9400 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 18, 2001 8:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention) is controllable... --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Howard: > I was always pretty good in school. But I always fail schools such as > these you refer to! ;-)) [My prejudicial view is that anyone who thinks that > advanced levels (or even moderate levels) of insight are easily attainable is > deluded.] > --------------------------------------------------- Boy do I think you're right about this. It's more like: when you get tired of banging your head against the wall, then it's time to move on and bang your head against the next wall. Robert Ep. 9401 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 18, 2001 9:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert and Howard, > > May I add the the 'blur' is conceptual, a construction > by avijja (and other conditions) from a very great > many moments of consciousness. In other words each > moment is quite clear (even if akusala and > deluded)--the confusion occurs in the retrospective > pax~n~natti/papa~n~ca. That's the way I see it > anyway.. > > mike But what type of citta is it that apprehends this confused retrospective view, and how does it coordinate with the ongoing stream of present cittas? Best, Robert > .--- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Robert - > > > > > > I would like to address myself to one point > > you make, a > > point I have > > > seen before and which continues to perplex me. In > > a message dated > > 11/18/01 > > > 12:40:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > > > > > > > As you know I am a bit of (actually, a lot of) a > > stickler for the > > > > reliability of the Theravada texts. I believe > > the reason for the > > > > phenomena you note is the speed of the arising > > and passing of > > cittas. > > > > So that, in a split second there could have been > > thousands of > > > > processes of seeing, hearing, thinking, > > touching, tasting, etc. > > It > > > > happens so fast that it seems to blur together. > > > > > > > =========================== > > > It seems to blur together to *whom* or to > > *what*? In > > Abhidhamma, that > > > which is doing the knowing are the individual > > cittas. Each citta > > knows its > > > object. WHAT can be seeing the "blur". It seems to > > me that this > > notion is > > > based on our conventional observation of things > > such as our > > observing of a > > > torch being moved in a circle, and "we" see a > > circle of fire, or > > our looking > > > at a movie screen and seeing continuity instead of > > a sequence of > > frames. But > > > at the level of "abhidhammic reality" each > > individual citta is > > seeing a > > > single object, and there IS NO overarching > > something to be seeing > > a "blur". > > > Do you follow my problem here? (There seems to be > > a conflation > > going on > > > here.) The individual dhamma/citta view just > > doesn't seem to > > adequately > > > explain actual experience. > > > And when the theory also posits cittas (the > > bhavanga > > cittas), which > > > all have the very same object, but it is an object > > of awareness not > > possible > > > to be aware of (!), so that we have unaware > > moments of awareness ;- > > ), the > > > theory becomes all the more an ad hoc, strained > > one. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > >++++++++++++++ > > > > Dear Howard, > > Well my reply is that I think the theory explains > > the actual > > experience very well. The example of the movie > > screen is a reasonable > > analogy to explain how the moments are taken as a > > whole. > > Remember the individual moments don't come into > > existence out of > > nothing. Each one is conditioned by the previous one > > and hence there > > is continuity. > > The reason we can't see all this clearly is not a > > mystery it is > > because of ignorance, a most powerful force and > > conditioning factor > > that clouds vision.You ask "what can be seeing the > > blur"? Well avijja > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, > > beings, self) and > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is > > very real and is in > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. > > It is only because we hear about these matters that > > curiosity arises > > and so there is the beginning of investigation > > (dhamma-vicaya) into > > the actual nature of this process. > > I would guess for one like Sariputta the distinction > > between cittas > > is as clear as the lines on my hand. Why? Because of > > developed wisdom. > > best wishes > > robert 9402 From: Sarah Date: Sun Nov 18, 2001 11:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meththa meditation Dear Christine, Rob K, Ranil, Mike, Nina, Rob Ep & All, I’ve been finding it very helpful to reflect on all your posts about metta. Many thanks. robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- >..... Surely self-centeredness is not > metta. t and earlier he wrote: > > > Do we really need to love ourselves anymore? I appreciated these and other reminders. When we feel down or depressed it may seem right to hear about ‘loving oneself’ or ‘being kind to oneself’. Like Christine, in my work I’ve always ‘given out’ a lot to others and have often got tired or stressed. Friends have then told me with kindness to take more care of myself, be kinder to myself and so on. However, I think the problem when we get depressed or stressed (and isn’t it just a lot of dosa at those times?) has nothing to do with moments of genuine concern and care for others which are ‘light’ and bring no harm at all. The problem stems from the strong attachment to ourselves. We cling so much to our pleasant feelings and have so much attachment most the day. When the pleasant feelings don’t last or life doesn’t work out how we’d wish, we feel depressed and sad. Once at a funeral, K.Sujin reminded me that the tears were not for the deceased, but for ourselves and the loss of our own pleasant feelings. Isn’t this so true? Don’t we cry or feel sad because of the loss or pleasant experiences? Christine:> > Don't you think love is, by its very nature, unity? and, if you > have > > feelings of self-loathing, wouldn't those feelings of self-loathing > > inevitably become part of your relationship with the loved one/s, > and > > therefore contaminate what you radiate during metta practice? If we have thoughts of self-loathing, doesn’t it again show the importance we pay to ourselves? We may need to get conventional help (counselling or medicine) at these times but the dhamma can help a lot if we’re brave and honest enough to consider and develop awareness. Aren’t we comparing ourselves with others with conceit and dwelling on ‘my’ defects and ‘my’ problems at these times? Don’t we really take a self to exist in actuality? As you suggest, at these times of ‘self’-concern’ there isn’t any concern for others at all and therefore there cannot be metta, which as some of us have suggested, should have other beings as object. Of course, as we know, the near enemy of metta is attachment too. So most of what we take for being kindness, metta or love for our ‘loved ones’ is usually attachment in one guise or other, I find. Metta is the quality of kindness and friendship to another being that we meet or see or speak to, regardless of who he or she is, such as when we tend the sick as in the example from the Vinaya I gave yesterday. So as Rob said, ‘do we really need to love ourselves anymore?’ After King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika concluded that indeed there was no one dearer than themselves, the Buddha spoke these lines in Udana, 5-1, ‘Dear’ (Masefield trans): ‘Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place; thus is the self dear separately to others - therefore one desiring self should not harm another.’ The commentary adds: ‘.....One would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place (n’ev’ajjhagaapiyataram attanaa kvaci): whatever man, seeking out with every endeavour someone else (more) excessively dear than the self, would neither attain nor behold (such) in any place, anywhere in the (ten) quarters.Thus is the self dear separately to others (evam piyo puthu attaa paresa.m): thus is the self alone dear separately, severally, to this and that being, by way of the non-discovery of anyone dearer than the self. Therefore one desiring self should not harm another (tasmaa na hi.mse param attakaama): since each being holds the self dear in that way, is one desiring happiness for that self, one for whom dukkha is repulsive, therefore one desiring self, in wanting well-being and happiness for that self, should not harm, should not kill, should not even antagonise with the hand....and so on, another being, upwards from and including even a mere ant or (other) samll insect. for when dukkha is caused by oneself to some other, that (dukkha) is, after an interval of time, observed in one’s (own) self, as though it were passing over therefrom. for this is the law of karma.’ I think I may have quoted these lines before, but thank you for all for giving me the well-needed opportunity to reflect and type them out again This particular udana has always been very meaningful to me. Thanks Rob, for this useful quote too (amongst others): > > > In the Cariya-pitaka- athakatha (see bodhi net of views p323) it > > > says "The destruction of self-love and the development of love > for > > > others are the means for the accomplishing of the paramis". > > > robert May we all learn to see the danger of self-love . Sarah 9403 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > You seem to be positing avijja as a citta, one that is clouded and apprehends > other citta through its ignorant view. I am sure you do not mean that, and I am > still wondering how you are positing 'ignorance' as a force which can 'see things' > in an imperfect or blurred way. Is ignorance not a state or condition in which > deluded cittas arise and condition one another? Or do you mean to say that it is > a kind of thing in itself that actually 'darts around' confusing different objects > with each other? > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ========== Dear Robert E. Ignorance is a cetasika and it is part of the paticasamupada (dependent origination) It is a key link, along with lobha (craving, attachment) that obsures vision and keeps the wheel of birth and death spinning. It is a power of immense proportions indeed. It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as conascence paccaya). Visuddhimagga XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of collection in the aggregates(khandas), the meaning of actuating in the bases(ayatanas)…..the meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents knowing the meaning of dukkha described in the four ways as `oppression etc'..Furthermore it is ignorance because it conceals the physical bases and objects of eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent origination."endquote We see how its function is to conceal