buddha's path, a part which you correctly point out is > > common to > > all religions. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > In his method of sati, there is no right or wrong just pure attention > > to > > > what arise. If we have pure attention what arise, it is very > > difficult to > > > do bad or to be attached. Sorry my understanding does not base on > > > commentaries, it is base on practise that I feel this is the point and > > > plus Mahayana doctrinal influences and relooking at sati sutras. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > When one's mind is not already reasonably free of the turmoil of > > akusala thought and emotion - and I do assume that your mind *is* free > > of > > such, at least to the same extent as the rest of us - there is rarely a > > solid > > enough foundation for the development of further calm and insight. > > Moreover, > > when one is tied to wrong view and filled with hate or craving, should > > one > > somehow be able to make progress in meditation, one is likely to > > misinterpret > > what one "sees" and to misuse the fruits of the practice. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > k: Thanks for your advice and concern. To me what I just trying to say > what I think. It was not meant to talk down to pple or force my idea on > other pple. If I sound like that, I sincerely apologise to everyone here. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm not saying anything along such lines, Kenneth. I'm simply disagreeing with you. Without a solid foundation of sila, the establishment of which is an essential part of the Buddha's prescription for curing dukkha, the mind is in too much turmoil for the other aspects of the training to be effective. At least a modicum of sila needs to be in place. ------------------------------------------------------------------ > But to me if you think I am wrong, talk to me. Clear my doubts. Yes I > admit I am a stubborn person hence that is why I throw away all the > fixations ideas of Buddhism away once in a while. I never said that > understanding the three posions is not impt. It is there we know it, but > as I say in sati, when we are mindful, it is difficult to do things that > are attached to these three poisons. My argument is base on sati > principle and not on anything else. We must know when we talk abt kusala > or akusala is like saying this is good and this is bad. This principle of > practise is to me not agreeable to what I think Buddha is trying to say. > He is I think trying to point a practise that is neither attached to both > ends of discrimination. Chan Master Hui Neng say that "our difference > between us and Buddha is because we are full of right and wrong, and good > and bad" ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Right mindfulness is one factor out of eight in the noble eightfold path. To be sure, it assumes a royal position, a leadership position among the factors, but it is not the whole of the practice. ---------------------------------------------------- > > k: Once again I sincerely apologise if I sound forceful in my views which > sincerely I feel very unmindful of me and very inconsiderate of me. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There's nothing at all akusala ;-)) in being forceful, and I see no reason whatsoever for you to see yourself as being unmindful or inconsiderate. I am simply expressing disagreement with you on a few points, and also expressing that it is not a matter of "believing" or "disbelieving", but simply a matter of agreeing with you or disagreeing with you on certain points - and maybe not even that, but, rather a matter of clarification of positions. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards > Ken O > > =========================== 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) 9007 From: m. nease Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:05am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Re; Horses [Erik] Hi RobEp, I think you're right. And I also think that the reason some of us have become such hammerheads on the subject of satipatthaana is that all that other kusala, no matter how kusala, just leads to more sa.msaara--satipatthaana does not. That's how I understand it, anyway... mike --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- rikpa21@y... wrote: > > ...I always come back > > to this point here, it seems. While we can talk > about anatta until > > the cows come home, even particle physicists know > that nothing has > > any intrinsic nature. And yet what does that do > for them in terms of > > eradicating the source of suffering? Seriously? > There is much more to > > the game than just the study of Right View, which, > as forerunner, may > > be key, yet it still plays a holistic role with > all the other path- > > factors like Right Speech, Right Resolve, Right > Effort, etc., and > > these operate at both the conventional and > supramundane levels. > > Erik, > I don't know if this applies to what you are saying, > but I would say there's a big > difference between understanding something as a > concept and experiencing it. But > they are related. > > I spent some time trying to directly contemplate > anicca and anatta the other week > and had a moment when I suddenly realized that what > I considered 'Robert' was just > a temporary collection of experiences. I had > understood this concept for a long > time, but the realization at that moment was that it > was not just right but > *actual*. It was quite a shock. Instead of having > the reaction I thought I would > have had, that I would be depressed at the sense of > temporariness and mortality > that this revealed, it was exciting and liberating. > So this to me was a direct > experience of anicca. Now I can't say what ultimate > effect it had. But when I > think back I now have this memory of a direct > experience of 'anicca' as it > pertains to my 'self' [just meaning the familiar > body, thoughts, etc. that I > associate with 'Robert']. These moments of direct > insight, whether they are > 'large' or 'small' have a very different flavour > from studying and understanding a > concept. And in that sense they seem to me to be > akin to the real workings of the > path. > > I've also sometimes gone for years looking at > concepts and had *no* insights of > that sudden and direct kind, so I can't say that > there is any direct relation. > But I'm sure there is an indirect and cumulative > relation between Right View and > the development of Insight. > > What do you think? > > Best, > Robert Ep. 9008 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 0:30pm Subject: Re: Re; Horses [Erik] Hi Rob E., > I've also sometimes gone for years looking at concepts and had *no* insights of > that sudden and direct kind, so I can't say that there is any direct relation. > But I'm sure there is an indirect and cumulative relation between Right View and > the development of Insight. > > What do you think? Bingo. 9009 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 5:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1 Hi Howard, > Howard: > How's the following? > *********************************************** > Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.9 > > Anicca Sutta > > Impermanent > > Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera. > For free distribution only. > From HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel303.html">Contemplation > of Feeling: The Discourse-grouping on the Feelings (WH > 303), translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera (Kandy: Buddhist > > Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication > Society. > Used with permission. "The three kinds of feelings, O monks, are > impermanent, > compounded, dependently arisen, liable to destruction, to evanescence, > to > fading away, to cessation -- namely, pleasant feeling, painful feeling > and > neutral feeling." > **************************************** > I find "... liable to DESTRUCTION, to evanescence, to fading > away, to > CESSATION ..." [emphases mine] to be fairly clear. On the other hand, if > all > that you mean by impermanence not meaning destruction is that there are > no > truly independent, self-existing "things" to begin with, and hence none > to be > destroyed, I would agree with you. But that is not how you have > expressed it. > If you mean something else, then I'm afraid that I just don'tunderstand > you. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ k: Yes that is what I meant all dhammas are empty by nature, so what is there to be destroyed. All dhammas are of one nature, what is there to destroyed. All are unborn, what is there to be destroyed since it was not born in the first place. Feelings can never be destroyed because it comes from nowhere and it goes to nowhere, how do we destroyed something that has no fixations. It is only when our "self" is involved, we though it has a fixations. Even when we talk abt feelings (cetasika), where does it go after it cease or where does it come out from? > > > > k: I know what you mean, I like to ask you this questions do cittas > cares > > whether they are kusala or akusala. Do they share the same function > as > > cognize. It is we when we start to differentiate that this is kusala > or > > that is akusala then we are in the begining of attaching to ideas > again or > > in short discrimination. Dan says Buddhist practise is paradoxical > and I > > agree with him. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' are, of course, conventional > terms. > Mind states are certainly just what they are. However, some are > conducive to > such things as calm, insight, lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic > joy, > and equanimity, and others are not. It is useful to distinguish those > which > are from those which are not. We call the first group 'kusala'. > ------------------------------------------------------- k: Yes if we are talking conventional, they are impt bc they are fruits for peaceful mind. > > > > > > > > > To do kusala like metta is conventional so that the mind is more > > > peaceful > > > > but these do not help us to attain arahant bc all religion urges > > > goodness > > > > but they do not attain arahant bc they are one sided in their > > > practise. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Howard: > > > Certainly sila is not sufficient for awakening, but it is a > > > necessary > > > part of the Buddha's path, a part which you correctly point out is > > > common to > > > all religions. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- k: Isn't calm, insight, lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, also common to a lot of religion? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > k: Thanks for your advice and concern. To me what I just trying to > say > > what I think. It was not meant to talk down to pple or force my idea > on > > other pple. If I sound like that, I sincerely apologise to everyone > here. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I'm not saying anything along such lines, Kenneth. I'm simply > disagreeing with you. Without a solid foundation of sila, the > establishment > of which is an essential part of the Buddha's prescription for curing > dukkha, > the mind is in too much turmoil for the other aspects of the training to > be > effective. At least a modicum of sila needs to be in place. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > But to me if you think I am wrong, talk to me. Clear my doubts. Yes I > > admit I am a stubborn person hence that is why I throw away all the > > fixations ideas of Buddhism away once in a while. I never said that > > understanding the three posions is not impt. It is there we know it, > but > > as I say in sati, when we are mindful, it is difficult to do things > that > > are attached to these three poisons. My argument is base on sati > > principle and not on anything else. We must know when we talk abt > kusala > > or akusala is like saying this is good and this is bad. This > principle of > > practise is to me not agreeable to what I think Buddha is trying to > say. > > He is I think trying to point a practise that is neither attached to > both > > ends of discrimination. Chan Master Hui Neng say that "our difference > > between us and Buddha is because we are full of right and wrong, and > good > > and bad" > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Right mindfulness is one factor out of eight in the noble > eightfold > path. To be sure, it assumes a royal position, a leadership position > among > the factors, but it is not the whole of the practice. > ---------------------------------------------------- k: Yes I am more incline to say that the leadership of the whole practise is right understanding. I am not saying that we should not followed the eight noble path, what I am trying to point out is when we are mindful, sila is not a major factor anymore, it all falls in line. Just like when you are meditating. Are you concern abt right or wrong, or just pure attention. Even when anger arise, it will not affect you. You become an observer of anger, or greed. Similarily, when we are mindful, we cannot do things that are of wrong actions, all sila automatically falls in line. When we have right concentration, it is even better (conventional sense). > > > > k: Once again I sincerely apologise if I sound forceful in my views > which > > sincerely I feel very unmindful of me and very inconsiderate of me. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There's nothing at all akusala ;-)) in being forceful, and I see > no > reason whatsoever for you to see yourself as being unmindful or > inconsiderate. I am simply expressing disagreement with you on a few > points, > and also expressing that it is not a matter of "believing" or > "disbelieving", > but simply a matter of agreeing with you or disagreeing with you on > certain > points - and maybe not even that, but, rather a matter of clarification > of > positions. > ----------------------------------------------------- k: It could by my grasp of English is the problem bc I am brought up in another different culture. I would refrain from using this word. Kind regards Ken O 9010 From: Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 7:26pm Subject: Re: Hello...[Robert] Robert, Thank you for your help. I will ponder your response, and Dan will explain it to me several times. (Thanks also for the endorsement of my husband!) Lisa 9011 From: Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 2:40pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1 Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 10/30/01 8:15:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > > > Howard: > > How's the following? > > *********************************************** > > Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.9 > > > > Anicca Sutta > > > > > Impermanent > > > > Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera. > > For free distribution only. > > From > > HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel303.html"> > Contemplation > > of Feeling: The Discourse-grouping on the Feelings (WH > > 303), translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera (Kandy: Buddhist > > > > Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication > > Society. > > Used with permission. "The three kinds of feelings, O monks, are > > impermanent, > > compounded, dependently arisen, liable to destruction, to evanescence, > > to > > fading away, to cessation -- namely, pleasant feeling, painful feeling > > and > > neutral feeling." > > **************************************** > > I find "... liable to DESTRUCTION, to evanescence, to fading > > away, to > > CESSATION ..." [emphases mine] to be fairly clear. On the other hand, if > > all > > that you mean by impermanence not meaning destruction is that there are > > no > > truly independent, self-existing "things" to begin with, and hence none > > to be > > destroyed, I would agree with you. But that is not how you have > > expressed it. > > If you mean something else, then I'm afraid that I just don'tunderstand > > you. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > k: Yes that is what I meant all dhammas are empty by nature, so what is > there to be destroyed. All dhammas are of one nature, what is there to > destroyed. All are unborn, what is there to be destroyed since it was not > born in the first place. Feelings can never be destroyed because it comes > from nowhere and it goes to nowhere, how do we destroyed something that > has no fixations. It is only when our "self" is involved, we though it > has a fixations. Even when we talk abt feelings (cetasika), where does it > go after it cease or where does it come out from? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahhh! Understood. No disagreement then on this. -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > k: I know what you mean, I like to ask you this questions do cittas > > cares > > > whether they are kusala or akusala. Do they share the same function > > as > > > cognize. It is we when we start to differentiate that this is kusala > > or > > > that is akusala then we are in the begining of attaching to ideas > > again or > > > in short discrimination. Dan says Buddhist practise is paradoxical > > and I > > > agree with him. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > The terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' are, of course, conventional > > terms. > > Mind states are certainly just what they are. However, some are > > conducive to > > such things as calm, insight, lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic > > joy, > > and equanimity, and others are not. It is useful to distinguish those > > which > > are from those which are not. We call the first group 'kusala'. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > k: Yes if we are talking conventional, they are impt bc they are fruits > for peaceful mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To do kusala like metta is conventional so that the mind is more > > > > peaceful > > > > > but these do not help us to attain arahant bc all religion urges > > > > goodness > > > > > but they do not attain arahant bc they are one sided in their > > > > practise. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Howard: > > > > Certainly sila is not sufficient for awakening, but it is a > > > > necessary > > > > part of the Buddha's path, a part which you correctly point out is > > > > common to > > > > all religions. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > k: Isn't calm, insight, lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic > joy, also common to a lot of religion? > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There are two exceptions, as I see it. Only through practicing the dhamma in its entirety, in my opinion, are the heights of insight and unshakable calm attainable. Through sila and concentration alone, which are the parts of the Buddha's path that appear elsewhere, only *limited* calm and insight are attainable. ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > k: Thanks for your advice and concern. To me what I just trying to > > say > > > what I think. It was not meant to talk down to pple or force my idea > > on > > > other pple. If I sound like that, I sincerely apologise to everyone > > here. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > I'm not saying anything along such lines, Kenneth. I'm simply > > disagreeing with you. Without a solid foundation of sila, the > > establishment > > of which is an essential part of the Buddha's prescription for curing > > dukkha, > > the mind is in too much turmoil for the other aspects of the training to > > be > > effective. At least a modicum of sila needs to be in place. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > But to me if you think I am wrong, talk to me. Clear my doubts. Yes I > > > admit I am a stubborn person hence that is why I throw away all the > > > fixations ideas of Buddhism away once in a while. I never said that > > > understanding the three posions is not impt. It is there we know it, > > but > > > as I say in sati, when we are mindful, it is difficult to do things > > that > > > are attached to these three poisons. My argument is base on sati > > > principle and not on anything else. We must know when we talk abt > > kusala > > > or akusala is like saying this is good and this is bad. This > > principle of > > > practise is to me not agreeable to what I think Buddha is trying to > > say. > > > He is I think trying to point a practise that is neither attached to > > both > > > ends of discrimination. Chan Master Hui Neng say that "our difference > > > between us and Buddha is because we are full of right and wrong, and > > good > > > and bad" > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Right mindfulness is one factor out of eight in the noble > > eightfold > > path. To be sure, it assumes a royal position, a leadership position > > among > > the factors, but it is not the whole of the practice. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > k: Yes I am more incline to say that the leadership of the whole practise > is right understanding. I am not saying that we should not followed the > eight noble path, what I am trying to point out is when we are mindful, > sila is not a major factor anymore, it all falls in line. Just like when > you are meditating. Are you concern abt right or wrong, or just pure > attention. Even when anger arise, it will not affect you. You become an > observer of anger, or greed. Similarily, when we are mindful, we cannot > do things that are of wrong actions, all sila automatically falls in line. > When we have right concentration, it is even better (conventional sense). > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Conventional right understanding is very important throughout, and when augmented by the other seven path practices, led by mindfulness, there eventually arises supermundane right understanding (or wisdom), which, in turn, leads to liberation. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > k: Once again I sincerely apologise if I sound forceful in my views > > which > > > sincerely I feel very unmindful of me and very inconsiderate of me. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > There's nothing at all akusala ;-)) in being forceful, and I see > > no > > reason whatsoever for you to see yourself as being unmindful or > > inconsiderate. I am simply expressing disagreement with you on a few > > points, > > and also expressing that it is not a matter of "believing" or > > "disbelieving", > > but simply a matter of agreeing with you or disagreeing with you on > > certain > > points - and maybe not even that, but, rather a matter of clarification > > of > > positions. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > k: It could by my grasp of English is the problem bc I am brought up in > another different culture. I would refrain from using this word. > > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > > ============================== 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) 9012 From: Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 7:43pm Subject: Re: Re; Horses [Erik] --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > Hi Rob E., > > I've also sometimes gone for years looking at concepts and had *no* > insights of > > that sudden and direct kind, so I can't say that there is any direct > relation. > > But I'm sure there is an indirect and cumulative relation between > Right View and > > the development of Insight. > > > > What do you think? > > Bingo. Indeed Dan, but with a little illustration from my own limited experience as a middling practitioner of this path (who's trying hard to improve) that may or may not be of some benefit. I found the most important aspect of study for me several years ago was "trangye"--studying the Tibetan sage Je Tsongkhapa's various refutations of the other tenet systems held by some proponents of various schools over the millennia, such as the Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Yogacara, and "lower" Madhyamika. This was an in-depth of several flavors of wrong views that did more for my understanding of what is measnt by Right View than any other approach I'd come across in my study of thje Dharma. Of course, I could have never been ready for this without FIRST having practiced getting rid of my intense aversion to othjer sentient beings through the practice of tonglen (giving and taking compassion using the breath as object). All that study of Right View would have made no difference to me at the point my mind was filled with ill-will toward sentient beings, as it had been until I was set straight on the practice of tonglen and had practiced that for many, many months, until my heart turned from sour and cynical to being somewhat more open and accommodating. When these preparations were there--in terms of having cultivatad a somewhat kinder, gentler heart--not to mention the sila of having abandoned driking to the point of heedlessness, THEN (just looking back on my own mind-state) the study of Right View became the most important factor in my practice