what should be known. In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true nature of paramattha dhammas and the intricate ways they condition each other. The commentary to the UDANA (excellent translation by Peter Masefield from PTS)defines it(p71,vol1, enlightenement chapter) "it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, women) and since it does not dart among those things that do exist "(i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas). best wishes robert > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Robert - > > > > > > I would like to address myself to one point you make, a > > point I have > > > seen before and which continues to perplex me. In a message dated > > 11/18/01 > > > 12:40:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > > > > > > > As you know I am a bit of (actually, a lot of) a stickler for the > > > > reliability of the Theravada texts. I believe the reason for the > > > > phenomena you note is the speed of the arising and passing of > > cittas. > > > > So that, in a split second there could have been thousands of > > > > processes of seeing, hearing, thinking, touching, tasting, etc. > > It > > > > happens so fast that it seems to blur together. > > > > > > > =========================== > > > It seems to blur together to *whom* or to *what*? In > > Abhidhamma, that > > > which is doing the knowing are the individual cittas. Each citta > > knows its > > > object. WHAT can be seeing the "blur". It seems to me that this > > notion is > > > based on our conventional observation of things such as our > > observing of a > > > torch being moved in a circle, and "we" see a circle of fire, or > > our looking > > > at a movie screen and seeing continuity instead of a sequence of > > frames. But > > > at the level of "abhidhammic reality" each individual citta is > > seeing a > > > single object, and there IS NO overarching something to be seeing > > a "blur". > > > Do you follow my problem here? (There seems to be a conflation > > going on > > > here.) The individual dhamma/citta view just doesn't seem to > > adequately > > > explain actual experience. > > > And when the theory also posits cittas (the bhavanga > > cittas), which > > > all have the very same object, but it is an object of awareness not > > possible > > > to be aware of (!), so that we have unaware moments of awareness ;- > > ), the > > > theory becomes all the more an ad hoc, strained one. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > >++++++++++++++ > > > > Dear Howard, > > Well my reply is that I think the theory explains the actual > > experience very well. The example of the movie screen is a reasonable > > analogy to explain how the moments are taken as a whole. > > Remember the individual moments don't come into existence out of > > nothing. Each one is conditioned by the previous one and hence there > > is continuity. > > The reason we can't see all this clearly is not a mystery it is > > because of ignorance, a most powerful force and conditioning factor > > that clouds vision.You ask "what can be seeing the blur"? Well avijja > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, beings, self) and > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is very real and is in > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. > > It is only because we hear about these matters that curiosity arises > > and so there is the beginning of investigation (dhamma-vicaya) into > > the actual nature of this process. > > I would guess for one like Sariputta the distinction between cittas > > is as clear as the lines on my hand. Why? Because of developed wisdom. > > best wishes > > robert 9404 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] meththa meditation Dear Sarah, Thanks for this which all makes a lot of sense to me. I was wondering if you'd like to tackle a passage in the Vissuddhimagga which is harder to understand: ix8 Metta should first of all "be developed only to oneself, doing it repeastedly thus: may I be happy..." The next sections notes that someone may question this because it is not in the Tipitaka and that in the patisambhidimagga and vibhanga no mention is made of developing metta to oneself. The answer is that for jhana this can't succeed by way of taking oneself as an object. And later ix9 it makes it clear that developing to oneself means "just as I want to be happy and dread pain so do others..." Thus making oneself as an example. I think the meaning is basically that we considr how we like to be treated and thought of and so we should think of others in the same way. I can also see how a not so careful reading of the text could lead to the conclusion that one should be trying to love oneself more. I'd like you to read over ix8-10 and see what you think. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine, Rob K, Ranil, Mike, Nina, Rob Ep & All, > > I've been finding it very helpful to reflect on all your posts about metta. > Many thanks. > > robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > > >..... Surely self-centeredness is not > > metta. t > > and earlier he wrote: > > > > > Do we really need to love ourselves anymore? > > I appreciated these and other reminders. When we feel down or depressed it may > seem right to hear about `loving oneself' or `being kind to oneself'. Like > Christine, in my work I've always `given out' a lot to others and have often > got tired or stressed. Friends have then told me with kindness to take more > care of myself, be kinder to myself and so on. > > However, I think the problem when we get depressed or stressed (and isn't it > just a lot of dosa at those times?) has nothing to do with moments of genuine > concern and care for others which are `light' and bring no harm at all. The > problem stems from the strong attachment to ourselves. We cling so much to our > pleasant feelings and have so much attachment most the day. When the pleasant > feelings don't last or life doesn't work out how we'd wish, we feel depressed > and sad. > > Once at a funeral, K.Sujin reminded me that the tears were not for the > deceased, but for ourselves and the loss of our own pleasant feelings. Isn't > this so true? Don't we cry or feel sad because of the loss or pleasant > experiences? > > Christine:> > Don't you think love is, by its very nature, unity? and, if you > > have > > > feelings of self-loathing, wouldn't those feelings of self- loathing > > > inevitably become part of your relationship with the loved one/s, > > and > > > therefore contaminate what you radiate during metta practice? > > If we have thoughts of self-loathing, doesn't it again show the importance we > pay to ourselves? We may need to get conventional help (counselling or > medicine) at these times but the dhamma can help a lot if we're brave and > honest enough to consider and develop awareness. Aren't we comparing ourselves > with others with conceit and dwelling on `my' defects and `my' problems at > these times? Don't we really take a self to exist in actuality? As you suggest, > at these times of `self'-concern' there isn't any concern for others at all and > therefore there cannot be metta, which as some of us have suggested, should > have other beings as object. > > Of course, as we know, the near enemy of metta is attachment too. So most of > what we take for being kindness, metta or love for our `loved ones' is usually > attachment in one guise or other, I find. Metta is the quality of kindness and > friendship to another being that we meet or see or speak to, regardless of who > he or she is, such as when we tend the sick as in the example from the Vinaya I > gave yesterday. > > So as Rob said, `do we really need to love ourselves anymore?' > > After King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika concluded that indeed there was no one > dearer than themselves, the Buddha spoke these lines in Udana, 5- 1, `Dear' > (Masefield trans): > > `Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain that > dearer than the self in any place; thus is the self dear separately to others > - therefore one desiring self should not harm another.' > > The commentary adds: > > `.....One would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place > (n'ev'ajjhagaapiyataram attanaa kvaci): whatever man, seeking out with every > endeavour someone else (more) excessively dear than the self, would neither > attain nor behold (such) in any place, anywhere in the (ten) quarters.Thus is > the self dear separately to others (evam piyo puthu attaa paresa.m): thus is > the self alone dear separately, severally, to this and that being, by way of > the non-discovery of anyone dearer than the self. Therefore one desiring self > should not harm another (tasmaa na hi.mse param attakaama): since each being > holds the self dear in that way, is one desiring happiness for that self, one > for whom dukkha is repulsive, therefore one desiring self, in wanting > well-being and happiness for that self, should not harm, should not kill, > should not even antagonise with the hand....and so on, another being, upwards > from and including even a mere ant or (other) samll insect. for when dukkha is > caused by oneself to some other, that (dukkha) is, after an interval of time, > observed in one's (own) self, as though it were passing over therefrom. for > this is the law of karma.' > > I think I may have quoted these lines before, but thank you for all for giving > me the well-needed opportunity to reflect and type them out again This > particular udana has always been very meaningful to me. > > Thanks Rob, for this useful quote too (amongst others): > > > > > In the Cariya-pitaka- athakatha (see bodhi net of views p323) it > > > > says "The destruction of self-love and the development of love > > for > > > > others are the means for the accomplishing of the paramis". > > > > robert > > May we all learn to see the danger of self-love . > > Sarah > > > 9405 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 2:09am Subject: [dsg] Anusaya-kilesa Hi Robert K " It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > conascence paccaya)." This sound very interesting, could you elaborate on "this conditioning factor for many kusala cittas". Is this the same as Anusaya-kilesa. Some pple interpret it as latent tendecies, is it correct. Does kusala cittas has anusaya Kilesa as it has define like a sediment in the citta in the Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . With thanks Ken O > > Dear Robert E. > Ignorance is a cetasika and it is part of the paticasamupada > (dependent origination) It is a key link, along with lobha (craving, > attachment) that obsures vision and keeps the wheel of birth and > death spinning. It is a power of immense proportions indeed. > It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > conascence paccaya). > > Visuddhimagga > XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of > collection in the aggregates(khandas), the meaning of actuating in the > bases(ayatanas)…..the meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents knowing the meaning of dukkha described in the four ways as `oppression > etc'..Furthermore it is ignorance because it conceals the physical bases and objects of eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent origination."endquote > We see how its function is to conceal what should be known. > > In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true nature of > paramattha dhammas and the intricate ways they condition each other. > The commentary to the UDANA (excellent translation by Peter Masefield > from PTS)defines it(p71,vol1, enlightenement chapter) "it is > ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on > within samsara.., it is ignorance since it > darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, > women) and since it does not dart among those things that do > exist "(i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas). > best wishes > robert > 9406 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 2:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Music Dear Nina, I'm going to have to point it out to you, it's Herman, not Hermann :-) I hope you don't mind. I do appreciate the time you take to answer my posts. I would like to find a way of expressing my appreciation of Buddhaghosa, without distorting the reality of the situation. Marcel Dupre, in his youth, played a concert series of the entire organ works of Bach, from memory, over ten consecutive nights. This feat is utterly incredible, and is worthy of the highest praise. Matched by none in his day, or the days to come. Yet he played the works of Bach, not Dupre. Thomas Aquinas was perhaps the greatest medieval mind. He wrote countless books based on a few biblical books, and what was written after them. Yet I would never recommend anyone to read Thomas Aquinas, simply because it is Thomas Aquinas' rendition of Jesus, as in Dupre's version of Bach. The words of Jesus are so pure, so simple and so few. And a thousand have come since, and added their praise, their appreciation, and their version of Jesus. Can one expand on the perfect, the sublime? And so it is with Buddhaghosa (for me). A great, incomparable mind, yet, only an interpretor, allbeit a great one. The actual words of Jesus would fill less than twenty pages. Happily there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of the unquestioned words of the Buddha. Why hang on the lips of those who also revere him, when what he spoke is known to us? I would love to sit quietly in your house as your fingers glide over the keyboard. I did once play the continuo part of a Haendel flute sonata in church. Much effort, no skill i'm afraid. I look forward to your notes re conceit Thank you Herman(n) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 15-11-2001 11:40 schreef hhofman@d... op > hhofman@d...: > > > > > After high school I was apprenticed to a pipe organ builder, working > > both in Australia and the Netherlands. I did learn to play the organ > > then, was church organist for some time, as well as teaching a number > > of pupils. > > > > Some of my boys are very musical. This may sound like pride, but I > > understand full well that they are what they are, not much to do with > > me. The younger one of mine got his first guitar less than two years > > ago. The band he is in with my older son and some friends just won > > the NSW Battle of the Bands. It is all conditions, and wise attention. > > > > My wife's oldest boy recently received a ranking of 95% in his final > > exams. His middle brother is a farm hand who loves being with the > > animals all day. The youngest one watches the Simpsons all day and > > all night. Everyone is different, and each must find their own way. > > > > We differ on a number of issues, Nina, including (I quote from > > NanaVira) Cittavíthi, 'mental process, cognitive series'. > > Visuddhimagga, Ch. XIV etc. It is, perhaps, not superfluous to remark > > that this doctrine, of which so much use is made in the Visuddhimagga > > (and see also the Abhidhammatthasangaha), is a pure scholastic > > invention and has nothing at all to do with the Buddha's Teaching > > (or, indeed, with anything else). (I unquote) > > Dear Hermann, I was delighted with your letter, and fascinated to hear about > your life, your musical background, the different accumulations of your > boys. How it is all conditioned! We have a lot in common in this respect, I > also used to play the organ. > Now Vis Ch XIV and the mental process. Yes, I understand what you mean, > Hermann. A. Sujin said that each person is unique and therefore there are no > rules about what someone should do, develop or study. Everybody is very free > as to what he wants to study. And Ch XIV is complex, such a lot of material > in one chapter. Not only in the Vis. but also in the scriptures the > processes have been dealt with: the "Path of Discrimination"(Treatise on > Knowledge, Ch XVII, Behaviour, cariya) and the "Conditional Relations" > (patthana, feeling Triplet, Investigation Ch, under Proximity and > Repetition). But I understand it if you do not want to take up these works. > Now, Hermann, what about our own life just now. In this way we can find out > more. > We see something pleasant and like it. The seeing is something we undergo, > it is passive, it is result, vipaka. Then follow our reactions, we like what > we see. Javana cittas which are kusala cittas or akusala cittas, in this > case with clinging, thus akusala cittas. We hear a harsh sound. Hearing is > another chapter of our life. Hearing we undergo, we cannot choose it. Our > reactions: usually dislike. Then quite another chapter, smelling: we smell > an unpleasant odour: smelling and then our reactions. Thus we go on from one > sequence to another sequence of cittas that experience objects through six > doors. From birth to death, we are in the cycle of birth and death. We have > to be born, we have to see, hear, undergo all the sense impressions, whether > we like it or not. Seeing is conditioned by visible object and eyesense, > hearing by earsense and sound. Entirely different experiences arisen because > of different conditions. Thus, part of the sequence of cittas we are able to > experience. The Buddha who knew all taught the sequence of cittas in detail, > but we should not try to count cittas, to catch them. We cannot choose what > type of citta arises, we are not the owner of cittas. We can learn more > about cittas as right understanding is developed. > I am always amazed at the consistency of Buddhaghosa, he wrote such an > enormous amount of commentaries, and never a contradiction. When there are > differences in classifications it is usually a matter of what is stressed, > of explaining certain aspects. He keeps on stressing vipassana, the three > characteristics of impermanence, dukkha, anatta, developing understanding of > the khandhas, elements, ayatanas. I collect such texts for Robert K. who > likes this so much. But I stop raving about Buddhaghosa now, I am not at the > right address here, I feel :) . > As to chitchat, yes, I am personally inclined "to say it with music" (today > Loeillet and Handel with the nephews, Veracini for Pa and Oscar). Now, we > can talk with different types of cittas, we can also speak with real concern > for someone, with metta, with generosity, with sympathetic joy, thus with > kusala cittas. The same goes for writing E mails, this is a good reminder > for me. I used to think that talking about flowers etc is akusala, but A. > Sujin taught me differently. We can learn that there are different moments > when we talk. I should remind myself again and again that when we do not > develop dana, observe sila, develop samatha or satipatthana, we act, speak > and think with akusala cittas. > Yes, I shall write more about conceit, it is always around the corner, even > when we laugh. I appreciate Jon's additional reminder of conceit. > I have read so many posts of you and then it is nice to hear about your > personal life. With best wishes, Nina. 9407 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 4:27am Subject: [dsg] Ultimate Reality Hi Howard: >To me, the term 'ultimate reality' is misleading when applied to conditioned dhammas. k: From what I have read, Abhidhamma classify them as conditioned dhammas. Hmm but it seems to me that ultimate reality may not be a good translation for what it suppose to mean. To me they are just classifying dhammas into until a stage where it could not be break down anymore. Ultimate tends to bring some kind of "Supreme" meaning. I would say a bit of negativity there. Maybe someone could think of a better word to use. >> Feeling is an ultimate reality> > > though bc of the function of vedana. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I disagree with you here. Feeling is dependent upon contact. k: Oh, I just using their Abidhamma terms here, they classify vedana as ultimate reality. In Abidhamma, these cetasikas rise together and in a sense function together instanteously and I interpret that contact don't comes before feeling (maybe I wrong here) in one citta. So if dependent origination say that contact arise before vedana, then Abidhamma says they rise simultaneous, for this part I am confuse. Hope someone here could clarify this. Kind regards Ken O --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 11/18/01 10:18:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, > ashkenn@y... writes: > > > > k: Seeing is not an utlimate reality. Seeing is dependent of the > > combination of four elements that produce an object and the eye sense > > thought process that enable us to see. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I agree with you. To me, the term 'ultimate reality' is > misleading > when applied to conditioned dhammas. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Feeling is an ultimate reality> > > though bc of the function of vedana. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I disagree with you here. Feeling is dependent upon contact. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Furthermore, isn't suffering is also> > > a concept. Suffering is the resultant of our akusala tendecies. It > is > > not an ultimate reality. > > > > > ============================== > Just one cautionary note. Abidhammikas don't use the term > 'ultimate > reality' in a sense that precludes it from being conditioned. I find > that use > of the term a bit odd, but so long as it has a consistent meaning in > that > context, there is no problem. In Abhidhamma, I believe that a paramattha > > dhamma is any dhamma that is directly observable through a sense door as > > opposed to being (the referent of a) mere concept. We're headed for > misunderstanding when we conflate the Abhidhammic defintion with > another. > > 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) 9408 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 4:31am Subject: Re: meththa meditation Dear Mick, Sarah, Christine, Robert, Manji and all. What is meththa? To me simply "friendliness". Meththa towards yourself… Accept yourself as you are, Be friendly with yourself… Its OK for you to go wrong, Forgive yourself unconditionally. Its OK for yourself not to perform well as others Be happy with yourself (now to handle the situation here we need wisdom) See the things in reality… Accept reality… Do what you have to do… (now back to metha) Accept yourself as you are (Confidence) Have confidence in yourself Don’t be afraid of what others would say… (now wisdom and metha towards others) See them in reality… Why they are in that way… Accept them and their actions in friendliness (now meththa towards others) Feel the liking towards them within you growing and overflowing towards them Forgive them and accept them (now back to yourself) Feel the friendliness you yourself have given yourself Feel the calmness within you by accepting yourself as you are…… Feel the calmness within you by accepting others as they are……………. Now my question session; If you cannot accept yourself, forgive yourself how can you do it for others? If you don’t have meththa towards yourself: Scenario: This person wants to see "Right view". He reads the samma ditti suththa in majima nikaya. Out of the 16 ways Sariyuth Thero has given he contemplates on the 2nd that is Ahara or Food. He sees food is a conditional item for life and he sees how difficult it is to get food, what and what (not) is being done to get food. And he sees all this is to keep the "body" alive and as he does not have meththa towards himself…… (so he...) his body is gone so does his life…. Do we really need to love ourselves anymore? Dear Robert; yes we do…if we forget ourselves and try to meththa others… we may be going in a false path. Ofcourse the feeling of Karuna - not standing others dukka – can arise without we being in the center. Some previous question: Attachment to the "suka vedana" in meditation. Isnt it Akusala? Yes attachement is Akusala. But isnt it a very small akusala. Very small comparing the times we don’t do meditation. Also we should not confuse "Channda" – the "want" to do some thing with loba. Manji; a small note on self as we are talking a lot about ourself. Sila purifies self Samadi sees through self Prangna (wisdom) understands that there is no self. Previously Mike told that samadhi may do more akusala… However I am confused over this… mike; hope you will unconfuse me ;-) But the way I think is… When you try to meditate you will remember the kusala and akusala things you have done more clearly. This (mostly akusala) is an obstacle to our meditation. Therefore to take care of this only we have to do the 4 gardian meditations at the start and metha being one to forgive and accept yourself and to have the unconditional friendship with yourself. The word love: Mike; My addition to Christine's comment. As I have heard the word love is having attachment in it. Or love is with attachment. When you remove the attachment part you get meththa… Robert wrote: I would think that to love yourself and others would be very different from the kind of self-involvement, self-promotion, etc., that refers only to the ego and its insecurities. That is not love. Accepted sir… In these little days I have learnt much and much and would like to thank all my Dhamma friends here. Thank you Sarah for the encouragement you give… and mike… you were talking about satipattana in one of your previous emails. Would like to know how to apply satipattana in every moment… ~much meththa to all Ranil 9409 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Howard ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Continuity seen by *what*"? Each citta sees what it sees (in a moment - does that have duration?), and then ceases. BTW, did the citta, now *gone*, really exist as a separate paramattha dhamma? Was it a separate thing with sabhava, somehow conditioned by other, earlier separate, self-existing things (as in the collision of billiard balls, or particles in pre-quantum physics), and now annihilated? This seems to me to be, at the very same time, a form of substantialism and annihilationism. -------------------------------------------------- k: Our conscious is passed from one form to another when one cease from this form. Then I think, if we think from this light, there shouldn't be any substanlism and annihilationism. Because each citta condition the next in Abhidhamma. Similarily the conscious of the present form condition the next form and this present conscious also condition the next conscious. Robert K: You ask "what can be seeing the blur"? Well avijja > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, beings, self) and > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is very real and is in > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. k: To me Robert K explaination could be confusing as he is mixing convention with absolute. On his first part he say abt concepts (pple, beings, self) and on the second part he say abt absolute (paramattha dhammas). He is not wrong though. However, i would not say that Avijja is in a sense "overarching something", cittas can never overarch because one cittas needs to cease before the next one citta arise. To me this "overarching something" is due to concepts (ppe, beings, self) that we use to think for so many countless lifes and these concepts have their root cause in Avijja (maybe that is what Robert K is saying). > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > So - avijja is some sort of "super-dhamma" which not only exists, > but exists beyond the moment? This makes pa~n~na sound like an eternalistic Christ, and avijja an eternalistic Antichrist! > ------------------------------------------------ k: I don't think he is implying that ignorance is a "super-dhamma". To me ignorance is a conditioned dhamma. Ignorance conditions our present conscious and our present conscious condition ignorance which in future conditions our next conscious as said in the Dependent Origination, assuming we have not eradicate ignorance in this life. Similarly to panna that also conditions in such a way. No cetasikas could be super dhamma because they are all conditioned, which implies that they are not permanent, hence I think it should not be view as eternalistic. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Wouldn't you think, then, that in at least one sutta the Buddha > (or Sariputta or another chief disciple) would have talked in Abhidhammic terms about the notion of "cittas", about individual mindstates each of which exists for a moment (as the entirety of experience), has essence, and then being utterly annihilated is followed by a separate, successor mindstate? > ---------------------------------------------------- k: This is a difficult part, why it is not state clearly in the sutta and this is hard to accept. Similarly it is hard for the Thervadans to accept Mahayana point of view in certain Buddhist concepts eg PureLand. Personally, as long as it helps to understand the dhamma better, it is good enough. I think we have to put faith and accept that Buddha teachings that are imparted comes in many different ways or form, even though it is extremely hard to substantiate or to believe at times. Kind regards Ken O --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > I still find a problem here which I will address in context. In a > > message dated 11/18/01 6:15:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Dear Howard, > > Well my reply is that I think the theory explains the actual > > > experience very well. The example of the movie screen is a reasonable > > analogy to explain how the moments are taken as a whole. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't think it is. The frames pass by on the screen, and the > watcher, standing back, produces a continuous image as a result of > watching > them. But when the cittas *are* the frames, they are also the "watchers" > - > there is no overseer, standing back, confronting those cittas. They, > with and > without their wisdom and other concomitants, are *it*. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Remember the individual moments don't come into existence out of > > nothing. Each one is conditioned by the previous one and hence there > > is continuity. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Continuity seen by *what*"? Each citta sees what it sees (in a > moment > - does that have duration?), and then ceases. BTW, did the citta, now > *gone*, > really exist as a separate paramattha dhamma? Was it a separate thing > with > sabhava, somehow conditioned by other, earlier separate, self-existing > things > (as in the collision of billiard balls, or particles in pre-quantum > physics), > and now annihilated? This seems to me to be, at the very same time, a > form of > substantialism and annihilationism. > -------------------------------------------------- > > > The reason we can't see all this clearly is not a mystery it is > > because of ignorance, a most powerful force and conditioning factor > > that clouds vision.You ask "what can be seeing the blur"? Well avijja > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, beings, self) and > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is very real and is in > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > So - avijja is some sort of "super-dhamma" which not only exists, > but > exists beyond the moment? This makes pa~n~na sound like an eternalistic > Christ, and avijja an eternalistic Antichrist! > ------------------------------------------------ > > > It is only because we hear about these matters that curiosity arises > > and so there is the beginning of investigation (dhamma-vicaya) into > > the actual nature of this process. > > I would guess for one like Sariputta the distinction between cittas > > is as clear as the lines on my hand. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Wouldn't you think, then, that in at least one sutta the Buddha > (or > Sariputta or another chief disciple) would have talked in Abhidhammic > terms > about the notion of "cittas", about individual mindstates each of which > exists for a moment (as the entirety of experience), has essence, and > then > being utterly annihilated is followed by a separate, successor > mindstate? > ---------------------------------------------------- > Why? Because of developed wisdom.