of the Dharma. Right View as taught to me by my lama through his presentation of Je Tsongkhapa's in his "Essence of Eloquence" showed me how to properly analyze positions (views) like "Mind Only". These etachings showed me where I'd been going wrong, and how to analyze and refute the view that "mind" exists as an absolute entity (the view I had been clinging to--nearly a solipisistic one). This study was still, of course, combined with ongoing tonglen (Tibetann metta-bhavana) with at least one hour a day of anapanasati meditation EVERY DAY WITHOUT FAIL, until mental and physical lightness and pliancy and tranquility became well-established, until even jhana while riding the subway was possible, and there was real viriya combined with real passadhi and upekkha at most times, and even greater piti in jhana meditation than normal throughout the day (not to mention I dropped about two hours of sleep a night because a few minutes in the rapture of jhana is like an hour or more of sleep). Mind you thhis is not even any kind of mastery of jhana, but "good enough" for a beginner, and good enough that within a few moments of sitting down, bodily fabrications were calmed and concentration firmly established, and within moments after that the "circulating fountain of bliss" arose, and then shortly thereafter, just calm, unshakeable concentration, taking emptiness of the "I, me, mine" as the object of meditation stepping in & out of the jhanas. In other words, a full combination of samatha and vipashayana, as taught in my system (which is based on Master Kamalasila's "Bhavana Krama" or the "Progressive Stages" [of meditation]). This practice was ALSO combined also with serious confidence in my ability to "get" Right View: strong faith (saddha) in the Buddha's teachings, as well as in my lama's understanding and that he was teaching Right View. My confidence grew after being shown, via reasoning and logic, how nothing has independent existence, that nothing exists absolutely (unestablished apart from conditions), that all things are composed of other things and therefore subject to cessation. Nagarjuna's "Verses from the Middle Way" were (and are) of immense help in this, I must say. Every waking moment of my life was centered on the Dharma in some way at this time, every contemplation a meditation on how things lack self-nature yet still exist by way of convention, and NEVER the discarding of conventions like accumulating wholsome kamma either-- working diligently on practices like tonglen, since my lama taught us that merit and wisdom are like "two wings on a bird" that work in tandem to bring to fruition the realization that destroys how we incorrectly hold to objects as being self-existent, and the direct realization of emptiness or anatta is the ultimate (and only) antidote to the sufferings of samsara. So not just the study of Right View, but many, many things that all come together at the same time, which for thse khandas involved at least two hours a day of the textual study of the Dhamma in addition to every moment I could recall practices like tonglen and the meditation on emptiness, along with jhana practice daily for at least an hour (preceded by mantra recitations--an excellent form of samatha meditation, BTW, not to mention great metta-bhavana cultivation with "OM MANI PEMA HUNG" and the like), until the aforementioned factors were all energized to the point they all came together in a flash of a single moment that changed everything. So while I agree with you that Right View IS forerunner, and I'd never deny that, and the study of Right View is key. AND YET, without the more mundane practices it would have been for me a worthless theoretical exercise by itself. That is a danger of clinging to the view of anatta often spoken of (Nagarjuna called those who take anatta/e,ptiness as a view as "incurable" for example)--that it becomes a VIEW in itself, that it becomes so important it makes things like cultivating a good heart seem like a pointless endeavor. The reason I spend so much time on this point here is that I really believe that the Middle Way propounded by the Buddha means just that: it's about finding the right balance, striking the "sweet spot"--like the lute-string: not too tight, nor too loose. And it is very easy to become too tight on the study of anatta to the exclusion of accumulating merit (or too loose), or too tight on the practice of accumulating merit to the exclusion of the study of Right View (or too loose). The Path is the Middle Way between these extremes. When there is too much emphasis on either Right View OR the accumulation of merit and wholesome states of mind (which by themselves we all know don't lead to anything other than pleasant results--they MUST be combined with Right View to actualize the Buddha's path), then practice becomes lopsided and yields no fruit, and one will never find the Middle Way between the extremes of no-existence and true existence. 9013 From: frank kuan Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:16pm Subject: unintentional humor often the best "Poetry is the art of substantiating shadows, and of lending existence to nothing." - Edmund Burke In other words, poetry is the exact opposite of cultivation :-) How deplorable the human state is! We want permanence when all signs indicate otherwise, we chase after happiness and multiply dukkha instead. -fk 9014 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello - Jesse Hello, Jesse, --- Jesse Dhillon wrote: > Hello, > I just joined this list on the recommendation of a friend on IRC. I got > into Buddhism just a short while ago, and I am trying to read the various > suttas as I find them. I may not be very knowledgeable or useful in the > various discussions, so I will just watch for the time being. Thanks. Thanks for joining us and sending this intro....I sincerely hope you find this list useful. Please ask any questions about the suttas and feel free to let us know if there is something being discussed that you'd like clarification on or if you have a comment of your own. Most of us are not very knowledgeable here, but we just try to give each other a little support and encouragement. > "Subject to decay are all component things; strive earnestly to work out > your own salvation." This is an important quote and reminder which is interpreted in different ways, I think.... Btw, I have two little questions: May I ask what IRC is? Where do you live, Jesse? (answers are optional;-)) Hope to hear from you later, Best wishes, Sarah 9015 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:58pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1 Hi Howard > > > Howard: > > > How's the following? > > > *********************************************** > > > Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.9 > > > > > > Anicca Sutta > > > > > > > > Impermanent > > > > > > Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera. > > > For free distribution only. > > > From > > > HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel303.html"> > > Contemplation > > > of Feeling: The Discourse-grouping on the Feelings (WH > > > 303), translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera (Kandy: Buddhist > > > > > > Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication > > > Society. > > > Used with permission. "The three kinds of feelings, O monks, are > > > impermanent, > > > compounded, dependently arisen, liable to destruction, to > evanescence,> to fading away, to cessation -- namely, pleasant feeling, painful feeling and neutral feeling." > > > **************************************** > > > I find "... liable to DESTRUCTION, to evanescence, to fading > > > away, to CESSATION ..." [emphases mine] to be fairly clear. On the other hand, if all that you mean by impermanence not meaning destruction is that there are no truly independent, self-existing "things" to begin with, and hence none to be destroyed, I would agree with you. But that is not how you have expressed it. If you mean something else, then I'm afraid that I just don'tunderstand> you. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > k: Yes that is what I meant all dhammas are empty by nature, so what > is there to be destroyed. All dhammas are of one nature, what is there > to destroyed. All are unborn, what is there to be destroyed since it was > not born in the first place. Feelings can never be destroyed because it > comes from nowhere and it goes to nowhere, how do we destroyed something > that has no fixations. It is only when our "self" is involved, we though > it has a fixations. Even when we talk abt feelings (cetasika), where > does it go after it cease or where does it come out from? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahhh! Understood. No disagreement then on this. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- k: Then I think you are back to the same question, do cittas cease? I feel that the sutta defintion is not congruent with what you have agreed with my point of view. What is your point of view on cittas cease? > > k: Isn't calm, insight, lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic > > joy, also common to a lot of religion? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There are two exceptions, as I see it. Only through practicing > the dhamma in its entirety, in my opinion, are the heights of insight and unshakable calm attainable. Through sila and concentration alone, which are the parts of the Buddha's path that appear elsewhere, only *limited* calm and insight are attainable. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- k: Only through anatta then we are different from the rest of the religions bc most religions has a self attached view. Since all cittas are anatta, it does not care whether we infer it as kusala or akusala, it will still perform its role. By attached values on citta, is discrimination a self on anatta. Furthemore to explain why I say kusala depends on aksuala. Firstly, how do we not know what is detachment if we do not realised what is attachment. How do we know what is joy if we do not know what is sad? These discrimination arise bc of our condition thinking. Since cittas are anatta, it is us who "fixed" such a meaning. Paradoxically we need such a meaning to know what is good what is bad (it is like a reference book), but the practise I more incline to interpret is Buddha urges us not to attached to both sides. It is a practise of non fixations (sati) since cittas or cetasikas have no fixations. ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > k: Yes I am more incline to say that the leadership of the whole > practise is right understanding. I am not saying that we should not followed the eight noble path, what I am trying to point out is when we are > mindful, sila is not a major factor anymore, it all falls in line. Just like when you are meditating. Are you concern abt right or wrong, or just pure attention. Even when anger arise, it will not affect you. You become > an > observer of anger, or greed. Similarily, when we are mindful, we > cannot do things that are of wrong actions, all sila automatically falls in line.> When we have right concentration, it is even better (conventional > sense). > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Conventional right understanding is very important throughout, > and when augmented by the other seven path practices, led by mindfulness, > there eventually arises supermundane right understanding (or wisdom), which, in turn, leads to liberation. > ----------------------------------------------------------- k: I agreed with you on right understanding which I will describe as the steering wheel. Right Mindfullness is the engine. Kind regards Kenneth Ong 9016 From: Jesse Dhillon Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 0:06am Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] unintentional humor often the best >In other words, poetry is the exact opposite of >cultivation :-) How deplorable the human state is! We >want permanence when all signs indicate otherwise, we >chase after happiness and multiply dukkha instead. > >-fk Perhaps Bishop Berkeley put this in a good way. He said that empiricists, who pride themselves on making measurements and divisions out of the world cannot, in fact, justify the belief that there is a mind-independent world which exists outside of our consciousnesses. This is contradictory to the very logic they profess, as this would mean that there are "objects" in the "real world" which we believe to exist, even though we can never directly observe them; we only observe them through our grid of senses. He is really saying that there is nothing independent of ourselves, and that we forget this and believe that the world, our bodies, and our minds are real because we are ignorant of the fact that we can't justify our belief in this. We observe nothing. Nothing observes us. Just my humble opinion. Jesse Dhillon. "Subject to decay are all component things; strive earnestly to work out your own salvation." 