> > > best wishes > > robert > > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a > bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, > a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9410 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anusaya-kilesa --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K > > " It arises in association with all akusala cittas , but is also a > > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > > conascence paccaya)." > > > This sound very interesting, could you elaborate on "this conditioning > factor for many kusala cittas". Is this the same as Anusaya- kilesa. Some > pple interpret it as latent tendecies, is it correct. Does kusala cittas > has anusaya Kilesa as it has define like a sediment in the citta in the > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . > _____________________ Dear Ken O, Yes I think that's right, and good question. However, I wasn't thinking of that aspect. I was thinking of the way ignorance can condition good deeds in various ways. Visuddhimagga XVii63 "his non- abandonment of that ignorance about the 4 noble truths in particular prevents him from recognising as suffering the kind of suffering called the fruit of merit...he embarks upon the formation of merit .." Also xvii64 "not knowing bhikkus, in ignorance he forms the formation of merit...as soon as a bhikkhus ignorance is abandoned and clear vision arises ..he does not even form formations of merit" This, of course is not implying that merit is wrong, just that it can often be conditioned by ignorance. best wishes robert > > > > > > > Dear Robert E. > > Ignorance is a cetasika and it is part of the paticasamupada > > (dependent origination) It is a key link, along with lobha (craving, > > attachment) that obsures vision and keeps the wheel of birth and > > death spinning. It is a power of immense proportions indeed. > > It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a > > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > > conascence paccaya). > > > > Visuddhimagga > > XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of > > collection in the aggregates(khandas), the meaning of actuating in the > > bases(ayatanas)…..the meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents > knowing the meaning of dukkha described in the four ways as `oppression > > etc'..Furthermore it is ignorance because it conceals the physical bases > and objects of eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent > origination."endquote > > We see how its function is to conceal what should be known. > > > > In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true nature of > > paramattha dhammas and the intricate ways they condition each other. > > The commentary to the UDANA (excellent translation by Peter Masefield > > from PTS)defines it(p71,vol1, enlightenement chapter) "it is > > ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on > > within samsara.., it is ignorance since it > > darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, > > women) and since it does not dart among those things that do > > exist "(i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas). > > best wishes > > robert > > > > 9411 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:48am Subject: Re: Nibbana -- Dear Jon and Howard, Jim Anderson very kindly researched the commentary and translated it for us. Here is the relevant part: Itv-a I 167> siitibhavissantii ti accantavuupasamena sa"nkhaaradarathapa.tippassaddhiyaa siitalii bhavissanti, appa.tisandhika-nirodhena nirujjhissantii ti attho. na kevala.m vedayitaani yeva sabbepi pana khii.naasava-santaane pa~ncakkhandhaa nirujjhissanti. vedayitasiisena desanaa kataa. [both PTS and CSCD versions agree, I didn't check the Budsir version] Roughly translated: "will become cool" -- will become cool with absolute calm, with the tranquillization of the anxiety of the formations, the meaning is: 'will cease with the non-rebirth-linking-cessation'. Not just the sensed alone but all the five aggregates in the continuum of a canker-waned one will cease also. A teaching with the 'sensed' as head is made."end translation. best wishes robert - In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob (and Howard) > > Rob, thanks for this very pertinent quote, and my apologies for the delay > in responding. > > I intersperse below, for comparison, the corresponding passage from the P. > Masefield translation (PTS 2000). > > --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > > > Dear Howard and Jon, > > From the Itivuttaka (no.38 PTS). > > I use Nyanaponika's translation (wheel 251/253) > > This was said by the Blessed one, sopken by the holy One , and > > thus have I heard: > > there are , o monks, two aspects of Nibbana; the Nibbana element > > with the groups of existence still remainin > > (saupadisesa-nibbanadhatu) and the Nibbana-element with no > > groups remaining (anupadisesa -nibbana dhatu). > > What is the Nibbana element with groups of existence still > > remaing? in that case , o monks, a monk is an arahant; he is > > taint free..but there still remain with him(until death) the > > five sense organs that have not yet disappeared and through > > which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as > > well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred > > and delusion in him, this is called the nibbana element with the > > groups of existence still remaining. > > PM "On this one's part, it is the destruction of lust, the destruction of > hatred, the destruction of delusion that is spoken of as that > nibbana-element that is with substrate-remnant." > > > And what is the Nibbana-element with no groups remaining? In > > that case a monk is an arahant..in him those feelings no longer > > relished , will even here (at his death) come to extinction. > > This is called the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence > > remaining. endquote > > PM "On this one's part, all that is sensed right here, not being rejoiced > in, will become cold; it is this that is spoken of as that nibbana- element > that is without substrate-remnant." > > I am not sure if there is anything new here. I simply observe that what > is being discussed is the 'nibbana-element', rather than, say, the citta > that experiences that element, although obviously is a reference to one > and the same moment. > > The first kind of nibbana-element is equated with the *destruction of > lust, hatred and delusion*, the second with the *becoming cold of all that > is sensed* after that destruction has occurred. > > There is a further passage in the PM translation, which I think is of a > verse summarising the prose text of the sutta. This reads as follows-- > > "These two nibbana elements .. ; > -- one element -- that with substrate-remnant, in which becoming's lead > is totally destroyed -- pertains to these seen conditions here; > -- that without substrate-remnant, wherein becomings entirely cease, > pertains to the hereafter. > Those whose hearts are liberated .. , being those for whom becoming's lead > is totally destroyed, delight .. in destruction -- these constant ones > abandon all becomings." > > Howard, I read the passage from Rob's post as confirming what you suggest > in your reply to that post, namely the cessation of all sense-door > functions and associated mind-door states. It is possible that is is also > intended to include other mind-door moments; presumably the commentary > would make this clear. > > The emphasis in the verse passage seems to be on the end of 'becoming' > (ie. birth?). I take this to mean that the moment of death (cuti citta) > is not followed by a moment of birth (patisandhi citta). > > As far as I know, the Pali texts take the matter no further than this, but > I intend to keep an eye out for further relevant material. > > Jon 9412 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/19/01 3:01:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Robert E. > Ignorance is a cetasika and it is part of the paticasamupada > (dependent origination) It is a key link, along with lobha (craving, > attachment) that obsures vision and keeps the wheel of birth and > death spinning. It is a power of immense proportions indeed. > It arises in assocaition with all akusala cittas , but is also a > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > conascence paccaya). > > Visuddhimagga > XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of > collection in the > aggregates(khandas), the meaning of actuating in the > bases(ayatanas)…..the > meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents knowing the > meaning of > dukkha described in the four ways as `oppression > etc'..Furthermore it is > ignorance because it conceals the physical bases and objects of > eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent origination."endquote > We see how its function is to conceal what should be known. > > In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true nature of > paramattha dhammas and the intricate ways they condition each other. > The commentary to the UDANA (excellent translation by Peter Masefield > from PTS)defines it(p71,vol1, enlightenement chapter) "it is > ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on > within samsara.., it is ignorance since it > darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, > women) and since it does not dart among those things that do > exist "(i.e.it cannot > understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas). > best wishes > robert > ============================ If I may chime in: This makes me "feel much better" about aspects of the matter (while, as you might expect from one as incorrigible as I, not fully satisfied ;-). I tend to think of avijja not as a simple thing, but as multi-layered and multi-constructed, being in part a mere absence of wisdom, but also consisting in part of active misunderstandings of many sorts, and also being in part - and this *may* be closest to the avijja cetasika sense - a general dimming of clarity and increase in confusion. In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic theory of conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when I see problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as bringing up the business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without wisdom, an entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back from the screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which are then annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no-self/emptiness. 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) 9413 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 4:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/19/01 9:14:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Continuity seen by *what*"? Each citta sees what it sees (in a > moment - does that have duration?), and then ceases. BTW, did the citta, > now *gone*, really exist as a separate paramattha dhamma? Was it a > separate thing with sabhava, somehow conditioned by other, earlier > separate, self-existing things (as in the collision of billiard balls, or > particles in pre-quantum physics), and now annihilated? This seems to me > to be, at the very same time, a form of substantialism and > annihilationism. > -------------------------------------------------- > > k: Our conscious is passed from one form to another when one cease from > this form. Then I think, if we think from this light, there shouldn't be > any substanlism and annihilationism. Because each citta condition the > next in Abhidhamma. Similarily the conscious of the present form > condition the next form and this present conscious also condition the next > conscious. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I understand that features of subsequent cittas are conditioned by the features of the current citta. If that were not so, there would be complete randomness. But the arising and destruction of separate, self-existing units constituting the entirety of experience while each exists is reminiscent of the old action-at-distance of Neutonian mechanics, and it has the flavor of an atta-view. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Robert K: You ask "what can be seeing the blur"? Well avijja > > > (ignorance) darts among what is unreal (people, beings, self) and > > > does not dart among paramattha dhammas. Avijja is very real and is in > > > a sense the 'overaching something' you ask about. > > k: To me Robert K explaination could be confusing as he is mixing > convention with absolute. On his first part he say abt concepts (pple, > beings, self) and on the second part he say abt absolute (paramattha > dhammas). He is not wrong though. However, i would not say that Avijja > is in a sense "overarching something", cittas can never overarch because > one cittas needs to cease before the next one citta arise. To me this > "overarching something" is due to concepts (ppe, beings, self) that we use > to think for so many countless lifes and these concepts have their root > cause in Avijja (maybe that is what Robert K is saying). > > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > So - avijja is some sort of "super-dhamma" which not only exists, > > but exists beyond the moment? This makes pa~n~na sound like an > eternalistic Christ, and avijja an eternalistic Antichrist! > > ------------------------------------------------ > > k: I don't think he is implying that ignorance is a "super-dhamma". To > me ignorance is a conditioned dhamma. Ignorance conditions our present > conscious and our present conscious condition ignorance which in future > conditions our next conscious as said in the Dependent Origination, > assuming we have not eradicate ignorance in this life. Similarly to panna > that also conditions in such a way. No cetasikas could be super dhamma > because they are all conditioned, which implies that they are not > permanent, hence I think it should not be view as eternalistic. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Wouldn't you think, then, that in at least one sutta the Buddha > > (or Sariputta or another chief disciple) would have talked in > Abhidhammic terms about the notion of "cittas", about individual > mindstates each of which exists for a moment (as the entirety of > experience), has essence, and then being utterly annihilated is followed > by a separate, successor mindstate? > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > k: This is a difficult part, why it is not state clearly in the sutta and > this is hard to accept. Similarly it is hard for the Thervadans to accept > Mahayana point of view in certain Buddhist concepts eg PureLand. > Personally, as long as it helps to understand the dhamma better, it is > good enough. I think we have to put faith and accept that Buddha teachings > that are imparted comes in many different ways or form, even though it is > extremely hard to substantiate or to believe at times. > > > > > 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) 9414 From: m. nease Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate Reality Hi Kenneth, I agree, I've never really liked that translation either. In any event, the important meaning as I understand it is something like the fundamental components of a moment of experience--ultimate only in the sense of (theoretically) irreducible. This is not science or philosophy, it is, in my opinion, just a conceptual structure for trying to understand, intellectually, the nature of experience (not to be mistaken for or substitued for direct, profound understanding). Anyone can pick it (spoken abhidhamma theory) to pieces. It isn't meant to stand up in a court of law, or a debate (though it sometimes can), or a laboratory--just to assist in the understanding of the present moment of experience, IMHO. mike --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Howard: > > >To me, the term 'ultimate reality' is misleading > when applied to > conditioned dhammas. > > k: From what I have read, Abhidhamma classify them > as conditioned > dhammas. Hmm but it seems to me that ultimate > reality may not be a good > translation for what it suppose to mean. To me they > are just classifying > dhammas into until a stage where it could not be > break down anymore. > Ultimate tends to bring some kind of "Supreme" > meaning. I would say a bit > of negativity there. Maybe someone could think of a > better word to use. > > > > >> Feeling is an ultimate reality> > > > though bc of the function of vedana. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I disagree with you here. Feeling is > dependent upon contact. > > k: Oh, I just using their Abidhamma terms here, they > classify vedana as > ultimate reality. In Abidhamma, these cetasikas > rise together and in a > sense function together instanteously and I > interpret that contact don't > comes before feeling (maybe I wrong here) in one > citta. So if dependent > origination say that contact arise before vedana, > then Abidhamma says they > rise simultaneous, for this part I am confuse. Hope > someone here could > clarify this. > > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > > > In a message dated 11/18/01 10:18:48 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > > ashkenn@y... writes: > > > > > > > k: Seeing is not an utlimate reality. Seeing > is dependent of the > > > combination of four elements that produce an > object and the eye sense > > > thought process that enable us to see. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I agree with you. To me, the term 'ultimate > reality' is > > misleading > > when applied to conditioned dhammas. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Feeling is an ultimate reality> > > > though bc of the function of vedana. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I disagree with you here. Feeling is > dependent upon contact. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Furthermore, isn't suffering is also> > > > a concept. Suffering is the resultant of our > akusala tendecies. It > > is > > > not an ultimate reality. > > > > > > > > ============================== > > Just one cautionary note. Abidhammikas > don't use the term > > 'ultimate > > reality' in a sense that precludes it from being > conditioned. I find > > that use > > of the term a bit odd, but so long as it has a > consistent meaning in > > that > > context, there is no problem. In Abhidhamma, I > believe that a paramattha > > > > dhamma is any dhamma that is directly observable > through a sense door as > > > > opposed to being (the referent of a) mere concept. > We're headed for > > misunderstanding when we conflate the Abhidhammic > defintion with > > another. > > > > 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) 9415 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate Reality Hi Mike Could you assist in explaining my confusion as stated below. I am still hoping either you or anyone in the list could explain it. Kind regards Ken O > > Howard: > > I disagree with you here. Feeling is > dependent upon contact. > > k: Oh, I just using their Abidhamma terms here, they > classify vedana as ultimate reality. In Abidhamma, these cetasikas > rise together and in a sense function together instanteously and I > interpret that contact don't comes before feeling (maybe I wrong here) in one citta. So if dependent origination say that contact arise before vedana, then Abidhamma says they rise simultaneous, for this part I am confuse. Hope someone here could clarify this. > > > > > Kind regards > Ken O 9416 From: m. nease Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meththa meditation Hi Again Ranil, Can you choose what you like and dislike? Liking and disliking are both akusala, regardless of the object. Pa~n~naa can recognize these when they arise (or very soon thereafter) conditioning detachment from them. This is good to know. Of course friendliness is good--easy to confuse with liking, though. Pa~n~naa can know the difference. Well, enough from me already. mike --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > Dear Mick, Sarah, Christine, Robert, Manji and all. > > What is meththa? > To me simply "friendliness". > > Meththa towards yourself… > > Accept yourself as you are, > Be friendly with yourself… > Its OK for you to go wrong, > Forgive yourself unconditionally. > > Its OK for yourself not to perform well as others > Be happy with yourself > (now to handle the situation here we need wisdom) > See the things in reality… > Accept reality… > Do what you have to do… > (now back to metha) > Accept yourself as you are > (Confidence) > Have confidence in yourself > Don’t be afraid of what others would say… > (now wisdom and metha towards others) > See them in reality… > Why they are in that way… > Accept them and their actions in friendliness > (now meththa towards others) > Feel the liking towards them within you growing and > overflowing towards them > Forgive them and accept them > (now back to yourself) > Feel the friendliness you yourself have given > yourself > Feel the calmness within you by accepting yourself > as you are…… > Feel the calmness within you by accepting others as > they are……………. > > Now my question session; > If you cannot accept yourself, forgive yourself how > can you do it for > others? > > If you don’t have meththa towards yourself: > Scenario: This person wants to see "Right view". He > reads the samma ditti > suththa in majima nikaya. Out of the 16 ways > Sariyuth Thero has given he > contemplates on the 2nd that is Ahara or Food. He > sees food is a conditional > item for life and he sees how difficult it is to get > food, what and what > (not) is being done to get food. And he sees all > this is to keep the "body" > alive and as he does not have meththa towards > himself…… (so he...) his body > is gone so does his life…. > > Do we really need to love ourselves anymore? > Dear Robert; yes we do…if we forget ourselves and > try to meththa others… we > may be going in a false path. Ofcourse the feeling > of Karuna - not standing > others dukka – can arise without we being in the > center. > > Some previous question: > Attachment to the "suka vedana" in meditation. Isnt > it Akusala? > Yes attachement is Akusala. But isnt it a very small > akusala. Very small > comparing the times we don’t do meditation. Also we > should not confuse > "Channda" – the "want" to do some thing with loba. > > Manji; a small note on self as we are talking a lot > about ourself. > > Sila purifies self > Samadi sees through self > Prangna (wisdom) understands that there is no self. > > Previously Mike told that samadhi may do more > akusala… > However I am confused over this… mike; hope you will > unconfuse me ;-) > But the way I think is… > When you try to meditate you will remember the > kusala and akusala things you > have done more clearly. This (mostly akusala) is an > obstacle to our > meditation. Therefore to take care of this only we > have to do the 4 gardian > meditations at the start and metha being one to > forgive and accept yourself > and