9017 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 0:16am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Lisa's question Dear Rob Ep and Lisa, Rob Ep wrote this post (below) recently and I thought it was beautifully written with a good explanation as to why some people like himself 'have been attracted to this list'.... I might quibble over a few minor points, but I thought the 'gist' was spot on and very sincere. Lisa, as I was clearing out old posts, I thought of your question and wondered if you might find it helpful. I know Rob Ep will be delighted if you wish to pursue any of his comments further..... Thanks Rob....;-) Sarah --- 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 > > =========================== 9018 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 0:31am Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Pali Canon on Web Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Is there a complete copy of the Pali Canon translated into English on the > web? I > have downloaded one in Pali, but I'm afraid I can only enjoy it for the pure > poetry of the sound. I know the feeling:-) Some of the Abhidhamma and many of the commentaries are not translated into English at all. Out of those parts which have been translated into English, I'm always very out-of-date as to what is available on the web exactly. Perhaps Mike or Christine can give this info more precisely with links as I know they are always up-to-date and link-friendly;-) ... If you go to bookmarks on the dsg homepage, you'll find links to the Access to Insight and Metta sites that have most the Suttas in English, but precious little Abhidhamma. I forget if the Vinaya is there. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links Another problem (for some of us) is the quality of the translations which are rather variable. It's really wonderful to have all the Access to Insight translations on the Web and to be able to give easy links, but generally I prefer to read other translations, such as those by B.Bodhi with Commentary notes where possible, which are mostly only in book form. None of the PTS translations are on Web either (as far as I know), but all of this is just a mater of time I'm sure. It is a dilemma for small publishers who would like the materials to be accessible but yet cannot continue to do their work without any income. Sorry, I'm not really the right person to ask, so I hope someone else will help with better information. Sarah 9019 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 0:46am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Tales from India Hi Jon, it's me;-) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > This is written from my office on Monday morning, which seems another > world altogether from the sights, sounds and smells of just 24 hours ago, > but in the absolute sense is, as we know in theory at least, different > only in terms of the shape-and-form and detail (nimitta and anupayancanna > -- sometimes translated as 'outward appearance and particulars') appearing > through those doorways. The actual experiencing of objects through the > various doorways remains the same in its essential nature throughout, and > it is this essential nature that is the object of the understanding that > we are urged to develop. Would you kindly elaborate on the nimitta and anupayancanna as mentioned above and the distinction between them in this context. I'd also be interested to hear more about your discussion on characteristics of realities (as opposed to realities) to be known and the 'carbon paper' simile you mentioned briefly to me in the context of Howard's question on the timing of awareness. No rush.... Thanks.... see you after my yoga class;-)) Sar > Leaving the group was for me a classic example of 'sweet sorrow', that is, > both strong pleasant feeling (because of attachment to the good people and > the many fruitful discussions) and sadness (at the fact that it was all > coming to an end) arising alternately and apparently simultaneously. This > was a condition for tears to appear when saying my final goodbye to the > group, but since one still has so much accumulated kilesa, this is only to > be expected I suppose. And any embarrassment I may have felt at this > unseemly exhibition on my part is itself just another example of that > particular kilesa known as mana (seeing oneself as important)! > > There were many useful snippets that came up during the trip, and I will > try to bring these in to posts as and when appropriate. > > For anyone who has the slightest inclination, I would strongly recommend > taking any opportunity to visit the holy places or join any trip that Khun > Sujin is doing (and ideally, of course, to combine both of these if at all > possible). > > It's good to be back with you all. > > Jon > 9020 From: Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 1:54am Subject: Concepts Hi all, Anicca (impermanence) is known as one of the three marks of existence. I assume that anicca is a concept and not a reality to be directly known. For how can awareness of the present moment include awareness of the previous moment, and thus know it's own passing? How can it be a characteristic of a present moment that it is changing? There must always be reference to a previous ie imagined reality for the deduction of change to be made. Some commentators suggest that anicca is the basis for anatta and dukkha. Phenomena are unsatisfactory, because all things change all the time. There is nothing to cling to. Because things change all the time there is no core essence in any phenomenon and vice versa, therefore the notion of a self is only a concept. There is nothing to cling to and noone to do the clinging. So who or what suffers? A concept. And what does it suffer from? The concept of change. And just how real can this suffering be? Regards Herman 9021 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 2:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Best wishes, Erik --- rikpa21@y... wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., dalthorp@o... wrote: > > Hey, are you making moves on my wife?! > > Fortunately you're in luck, Dan, because on Sunday I will be > officially married, and my new bride will have none of that sort of > thing, so you're off the hook! I'm just trying to get my flirtation > in while I can still get away with it. Erik You sure are a fast mover! It seems only weeks ago that you were telling Sarah and me over breakfast at the Peninsular Hotel in Bangkok about this charming girl you had come across on an earlier visit to Cambodia, and were planning to visit some time soon. I remarked, only half jokingly, about 'carrying on the story', little thinking that the story would turn into reality (in a purely conventional sense, of course), and in such quick order too. Not a man to beat about the bush! Erik, I wish you and Aert all the very best for a long and happy life together. May you find the hapiness you seek, and may you also grow in understanding. Jon 9022 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 2:25am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: cittas- Howard Howard & others I have pasted below the entry from Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' on the subject of the stages in the life-span of a citta. Hope you find it of interest. Jon --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Howard and sarah, > In "A Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma" Bhikkhu Bodhip156 Guide to > #6 'The life span of a citta is termed , in the Abhidhamma a > mindmoment(cittakhana). ..in a flash of lightning billions of mind- > moments can elasp. Nevertheless, though seemingly infinetesimal each > mind moment in turn consists of three sub-moments: arising(uppada) > presence(thithi) and dissolution(bhavanga). Within the breath of a > mindmoment a citta arises , performs its momentary function, and then > dissolves, conditioning the next citta in immediate succesion"Endquote > robert Citta-kkhana: 'consciousness-moment', is the time occupied by one single stage in the perceptual process or cognitive series (cittavíthi). This moment again is subdivided into the genetic (uppáda), static (thiti) and dissolving (bhanga) moment. One such moment is said in the commentaries to be of inconceivably short duration and to last not longer than the billionth part of the time occupied by a flash of lightning. However that may be, we ourselves know from experience that it is possible within one single second to dream of innumerable things and events. In Anguttara Nikaya I, 10 it is said: "Nothing, o monks, do I know that changes so rapidly as consciousness. Scarcely anything may be found that could be compared with this so rapidly changing consciousness.". For a sutta source of the 3 stages, see Anguttara Nikaya III, 47-- "There are 3 characteristics of what is conditioned (sankhatassa lakkhaná): an arising (uppádo) is apparent, a passing away (vayo) is apparent, a change in the existing (thitassa aññathattam: Com. = ageing) is apparent" The same 3 phases are mentioned in Samyutta Nikaya XXII, 37, where they are applied to each of the 5 khandha. 9023 From: Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 10:55pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1 Hi, Ken - Our back-and-forth post is getting lengthy - so I will snip away the parts I am not replying to. In a message dated 10/31/01 2:01:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Ahhh! Understood. No disagreement then on this. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > k: Then I think you are back to the same question, do cittas cease? I > feel that the sutta defintion is not congruent with what you have agreed > with my point of view. What is your point of view on cittas cease? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: First of all, I'm not at all sure that I even accept the notion of cittas in the sense of instantaneous mind-moments! But for purposes of discussion, let me take 'citta' to mean "mind state", without an inference of that being instantaneous. In that case, I would say that in the same conventional sense that cittas arise and exist, they also cease. Whatever arises, ceases. However, in truth, and not just by convention, I don't believe that there ever arise separate cittas; I believe that *we* separate out cittas and dhammas from the general "flux" that is reality, and treat them as if they were substantial, individuated "things". --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > k: Isn't calm, insight, lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic > > > joy, also common to a lot of religion? > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > There are two exceptions, as I see it. Only through practicing > > the dhamma in its entirety, in my opinion, are the heights of insight > and unshakable calm attainable. Through sila and concentration alone, > which are the parts of the Buddha's path that appear elsewhere, only > *limited* calm and insight are attainable. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > k: Only through anatta then we are different from the rest of the > religions bc most religions has a self attached view. Since all cittas > are anatta, it does not care whether we infer it as kusala or akusala, it > will still perform its role. By attached values on citta, is > discrimination a self on anatta. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Anatta is, indeed, the main doctrinal difference between the Dhamma and other religions, and satipatthana is the main difference in practice. But that does not imply that one can attend only to what is different and be a "complete Buddhist". The main difference between a good bakery cake and a mediocre one is butter (let us say), but that doesn't mean that a good cake consists only of butter! With regard to not distinguishing between kusala and akusala because both are sunya, by the same reasoning there is no need to distingish between a Buddha and a Hitler! Seeing clearly the nature of conventional things is important, even when realizing at the same time that there are, in reality, no such things. From the Mahayana perspective, which I understand is yours, consider the Diamond-Cutter Sutra. There, Bodhisattvas are encouraged to assist all beings towards liberation, while all the while realizing that, ultimately, there are no such beings. Don't forget the notion of "two truths". Until you and I are arahants, we ignore conventional truth at our peril (and the peril of others). -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Furthemore to explain why I say kusala depends on aksuala. Firstly, how > do we not know what is detachment if we do not realised what is > attachment. How do we know what is joy if we do not know what is sad? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't disagree with you on this. I said that before. The notions, the concepts, of kusala and akusala are mutually dependent, and the understanding of one depends on the understanding of the other. As I pointed out before, however, that conceptual interdependence is a different matter from the conditionality that may or may not hold between kusala and akusala mind states. ------------------------------------------------------------ > These discrimination arise bc of our condition thinking. Since cittas are > anatta, it is us who "fixed" such a meaning. Paradoxically we need such a > meaning to know what is good what is bad (it is like a reference book), > but the practise I more incline to interpret is Buddha urges us not to > attached to both sides. It is a practise of non fixations (sati) since > cittas or cetasikas have no fixations. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: If, by the foregoing, you mean that there is no difference between kusala and akusala states except as we arbitrarily impose, then I strongly disagree. The difference between conventional things is not arbitrary. Your c ertainty that poison is nectar will not protect you when you drink the poison! --------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Conventional right understanding is very important throughout, > > and when augmented by the other seven path practices, led by > mindfulness, > > there eventually arises supermundane right understanding (or wisdom), > which, in turn, leads to liberation. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > k: I agreed with you on right understanding which I will describe as the > steering wheel. Right Mindfullness is the engine. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, I'm no more an expert on automobiles than I am on chariots! ;-)) But I think your metaphor sounds quite good! ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9024 From: Date: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Concepts Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/31/01 4:55:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@d... writes: > Some commentators suggest that anicca is the basis for anatta and > dukkha. Phenomena are unsatisfactory, because all things change all > the time. There is nothing to cling to. Because things change all the > time there is no core essence in any phenomenon and vice versa, > therefore the notion of a self is only a concept. There is nothing to > cling to and noone to do the clinging. > > So who or what suffers? A concept. And what does it suffer from? The > concept of change. And just how real can this suffering be? > > ========================== Nagarjuna addressed this very point. If dukkha were truly "real", a true "thing", how could there be an escape from samsara? It is only because dukkha, itself, is empty that freedom is possible. 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) 9025 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 5:26am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1 Hi Howard > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > First of all, I'm not at all sure that I even accept the notion > of cittas in the sense of instantaneous mind-moments! But for purposes of discussion, let me take 'citta' to mean "mind state", without an > inference of that being instantaneous. In that case, I would say that in the same conventional sense that cittas arise and exist, they also cease. Whatever arises, ceases. However, in truth, and not just by convention, I don't believe that there ever arise separate cittas; I believe that *we* separate out cittas and dhammas from the general "flux" that is reality, and treat them as if they were substantial, individuated "things". > --------------------------------------------------------- k: To me, I accepted that cittas are momentary. Because feeling, thoughts etc is also momentary hence to me cittas are also momentary. Furthermore there is logic to cittas as a seperate process bc in conventional sense our different part of our brain organ organise different sense faculty. They are also different sense organ doorways, hence there are different cittas or cetasikas involved. Actually I like to know what is the Pali actual words for the Anicca Sutta that you have provided. I like to study more on its Pali words rather than the translations. I wishfully hope that Gayan could translate it:). I like to know whether it was used conventionally or absolutely. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > If, by the foregoing, you mean that there is no difference > between kusala and akusala states except as we arbitrarily impose, then I strongly disagree. The difference between conventional things is not arbitrary. Your certainty that poison is nectar will not protect you when you drink the poison! > --------------------------------------------------------------- k: Conventional yes, we got to know these terms very well so that we do not do evil things and let the mind to become restless. But in absolute terms they are not impt if one is in sati. To further explain why it is not impt, cittas are like mechanical parts of an automobile, one does not know the presence of the other, they just work together. They do not know whether they are the gear or they are the wheel. It just worked together as they suppose to work. It does not care whether it is first or reverse gear. Imposition of good and bad to these cittas is mainly due to our conditioning habits since past countless lifes. In the Mahayana terms, Buddha's wisdom is the same essence as in defilements. There is no difference. Difference arise due to our conditioning of what is wrong or right, good or bad. What is neither right or wrong is beyond conditioning, what is beyond conditioning is inconceivable, what is inconceivable is the same realm as Buddha nature. It is the same as sati practise, neither right nor wrong. No discrimination. If you remember that I say abt feelings, it goes nowhere and it comes from nowhere. It is the same to the other four khandas. One that comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere has no fixation, one has no fixation has no dependency, one has no dependency has no grasping, hence no conditioning, hence the same nature as Buddha nature. Hence that I why I say the nature of citta is the same as Buddha nature in an earlier post. Kind regards Ken O 9026 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:12am Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] dhammavicaya IV Hi Jon >Thus is Nibbána visible in this life, immediate, inviting, attractive, >and comprehensible to the wise" (A. III, 55). k: hmm attractive? Sounds like desiring to be in Nibbana? "Just as a rock of one solid mass remains unshaken by the wind, even so neither visible forms, nor sounds, nor odours, nor tastes, nor bodily impressions, neither the desired nor the undesired, can cause such a one to waver. Steadfast is his mind, gained is deliverance" (A, VI, 55). "Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible" (Ud. VIII, 3). k: I think when we are talk abt unborn we should not equate this with the born. Born should be equate with death and not unborn. Undeath is equate with unborn. It is like if there is no creation in the first place, where is there destruction. Furthermore when the commentary talk abt escape from the world of born, isn't it implying we are going from one "born" state to another state "where born does not exist". It sounds like saying that Nibbana is conditioned by the born, because without the born, where is there a state "where born does not exist". "One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not only for the actual realization of the goal of Nibbána, but also for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of anattá (q.v.), the egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbána - according to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as annihilation of an ego, or as an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters or with which it merges. Hence it is said:" k: So what is the point of explaining Nibbana in the first place. That is why I think Buddha says very few points in describing Nibbana. A nature that are beyond words to described. >"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; >The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there; k: Since there is no sufferer, where is there suffering in the first place? >Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; >The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." >(Vis.M. XVI) k: Since there is no traveler, where is there a need for a path to travel? Path is also anatta, same as the traveler, hence where is the path? Kind regards Ken O 9027 From: m. nease Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 7:31am Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Pali Canon on Web Hi Sarah and Rob, Sorry to disappoint but I'm not up on abhidhamma on the web either (especially commentaries). The best I can offer are the files and links at http://abhidhamma.org/ and http://www.dhammastudy.com/ I agree with Sarah about Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations, some of which you can find on the web searching by his name, but unfortunately few. mike --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Is there a complete copy of the Pali Canon > translated into English on the > > web? I > > have downloaded one in Pali, but I'm afraid I can > only enjoy it for the pure > > poetry of the sound. > > I know the feeling:-) > > Some of the Abhidhamma and many of the commentaries > are not translated into > English at all. Out of those parts which have been > translated into English, I'm > always very out-of-date as to what is available on > the web exactly. Perhaps > Mike or Christine can give this info more precisely > with links as I know they > are always up-to-date and link-friendly;-) ... > > If you go to bookmarks on the dsg homepage, you'll > find links to the Access to > Insight and Metta sites that have most the Suttas in > English, but precious > little Abhidhamma. I forget if the Vinaya is there. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links > > Another problem (for some of us) is the quality of > the translations which are > rather variable. It's really wonderful to have all > the Access to Insight > translations on the Web and to be able to give easy > links, but generally I > prefer to read other translations, such as those by > B.Bodhi with Commentary > notes where possible, which are mostly only in book > form. None of the PTS > translations are on Web either (as far as I know), > but all of this is just a > mater of time I'm sure. It is a dilemma for small > publishers who would like the > materials to be accessible but yet cannot continue > to do their work without any > income. > > Sorry, I'm not really the right person to ask, so I > hope someone else will help > with better information. > > Sarah > > 9028 From: Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:06am Subject: Re: Udana-Nibbana 4 --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > K: Sarah, I appreciate your kind patient in imparting true understanding > of the Nibbana concepts. I like to point out that I agreed with you that > Nibbana is anatta. on the other hand what I trying to point out is that > isn't this nature even though anatta also a "nature" on its own right. > Isn't it similiar to Mahayana, concept of Buddha Nature or Unborn. Hi Kenneth, Nibbana is a LABEL that is applied to the absence of the defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion. In this way it is a "nature" (absence of the defilements), but not a "nature" in the sense that if we just scratch the surface of ourselves, or if we just purify enough we'll find this mysterious entity underneath it all called "Buddha-nature" that's just been hidden away all this time, some hidden Self, for example. Buddha-nature correctly interpreted by Mahayana commentators refers to the POTENTIAL of all sentient beings