to have the unconditional friendship with > yourself. > > > The word love: > Mike; My addition to Christine's comment. As I have > heard the word love is > having attachment in it. Or love is with attachment. > When you remove the > attachment part you get meththa… > > Robert wrote: > I would think that to love yourself and others would > be very different from > the kind of self-involvement, self-promotion, etc., > that refers only to the > ego and its insecurities. That is not love. > > Accepted sir… > > > In these little days I have learnt much and much and > would like to thank all > my Dhamma friends here. Thank you Sarah for the > encouragement you give… and > mike… you were talking about satipattana in one of > your previous emails. > Would like to know how to apply satipattana in every > moment… > > ~much meththa to all > Ranil 9417 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anusaya-kilesa Hi Robert K, hmm I still not very clear, could you explain more on anusaya kilesa and ignorance. What is their relationship, if any? Second question. Does kusala cittas has anusaya kilesa (in its citta component) as it has define like a sediment in the citta in the Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . Kind regards and thanks Ken O --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Robert K > > > > " It arises in association with all akusala cittas , but is also a > > > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > > > conascence paccaya)." > > > > > > This sound very interesting, could you elaborate on "this > conditioning > > factor for many kusala cittas". Is this the same as Anusaya- > kilesa. Some > > pple interpret it as latent tendecies, is it correct. Does kusala > cittas > > has anusaya Kilesa as it has define like a sediment in the citta in > the > > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . > > _____________________ > > > Dear Ken O, > Yes I think that's right, and good question. However, I wasn't > thinking of that aspect. I was thinking of the way ignorance can > condition good deeds in various ways. Visuddhimagga XVii63 "his non- > abandonment of that ignorance about the 4 noble truths in particular > prevents him from recognising as suffering the kind of suffering > called the fruit of merit...he embarks upon the formation of merit .." > Also xvii64 "not knowing bhikkus, in ignorance he forms the formation > of merit...as soon as a bhikkhus ignorance is abandoned and clear > vision arises ..he does not even form formations of merit" > > This, of course is not implying that merit is wrong, just that it can > often be conditioned by ignorance. > best wishes > robert 9418 From: m. nease Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 5:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate Reality Hi Kenneth, I understand your point. Contact and feeling are both mental factors which arise with every moment of every kind of consciousness, as I understand it. Conditioned origination is to not to be understood as one thing leading sequentially to another in time as I understand it--just that each 'link' is dependent on the one 'listed' before it--not necessarily preceding it in time. Not certain about this (I'm no expert on paticcasamuppaada--maybe someone else can do better)--hope this helps. mike --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Mike > > Could you assist in explaining my confusion as > stated below. I am still > hoping either you or anyone in the list could > explain it. > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > > > > > > Howard: > > > I disagree with you here. Feeling is > > dependent upon contact. > > > > k: Oh, I just using their Abidhamma terms here, > they > > classify vedana as ultimate reality. In > Abidhamma, these cetasikas > > rise together and in a sense function together > instanteously and I > > interpret that contact don't comes before feeling > (maybe I wrong here) > in one citta. So if dependent origination say that > contact arise before > vedana, then Abidhamma says they rise simultaneous, > for this part I am > confuse. Hope someone here could clarify this. > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > Ken O 9419 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Howard > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I understand that features of subsequent cittas are > conditioned by the features of the current citta. If that were not so, there would be complete randomness. But the arising and destruction of separate, self-existing units constituting the entirety of experience while each exists is reminiscent of the old action-at-distance of Neutonian mechanics, and it has the flavor of an atta-view. > ---------------------------------------------------------- k: I am confuse. I thought conscious as explained in Dependent Orgination, is pass from one form to another and some old action is passed as condition to the next action in the next form, does that consitute an atta-view? I sorry, maybe I do not get what you are trying to say. ------------------------------------------- Your post to Robert K, In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic theory > of conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when I see problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as bringing > up the business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without wisdom, an entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back from the screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which are then annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no->self/emptiness. ------------------------------------------- k: Would you kindly explain what is your understanding or your views on no self and how does such "citta being "real things" which are then annihilated", point away from no self/emptiness. Secondly its relation to the rebirth cycle. Kind Regards Ken O 9420 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nibbana Rob K and Jim Many thanks for going to the trouble to chase this one down. Just for a change, the commentary is pretty much as I would have expected! Much appreciated. Jon --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > -- > Dear Jon and Howard, > Jim Anderson very kindly researched the commentary and translated it > for us. Here is the relevant part: > > Itv-a I 167> siitibhavissantii ti accantavuupasamena > sa"nkhaaradarathapa.tippassaddhiyaa siitalii bhavissanti, > appa.tisandhika-nirodhena nirujjhissantii ti attho. na kevala.m > vedayitaani > yeva sabbepi pana khii.naasava-santaane pa~ncakkhandhaa > nirujjhissanti. > vedayitasiisena desanaa kataa. [both PTS and CSCD versions agree, I > didn't > check the Budsir version] > > Roughly translated: > "will become cool" -- will become cool with absolute calm, with the > tranquillization of the anxiety of the formations, the meaning > is: 'will > cease with the non-rebirth-linking-cessation'. Not just the sensed > alone but > all the five aggregates in the continuum of a canker-waned one will > cease > also. A teaching with the 'sensed' as head is made."end translation. > best wishes > robert > > > - In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob (and Howard) > > > > Rob, thanks for this very pertinent quote, and my apologies for the > delay > > in responding. > > > > I intersperse below, for comparison, the corresponding passage from > the P. > > Masefield translation (PTS 2000). > > > > --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > > > > Dear Howard and Jon, > > > From the Itivuttaka (no.38 PTS). > > > I use Nyanaponika's translation (wheel 251/253) > > > This was said by the Blessed one, sopken by the holy One , and > > > thus have I heard: > > > there are , o monks, two aspects of Nibbana; the Nibbana element > > > with the groups of existence still remainin > > > (saupadisesa-nibbanadhatu) and the Nibbana-element with no > > > groups remaining (anupadisesa -nibbana dhatu). > > > What is the Nibbana element with groups of existence still > > > remaing? in that case , o monks, a monk is an arahant; he is > > > taint free..but there still remain with him(until death) the > > > five sense organs that have not yet disappeared and through > > > which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as > > > well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred > > > and delusion in him, this is called the nibbana element with the > > > groups of existence still remaining. > > > > PM "On this one's part, it is the destruction of lust, the > destruction of > > hatred, the destruction of delusion that is spoken of as that > > nibbana-element that is with substrate-remnant." > > > > > And what is the Nibbana-element with no groups remaining? In > > > that case a monk is an arahant..in him those feelings no longer > > > relished , will even here (at his death) come to extinction. > > > This is called the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence > > > remaining. endquote > > > > PM "On this one's part, all that is sensed right here, not being > rejoiced > > in, will become cold; it is this that is spoken of as that nibbana- > element > > that is without substrate-remnant." > > > > I am not sure if there is anything new here. I simply observe that > what > > is being discussed is the 'nibbana-element', rather than, say, the > citta > > that experiences that element, although obviously is a reference to > one > > and the same moment. > > > > The first kind of nibbana-element is equated with the *destruction > of > > lust, hatred and delusion*, the second with the *becoming cold of > all that > > is sensed* after that destruction has occurred. > > > > There is a further passage in the PM translation, which I think is > of a > > verse summarising the prose text of the sutta. This reads as > follows-- > > > > "These two nibbana elements .. ; > > -- one element -- that with substrate-remnant, in which becoming's > lead > > is totally destroyed -- pertains to these seen conditions here; > > -- that without substrate-remnant, wherein becomings entirely > cease, > > pertains to the hereafter. > > Those whose hearts are liberated .. , being those for whom > becoming's lead > > is totally destroyed, delight .. in destruction -- these constant > ones > > abandon all becomings." > > > > Howard, I read the passage from Rob's post as confirming what you > suggest > > in your reply to that post, namely the cessation of all sense-door > > functions and associated mind-door states. It is possible that is > is also > > intended to include other mind-door moments; presumably the > commentary > > would make this clear. > > > > The emphasis in the verse passage seems to be on the end > of 'becoming' > > (ie. birth?). I take this to mean that the moment of death (cuti > citta) > > is not followed by a moment of birth (patisandhi citta). > > > > As far as I know, the Pali texts take the matter no further than > this, but > > I intend to keep an eye out for further relevant material. > > > > Jon 9421 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Mike - > > (Uh, wait a minute. What is your status