to realize perfect enlightenment. It is not a thing-in-itself, a Universal Mind or somesuch, some permanent entity or substratum underlying all reality. Even the Zen patriarch Hui Neng, for example, when he uses the term "Self", simultaneously rejects independent existence. Anatta/emptiness refers to the fact that all things lack fixed or permanent nature (which would entail the consequence that they have existed for all time and will continue to exist for all time, unchanged, and unchanging, not to mention unchangeable). The "nature" part of anatta refers to the fact that all composed things are composed of other things, implying that nothing has any "core" or true "essence" or "entity" or "identity", that "realness" is a mere mental construct dependent on our own conditioning, which we impose onto a bunch of composed parts (in turn composed of yet more parts), in the same way we disignate a "chair" a chair in dependence on legs, a cushion, etc. There is no truly existent "chair" there, no "chairness" to be found among the legs, the cushion, the backrest. "Chair" is merely a concept, and thus unreal ultimately. Yet conventionally it performs the function of supporting your behind all the same! Anatta also says that that there is not truly any "oneness", nor is there truly "manyness"--meaning things are neither one nor many--this is the Middle Way betwen saying things exist as "things in themselves" and denying things exist at all. Furthermore, all composed things are impermanent, undergoing constant change, and as such this also implies they are devoid of any intrinsic or permanent "self". This is the atta (self) denied by the teaching of anatta, which is implied by anicca (impermanence), which in turn implies dukkha (suffering), since we tend to cling to these impermenent fabrications as "real", since we are under the spell that they truly exist. As a result, we experience pain as a result of this ignorance of their true nature, because we either attach to them if they appear pleasurable (and thus get upset when they change or disappear on us, which is inevitable following the law of impermanence), or feel aversion and disgust toward them if they appear unpleasant. The point is to come to see that there is nothing in the triple-realm that possesses intrinsic identity (self, atta), that even we sentient beings, as composed entities, also lack substantial entity. Once this undersatnding is permanently established (as it is for arahats) then all suffering ceases, because all the causes for suffering have been eradicated, starved of their fuel (the ignorance that conceives of an "I, me, mine"). This delusion is permanently abolished in those who have brought the Buddhist path to completion. 9029 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 9:27am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Udana-Nibbana 4 HI Erik > > Hi Kenneth, > > Nibbana is a LABEL that is applied to the absence of the defilements > of greed, hatred, and delusion. In this way it is a "nature" (absence > of the defilements), but not a "nature" in the sense that if we just > scratch the surface of ourselves, or if we just purify enough we'll > find this mysterious entity underneath it all called "Buddha-nature" > that's just been hidden away all this time, some hidden Self, for > example. k: For the Thervadans, that is their definition but for Mahayana that is not the definitions. Because all defilements are empty by nature hence they have the same essence as Buddha's wisdoms. There is no discrimination bc if there is discrimination, it shows dependency. If there is dependecy, there is conditioning. > > Buddha-nature correctly interpreted by Mahayana commentators refers > to the POTENTIAL of all sentient beings to realize perfect > enlightenment. It is not a thing-in-itself, a Universal Mind or > somesuch, some permanent entity or substratum underlying all reality. > Even the Zen patriarch Hui Neng, for example, when he uses the > term "Self", simultaneously rejects independent existence. k: Buddha Nature can be interpreted in many ways in many context. It depends on the situation. On one hand it can be interpreted as the potential, while on the other, it can be interpreted as emptiness. because Buddha nature is empty by nature. > Anatta/emptiness refers to the fact that all things lack fixed or > permanent nature (which would entail the consequence that they have > existed for all time and will continue to exist for all time, > unchanged, and unchanging, not to mention unchangeable). The "nature" > part of anatta refers to the fact that all composed things are > composed of other things, implying that nothing has any "core" or > true "essence" or "entity" or "identity", that "realness" is a mere > mental construct dependent on our own conditioning, which we impose > onto a bunch of composed parts (in turn composed of yet more parts), > in the same way we disignate a "chair" a chair in dependence on legs, > a cushion, etc. > > There is no truly existent "chair" there, no "chairness" to be found > among the legs, the cushion, the backrest. "Chair" is merely a > concept, and thus unreal ultimately. Yet conventionally it performs > the function of supporting your behind all the same! Anatta also says > that that there is not truly any "oneness", nor is there > truly "manyness"--meaning things are neither one nor many--this is > the Middle Way betwen saying things exist as "things in themselves" > and denying things exist at all. k: Buddism is beyond dualism and oneness bc they are both end of the spectrum. When we talk abt the chair, it neither exist nor not exist. If it does not exist, why are you seeing it. If it exist, where is its nature. > > Furthermore, all composed things are impermanent, undergoing constant > change, and as such this also implies they are devoid of any > intrinsic or permanent "self". This is the atta (self) denied by the > teaching of anatta, which is implied by anicca (impermanence), which > in turn implies dukkha (suffering), since we tend to cling to these > impermenent fabrications as "real", since we are under the spell that > they truly exist. As a result, we experience pain as a result of this > ignorance of their true nature, because we either attach to them if > they appear pleasurable (and thus get upset when they change or > disappear on us, which is inevitable following the law of > impermanence), or feel aversion and disgust toward them if they > appear unpleasant. > k: I thought that is what I said on the other post I defined impermanent as "every changing", not creating or destroying. What we experience is also empty by nature. Because it goes nowhere and comes from nowhere. It only "appear" when there is the right of causes and conditions and "disappear" when the causes and contions are absent. Furthermore, where is there to experience if one is in sati. Where is aversion if one is in sati. Where is suffering is one is in sati. > The point is to come to see that there is nothing in the triple-realm > that possesses intrinsic identity (self, atta), that even we sentient > beings, as composed entities, also lack substantial entity. Once this > undersatnding is permanently established (as it is for arahats) then > all suffering ceases, because all the causes for suffering have been > eradicated, starved of their fuel (the ignorance that conceives of > an "I, me, mine"). This delusion is permanently abolished in those > who have brought the Buddhist path to completion. k: I agree with you wholeheartedly that we must understand anicca, anatta and dukkha in order to have right understanding and practise the eight noble path deligently and follow it every moment of our life. I believe in this path and I am convinced this path is the way. Such a conviction is develop not by blinding following what Buddha says in the suttas. It is the actual practise of what it is taught in the sutta and then investigate it whether it conforms to the wise. As a result, we are able to grow confidence in Buddhism and this is the kalama spirit, henceforth our understanding is further increase or reinforce, and not by studying or reading the numerous suttas. In fact if we look at the Pali Cannon closely, it drills on the same few concepts of anatta, anicca, dukkha and sati. It is just represented differently in different wordings. Now what I am saying is something I like to point out the differences in our understanding of certain concepts. What Buddha is teaching is "is not" to conteract our "is" conditioning for humans. But his method of practise is beyond "is not" and "is". All dhammas by nature is beyond "is not" and "is". This is the concept of Mahayana emptiness. The Thervada concept of emptiness is different from the Mahayana bc Thervada defintion is on "is not" spectrum while the Mahayana concept of emptiness is beyond "is not" and "is". There is always a substantiality reality issue in Buddhism because we are trying to define Nibbana as "is not" which in fact Nibbana is beyond "is not" and "is". We cannot define Nibbana as free of defilements bc it is "is not". Words is very inadequate to describe such a state. Its beyond words as it is beyond dualism and oneness. Kind regards Ken O 9030 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 0:58pm Subject: Re: online Canon/Roberrt E. Dear Robert, I am not sure if you have found the info. you're after - very busy at work this last week or two (Hospital being audited and accredited..... hopefully). So I have not caught up with the posts - and may never do so if all of you keep up the current pace! :-) These few links may be helpful: Access to Insight - Canon http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/index.html Sacred Texts of Buddhism http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/index.htm Tipitaka http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.htm Majjhima Nikaya at: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/index.htm Some sites are more comprehensive than others. But all have only a portion of the whole. I would really like to know more of the Commentaries, my interest has been piqued by members of this list. Could anyone assist by listing what would be good to buy, where to buy and what to start with? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Is there a complete copy of the Pali Canon translated into English on the web? I > have downloaded one in Pali, but I'm afraid I can only enjoy it for the pure > poetry of the sound. > > Robert Ep. > 9031 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 1:17pm Subject: A thought about Pali Dear Rob E. and All, Would it be worthwhile learning Pali? I notice that there are a number of sites for groups and courses devoted to this. Then you CD copy would come in handy.:-) I guess it all comes down to Money vs limited Time and Effort, and choices on where to expend either one. metta, Christine 9032 From: Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 2:22pm Subject: Re: Concepts Howard, Thank you for this and all your other responses. I may not always acknowledge each and everyone of them, but be assured I read, digest and appreciate them. There is tremendous profundity in your reply. Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 10/31/01 4:55:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hhofman@d... writes: > > > > Some commentators suggest that anicca is the basis for anatta and > > dukkha. Phenomena are unsatisfactory, because all things change all > > the time. There is nothing to cling to. Because things change all the > > time there is no core essence in any phenomenon and vice versa, > > therefore the notion of a self is only a concept. There is nothing to > > cling to and noone to do the clinging. > > > > So who or what suffers? A concept. And what does it suffer from? The > > concept of change. And just how real can this suffering be? > > > > > ========================== > Nagarjuna addressed this very point. If dukkha were truly "real", a > true "thing", how could there be an escape from samsara? It is only because > dukkha, itself, is empty that freedom is possible. > > 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) 9033 From: Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:04pm Subject: Re: online Canon/Roberrt E. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > . > I would really like to know more of the Commentaries, my interest has > been piqued by members of this list. > > Could anyone assist by listing what would be good to buy, where to > buy and what to start with? > > metta, > Christine > >___________ Dear Christine, I recommend : Net of views Bhikkhu Bodhi BPS The Root of existence Bhikkhu Bodhi BPS The Discourse on the fruits of recluseship Bhikkhu Bodhi BPS The Dispeller of Delusion (2volume set) Pali Text society The Expositor, Pali text society The Dhammapada (commentary) by John Ross Carter and Palihawadana Buddhist legends (3vol.set) Burlingame Jataka (3vol.set) Cowell PTS the udana commentary (masefield) PTS Vimana stories (masefield) PTS You could start at the top and work down. I also recommend ANY books by Nina van Gorkom http://www.zolag.co.uk (she always quotes suttas and commentaries) robert 9034 From: Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 7:17pm Subject: Re: Udana-Nibbana 4 --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: Hello Kenneth, > > Nibbana is a LABEL that is applied to the absence of the defilements > > of greed, hatred, and delusion. > k: For the Thervadans, that is their definition but for Mahayana that is > not the definitions. It is the Mahayana definition--at least, it's the definition given me by my Tibetan teachers. I think they're what some would label Mahayana! (though of course those are mere labels for the same Buddhadharma) > Because all defilements are empty by nature hence > they have the same essence as Buddha's wisdoms. Indeed they do. > There is no discrimination > bc if there is discrimination, it shows dependency. There is no ULTIMATE discrimination, but here's where problems arise interpreting this. Some take it to mean that ultimate non-difference in emptiness means there is no conventional difference between composed entities, or any meaningful distinction between good and evil. While neither exist "truly", in the ultimate sense--from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca)--there is one hell (or heaven) of a big difference in conventional terms! :) It is key, important to understand the difference between the two truths, and how they apply. To hold to the conventional at the expense of the ultimate is to fall into one extreme--the extreme of true existence; to hold to to ultimate is to fall into the other extreme, the extreme of non-existence. Je Tsongkhapa notes: "A person's entered the path that pleases the Buddhas When for all objects, in the cycle or beyond, He sees that cause and effect can never fail, And when for him they lose all solid appearance. "You've yet to realize the thought of the Able As long as two ideas seem to you disparate: The appearance of things-infallible interdependence; And emptiness-beyond taking any position. "At some point, they no longer alternate, come together; Just seeing that interdependence never fails Brings realization that destroys how you hold to objects, And then your analysis with view is complete. "In addition the appearance prevents the existence extreme; Emptiness that of non-existence, and if You see how emptiness shows in cause and effect You'll never be stolen off by extreme views." > If there is dependecy, there is conditioning. Indeed, and dependent origination is the flipside complement of anatta; without dependency, no anatta/emptiness. > > Buddha-nature correctly interpreted by Mahayana commentators refers > > to the POTENTIAL of all sentient beings to realize perfect > > enlightenment. > k: Buddha Nature can be interpreted in many ways in many context. It > depends on the situation. On one hand it can be interpreted as the > potential, while on the other, it can be interpreted as emptiness. > because Buddha nature is empty by nature. This emptiness implies the potential for Buddhahood, and what you just said is exactly what one of my teachers said as well, just FYI-- our Buddha-nature IS our emptiness. And if we were not conditioned, as Howard quoted from Nagarjuna (if memory serves), then we would never have a chance of getting out of samsara. So two ways of saying essentially the same thing. > Furthermore, where > is there to experience if one is in sati. Where is aversion if one is in > sati. Where is suffering is one is in sati. In sati, mindfulness, there can definitely be a "me" there experincing the arising and passing away of sensation, for example-- even at a very subtle level. That is not true in the direct perception of emptiness, however, where this "I, me, mine" is demolished at the root. > k: I agree with you wholeheartedly that we must understand anicca, > anatta and dukkha in order to have right understanding and practise the > eight noble path deligently and follow it every moment of our life. I > believe in this path and I am convinced this path is the way. Such a > conviction is develop not by blinding following what Buddha says in the > suttas. It is the actual practise of what it is taught in the sutta and > then investigate it whether it conforms to the wise. Indeed! All that theory has to be APLLIED, and TESTED in daily life, incessantly. Only then can the truth of the Buddha's teachings be verified. > Now what I am saying is something I like to point out the differences in > our understanding of certain concepts. > > What Buddha is teaching is "is not" to conteract our "is" conditioning > for humans. But his method of practise is beyond "is not" and "is". All > dhammas by nature is beyond "is not" and "is". This sounds to me like another way of saying that the Buddha teaches the Middle Way between the extreme of non-existence and true existence. I see differences in the way it is being phrased, but not it the general meaning. > This is the concept of Mahayana emptiness. The Thervada concept of emptiness is different from > the Mahayana bc Thervada defintion is on "is not" spectrum while the > Mahayana concept of emptiness is beyond "is not" and "is". Not the case at all. When the Theravada is understood properly there is no difference between anatta and emptiness. There CAN'T be, because both refer to the fact that lings lack "core" or true entitiness. Please forget for a moment these labels Theravada and Mahayana. They're of little use in discussing anatta/emptiness, which are, in fact, when investigated, referring to the very same thing. > There is always a substantiality reality issue in Buddhism because we > are trying to define Nibbana as "is not" which in fact Nibbana is beyond > "is not" and "is". I think it is important not to get hung up on the verbal descriptions of Nibbana here (or any verbal descriptions, for that matter, since they represent views, not realities). The negations applied to Nibbana in all systems are specifically to get past the "is" "is not" false dichotomy by helping us let go of our clinging to VIEWS of "is" or "is not". > We cannot define Nibbana as free of defilements bc it > is "is not". Words is very inadequate to describe such a state. Its > beyond words as it is beyond dualism and oneness. We have to define Nibbana verbally if only in a pedagogical sense. Of course Nibbana lies beyond all words and descriptions. Nevertheless, it can be very helpful to understand what it is NOT, because in this way, the views the block direct apprehension of Nibbana can be relinquished. 9035 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 10:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1& 3 AND 5 Dear Rob Ep, Sarah: >> From the commentaries: >>since it is possible to speak of the gloom and of a need for that >>gloom’s scattering to be maintained by a sun and a moon >>(only)........therefore there is therein, in that nibbana, neither, vz.sun nor >>moon; in this way he indicates the fact of nibbana having as its own >>nature solely of light.(aalokasabhaavata.m). and as > > the Dhamma-king was explaining to those monks lacking complete >>penetration the ultra-profound, extremely hard to see, abstruse and >>subtle, extremely choice, (yet) not formerly experienced (by them), even >>in a dream, within this sa.msaara that is without beginning, ....... .................... Rob Ep: > Two points: > 1/ Nibbana is here said to be 'solely of the nature of light'. I don't see > in > any way how this description can be reconciled with Nibbana being 'purely the > ending of defilements'. What in the ending of defilements gives Nibbana > 'solely > the nature of light'? .................... Sarah: I don't think I've described or quoted Nibbana as being 'purely the ending of defilements'. Defilements are finally eradicated at the final stage of enlightenment (arahatship). Nibbana is the object of the lokuttara cittas at each stage of enlightenment. I understand the 'nature of Light' to be metaphorical and opposed to the nature of darkness so often associated with the khandhas of grasping ('aloko' for light also came up in one of Gayan's translations to refer to nibbana and in contrast to the darkness seen for those of us with avijja or ignorance). For the arahat, there are no longer any conditions for the arising of defilements. Of course, there were never defilements or any darkness in Nibbana. ..................... Rob Ep: >I would say nothing, and that the 'light nature' of > Nibbana > must come from another source, the light of pure consciousness. What other > light > could give it this nature? I am open to another explanation of this > statement. .................... Sarah: I think all I can say without really speculating wildly, is that nama is a nama, and light as I've discussed. It is not citta (consciousness), but is experienced by cittas (lokuttara cittas).....and as arammana (object) is a condition for these cittas. May I just stress that cittas (or vi~n~naana) always refer to conditioned realities in the Pali Canon and not to nibbana. Let me quote this paragraph from the Vism, XV1, n.18: ********************************* '......So, because the kind of knowledge that has formed dhammas as its object and that which has conventional truth as its object are both incapable of abandoning defilements by cutting them off, there must (consequently) exist an object for the noble-path knowledge that effects their abandonment by cutting them off, (which object must be) of a kind opposite to both, and it is this that is the unformed element. 'Likewise, the words "Bhikkhus, there is an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unformed" and so on, which demonstrate the existingness of nibbana in the ultimate sense, are not misleading because they are spoken by the blessed One, like the words "All formations are impermanent, all formations are painful, all DHAMMAS (states) are not self" (DH. 277-79; A.i,286, etc)...' ******************************* I think my point was meant to be that it is the 'noble-path knowledge' rather than nibbana that 'effects their abandonment by cutting them off'. .................... Rob Ep: > 2/ The following passage in which Nibbana is described as 'abstruse and > subtle, > extremely choice, not formerly experienced even in a dream' seems to very > much > describe a definitive experience, not merely a negative experience of > defilements > ended. > Does it seem to you that this description of the most choice experience that > few > have experienced suggests a state of nullity? It suggests to me a state of > the > most refined, pure experience possible to experience, which is enabled by the > defilements having been put to rest. .................... Sarah: Btw, almost identical words are used to these ones I quoted from the Commentaryand the ones that followed in certain suttas such as in SN 370. Yes, I certainy don't have any idea of this as a 'negative experience' or a 'state of nullity' either. At the moments of the lokuttara cittas experiencing nibbana, there is no idea of defilements 'having been put to rest'. These realisations are in the reviewing processes following the experience of nibbana from what I understand. Again I would not refer to nibbana as experience, but certainly the lokuttara cittas which experience it must be very refined and pure as you suggest. .................... Rob Ep: > To me at least, it seems to be very much the case that the commentaries, > perhaps > even more than the Suttas themselves, suggest a state of prized experience in > which human awareness reaches its fruition. .................... Sarah: Yes. (Remember there are 4 stages of enlughtenment). Even now, as we take some baby steps, a moment of awareness is precious and prized, in that for this brief instant, there is no darkness or ignorance. We really cannot comprehend what highly developed 8fold path factors are like or what it is like to have no defilements. We can, however, begin to learn about the characteristics of sati (awareness) and panna(understanding) and begin to know more about what is appearing right now. .................... Rob Ep: >I can't go beyond that, but I > can't > see this as a description of merely seeing into the complete Anatta of > everything. > And this is not even suggested in these passages. .................... Sarah: Let's just say that the 3 characteristics of realities, anicca, dukkha and anatta have to be vey clearly understood at different stages prior to the arising of the lokuttara cittas. it will depend on conditions as to which characteristic is apparent just pior to the lokuttara cittas.....but really I'd need to read up further here as I'm again getting into deep water;-) .................... Rob Ep: > I do not exaggerate when I say that I am anxious to hear your response and to > engage with this question. ..................... Sarah: The main point I'd like to stress is the distinction between the conditioned, impermanent cittas which experience nibbana and the unconditioned reality which is experienced and which doesn't 'do' or 'experience' anything. Rob, I really am not exaggerating either when I say I really have never considered much about nibbana at all before. However, I think the more understanding and awareness there is of namas and rupas in daily life, the easier it is to understand whichever part of the Teachings it is we're reading and to have confidence in their truth and value. Even just a very little understanding is very, very helpful. Let me finish by quoting the final passage I’d like to raise from the commentary to the Sutta: You’ll remember that the last line of the Sutta was ‘This alone is the end of dukkha (es’ ev’ anto dukkhassa): ‘This alone is the end of dukkha: this- that is to say, nibbana with aforementioned characteristics that was praised, extolled, with the phrases “Without foundation” and so on - alone is the end, the culmination, of the entire dukkha belonging to the cycle, on account of the absence of all dukkha when there be attainment thereof; he therefore indicates the same, viz. “the end of dukkha”, to be its own nature.’ This has already got rather long, so I won't add more comments (I think I've already made too many in any case;-)) Sarah 9036 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 10:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1 Hi Ken O, I have 4 posts from you waiting for replies...if you don't mind, I'm going to try and run through the main points briefly as Rob Ep just 'took' most my computer time;-) > > S: Hmmm....It’s true that mundane cittas acompanied by panna (more and > > more highly developed) and the other necessary wholesome cetasikas > eventually condition the lokuttara cittas. Conditions are very complex, so > I wouldn’t call these cittas ‘the resultant’, nor do I understand your > first sentence above. Nibbana is not conditioned by any cittas. It is > expereinced (the object of) the lokuttara cittas. Sorry if I sound very > ‘finicky’, but the dhamma is very precise, I think. > k: No I do not agreed. We cannot use this basis to divert the point. We > got to admit weakness if there are, as like when I point out there is > substantiality issues in Buddhism. Well I've shown you my pali canon sources (and you mentioned you don't agree with the Commentary). As we are discussing the pali canon Tipitaka here, perhaps you can show me your sources. I haven't found any 'weakness' or 'substantiality issues' and would need to see your texts before commenting further. > > S: There’s been a lot of discussion on this issue (see ‘useful posts’ > > under nibbana perhaps...) Many people here find it very difficult to > accept that the unconditioned (Nibbana) is experienced by the conditioned > (lokuttara cittas), but that’s how it is in the Pali canon as indicated in > my previous quote. > k: It is the same thing when I say cittas don't die, you find it difficult > to believe me. We read about the momentary death of all realities. There is death of citta now and now and now....I believe what I read in the Teachings as confirmed by a little understanding of realities which is being developed. > k: It is we classify those sati, metta, other wholesome practises as > kusala cittas and during such kusala cittas there is no akusala cittas. > Buddha urge us to do kusala cittas but he did not classify that if we have > kusala cittas there is no akusala present in this kusala itself. Because > kusala does not equate akusala. It is like using another "self" to > replace a "self". Furthermore as I have said earlier, kusala and akusala > both depend on each other to be in existence, hence it is not permanent. > To do kusala like metta is conventional so that the mind is more peaceful > but these do not help us to attain arahant bc all religion urges goodness > but they do not attain arahant bc they are one sided in their practise. > In his method of sati, there is no right or wrong just pure attention to > what arise. If we have pure attention what arise, it is very difficult to > do bad or to be attached. Sorry my understanding does not base on > commentaries, it is base on practise that I feel this is the point and > plus Mahayana doctrinal influences and relooking at sati sutras. As I stressed in my post yesterday to Rob Ep, sati (awareness) has the characteristic of being aware, of being 'watchful' of whatever reality is experienced now. It guards the citta from akusala for a moment only. As you rightly say, it is only 'concerned' to be aware of the reality. it doesn't care or 'discriminate' as to which reality it is aware of. It'll depend on all those complex conditions. There are different levels of sati and it is not 'owned' by Buddhists. However, it was only the Buddha who taught about the development of satipatthana, the awareness and understanding of realities as not self. At these moments, the reality is known just 'as it is'. There is no confusion of mixing up of kusala and akusala states for that moment. They are known for what they are, but I agree that at these moments there is detachment and not minding about what reality is experienced. I think we're partly in agreement here at least, Ken ;-) sarah 9037 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 10:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1& 3 Hi again, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > >S: I would just like to emphasise that the 'worlds' are referring to the > > worlds of khandhas which do not exist in nibbana. also this passage > stresses that nibbana is not and has never been experienced in samsara and > is only ever experienced by the highly developed wisdom, able to penetrate > or see the ‘ultra profound’. > k: Isn't this just describing there exist a nature without khandhas, > isn't that an outter ego also. It's true that we read nibbana has its own 'sabhava' or nature (ie it is not 'nothing'). I don't know what you mean by 'outer ego' here. >S: There is no hint that nibbana is ‘one’s true nature’ as I read it;-) > k: I know there is no hint of 'one' true nature, but is it still a nature > that is described. Nature or characteistic, but not self. just as if we talk about a nature or characteristic of seeing, it doesn't mean there is any self or 'one's true nature'. > >S: There are just one or two more passages I’d like to quote next time. > k: :) I would most happy to read it. Thanks for your keen interest and encouragement, Ken. Sarah 9038 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 11:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 1 & 2 Hi Ken, no.3;-) --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > k: Isn't commentary also basing on their own experience :). No offence > here, to me, we got to use the Kalama approach even to the commentary or > to the sutta. I agree that it's helpful to question and consider carefully. The commentary is not just 'basing on their own experience' as I understand. It's not a personal opinion, but the recorded joint wisdom of the Theras who recited the Buddha's Teachings with the added explanations as needed at the councils of arahats. I have had no experience of nibbana and can only discuss it conceptually, but I fully accept what this group of arahats (whose wisdom has been recognised since those times) were relaying the Buddha's wisdom. Furthermore, all the commentary notes I read accord with what is taught in the Suttas themselves. > k: Buddha has always limited in his description in Nibbana even less for > PariNibbana. How would a commentary explain what Buddha does not wish to > explain further in the sutta. If it is that impt, Buddha would have > explain again and again just like what he do to sati, anatta, anicca. In short, for those of us who can only discuss nibbana conceptually, i question how useful it is to talk more on Nibbana except, as Erik mentioned, to find out what 'it is not' and thus help to get rid of wrong views. The emphasis in the Buddha's Teachings, as I read them, is on helping and encouraging us to understand realities now. This is the only way the path can be developed. The rest, we may say is 'academic'. Only by undestanding these realities will there even be the correct idea conceptually about what nibbana or parinibbana are. > >S: No, I don't think so. When we refer to sabhava or nature in Theravada > > texts, there is no hint or inner or outer ego or substantiality. Where > does the Buddha refuse to answer here? Quite a lot has been written on the > ‘sabhava thread’ (another popular one for those from a mahayana > background). Please refer to ‘Useful Posts’ under ‘Sabhava’. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts> > k: Isn't Sabhava also a sustaintiality or nature issue. How do I explain > to you. No matter how we see Buddhism be it PariNibbana or Nibbana is > always this issue of a state or nature of PariNibbana or Nibbana. Isn't > this nature Nibbana or Parinibbana is also an substance in a sense. You're understanding 'sabhava' with a different meaning to that understood in the theravada texts. As we read and understand this term, I stress there is no self or substantiality involved. Each reality has a characteristic...Seeing has the characteristic of experiencing a rupa through the eye-sense. This characteristic is different from the characteristic of hearing or sound. We don't need to use the word sabhava at all. > Thervada use words like Sabhava to escape this fundamental questions, > Mahayana escape by using emptiness, unborn to explain this question. Even > anatta is itself is a substantiality issue if we look at the other way > round from non self. Isn't non self dependent on self to be non self? > Just a thinker :). I don't see this escape plot at all myself. Non-self is the nature of all realities. 'Self' is a concept which is not based on reality but which results from ignorance and wrong view. I think, Ken, it only seems that there are escape plots and a lack of answers when realities are not understood precisely enough by panna. > k: Sarah, I respect your upholding of the sutta. I value the tripakata > same as you. But to me, I do not think we should accept just as it is. > Understanding can be improve if we are willing to look at other school of > thoughts. From different school of thoughts and I realise that from each > school the weaknesses of one school could be explain in another school of > thought. We all come from different cultures, backgrounds and have read different texts and schools of thought. I would always encourage anyone to read whatever seems helpful to them and like you do so very well, to question and challenge and make sure one is really understanding what is said rather than just agreeing for that easy life:-) Having said that, I have to tell you that I don't share your perception of the 'weaknesses' in the Pali Canon and have always found (with some excellent guidance) that it has always provided all the answers for me. This may be unusual I realise;-) One short response to follow.... Sarah 9039 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 31, 2001 11:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Udana-Nibbana 4 Hi again Ken, This will be even quicker as I have students coming very soon:-) --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > K: Sarah, I appreciate your kind patient in imparting true understanding > of the Nibbana concepts. I like to point out that I agreed with you that > Nibbana is anatta. on the other hand what I trying to point out is that > isn't this nature even though anatta also a "nature" on its own right. > Isn't it similiar to Mahayana, concept of Buddha Nature or Unborn. I > hope I am being clear abt what I think. Thanks for your kind comments too, Ken. It's always a pleasure to talk to you. (I won't comment on the mahayana ideas and understandings though.) I agree with you when you (I think) when you mention a 'nature' in its own right..... (hope