now? Are you still callable as > "Mike"?) Yep, still plain old layman mike. Ordination still might happen but there are un foreseen obstacles, legal etc. We'll see... > So at each moment there is no blur, but then, as a kind of conceptual > summing up there is a blur? (I seem to find that my mind is becoming a total > blur at such thoughts! ;-)) Well, I borrowed this blur--I think I should return it to Robert, my apologies if it's a little soiled, Rob. If I may fall back and regroup my aggregates, I guess I'll have to play the 'movie' card again. Not a blur, but a conceptual assemblage of a whole lot of moments of consciousness and their attendant factors (whether 'atomistic' or not) which can seem very clear. (As I'm sure you know, the mental factor 'vitakka' can take concept as an object. By the way, I do think Robert's comments re. avijja as a 'positive' and extremely potent force are very pertinent). I do take your point, Howard, about this kind of 'particular' reference to cittas. In my opinion it doesn't really matter whether they each have a discrete, separate 'existence' or not--as I tried to communicate to Kenneth, I think all this theoretical structure is just a way of trying to get a verbal/conceptual frame of reference for the ever-moving moment of experience, so that we can think about it and discuss it on an intellectual level. Since I habitually reason from the general to the specific, I don't really have a problem when I run into a detail that seems logically problematic-I just take a step back and see if that point, accepted for argument's sake with whatever reservations, seems to fit into the 'big picture' as I understand it so far. If you'll forgive my playing the 'arrow' card in the same hand, "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html Of course to me this means (among other things) that to reject the Dhamma according to the Theravada on the grounds of (what I see as) minute points of intellecutal detail is to throw the baby out with the bath (if I may also play the baby and bath cards). Does it really matter if the moments in a continuum of experience are discrete or not? Does it matter whether sunlight hits us in waves or particles? Or experience of it is the same either way I think. I know I shouldn't argue with you, Howard. We both know you're a smarter man than I am and know the Dhamma better, including the Theravada I think. I just hope you aren't too smart for your own good. > Great to hear from you, Mike! I wish you all the very best!!! Ditto and back at you, Howard--if you figure out a better approach to getting that arrow out I hope you'll let me know. Whether you do or not, keep in touch, eh? Your Friend, mike 9422 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 8:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anusaya, pariyutthana, vitikkama Dear Ken O, Moha (ignorance) can be anusaya-moha and pariyutthana-moha. Anusaya means inherent tendency or latent tendency. Pariyutthana means rising up. The ignorance that arises together with the akusala consciousness is called pariyutthana moha. Even at the moment of performing good deeds or wholesome actions anusaya moha is present, it is latent, waiting to arise. When it goes beyond the stage of pariyutthana it is called vitikkama and then unwholesome deeds are performed Nina van Gorkom writes: -http://www.dhammastudy.com/listening6.html Akusala cittas can be coarse, medium or subtle. The coarse defilements, vitikkama kilesa, are the unwholesome actions through body, speech or mind, such as killing, stealing or lying. The medium defilements, pariyutthana kilesa, are the akusala cetasikas which arise with the citta but which do not have the intensity to motivate unwholesome deeds at that moment. Akusala cittas can be classified according to their roots, hetus ,in three groups: lobha-mula-cittas, which are rooted in moha, ignorance, and in attachment, lobha; dosa-mula-cittas, which are rooted in moha and dosa, aversion; moha-mula-cittas which have moha as their only root. Besides the roots there are other akusala cetasikas which arise with these akusala cittas. The subtle defilements, anusaya, do not arise with akusala citta, but they are latent tendencies; they lie dormant, they are like microbes investing the body. We do not notice them, but they are there, accumulated in the citta; they are pertinacious and they condition the arising of defilements again and again. The inherent or latent tendencies have been accumulated from life to life. The first javana cittas of every living being who is born are lobha-mulacittas, cittas rooted in attachment. These are conditioned by the latent tendencies accumulated in the past. End quote robert dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > hmm I still not very clear, could you explain more on anusaya kilesa and > ignorance. What is their relationship, if any? > > > Second question. Does kusala cittas has anusaya kilesa (in its citta > component) as it has define like a sediment in the citta in the Summary > of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . > > > > Kind regards and thanks > Ken O > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- In > dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Hi Robert K > > > > > > " It arises in association with all akusala cittas , but is also a > > > > conditioning factor for many kusala cittas (although not as > > > > conascence paccaya)." > > > > > > > > > This sound very interesting, could you elaborate on "this > > conditioning > > > factor for many kusala cittas". Is this the same as Anusaya- > > kilesa. Some > > > pple interpret it as latent tendecies, is it correct. Does kusala > > cittas > > > has anusaya Kilesa as it has define like a sediment in the citta in > > the > > > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII . > > > _____________________ > > > > > > Dear Ken O, > > Yes I think that's right, and good question. However, I wasn't > > thinking of that aspect. I was thinking of the way ignorance can > > condition good deeds in various ways. Visuddhimagga XVii63 "his non- > > abandonment of that ignorance about the 4 noble truths in particular > > prevents him from recognising as suffering the kind of suffering > > called the fruit of merit...he embarks upon the formation of merit .." > > Also xvii64 "not knowing bhikkus, in ignorance he forms the formation > > of merit...as soon as a bhikkhus ignorance is abandoned and clear > > vision arises ..he does not even form formations of merit" > > > > This, of course is not implying that merit is wrong, just that it can > > often be conditioned by ignorance. > > best wishes > > robert > > 9423 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 8:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas ---Dear Howard, Comments interspersed: In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > ============================ > If I may chime in: This makes me "feel much better" about aspects of > the matter (while, as you might expect from one as incorrigible as I, not > fully satisfied ;-). I tend to think of avijja not as a simple thing, but as > multi-layered and multi-constructed, being in part a mere absence of wisdom, > but also consisting in part of active misunderstandings of many sorts, and > also being in part - and this *may* be closest to the avijja cetasika sense - > a general dimming of clarity and increase in confusion. ++++++ Moha (ignorance ) is always a root of all kilesa. So it is associated with all types of ditthi(wrong view). The heart of all these wrong views is that ignorance obscures the true nature of reality. +++++++ > In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic theory of > conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when I see > problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as bringing up the > business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without wisdom, an > entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back from the > screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which are then > annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no-self/emptiness. > > +++++++++++++++++++++ Remember what Suan wrote recently: "The fact that paramattha dhammas are sunnyata (empty of self and self-belongings) does not negate their existence or their truth status." the Buddha says: SnXXII 94 Rupa that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it EXISTS. Feeling...perception..volitional formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change..I too say that it exists." Paramattha dhammas exist but not in the way we usually imagine things to exist. They are so ephemeral that time itself can only be properly understood in relation to the arising and passing. So many different conditions must coincide for even one moment of seeing, for example, to arise - yet we take seeing for granted; and we think it lasts, think we can control it. best wishes robert 9424 From: Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/19/01 11:55:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > ---Dear Howard, > Comments interspersed: > In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > ============================ > > If I may chime in: This makes me "feel much better" about > aspects of > > the matter (while, as you might expect from one as incorrigible as > I, not > > fully satisfied ;-). I tend to think of avijja not as a simple > thing, but as > > multi-layered and multi-constructed, being in part a mere absence > of wisdom, > > but also consisting in part of active misunderstandings of many > sorts, and > > also being in part - and this *may* be closest to the avijja > cetasika sense - > > a general dimming of clarity and increase in confusion. > ++++++ > Moha (ignorance ) is always a root of all kilesa. So it is associated > with all types of ditthi(wrong view). The heart of all these wrong > views is that ignorance obscures the true nature of reality. --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. But what *is* ignorance? Just an absence? If not, what is it the presence of? It isn't some sort of substance. Is it a function? A process? What is it? (In some ways, the term 'avijja' seems to be a conventional one expressing a conventional concept.) --------------------------------------------------------------- > +++++++ > > In any case, my primary difficulty is with the atomistic > theory of > > conciousness in general and its explanatory capability. It is when > I see > > problems in that area arising that I raise questions, such as > bringing up the > > business of an overarching something that grasps, with/without > wisdom, an > > entire process of cittas, like a "self"/observer standing back from > the > > screen, and also with regard to cittas being "real things" which > are then > > annihilated, both such notions pointing away from no-self/emptiness. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > Remember what Suan wrote recently: > "The fact that paramattha dhammas are sunnyata (empty of self and > self-belongings) does not negate their existence or their truth > status." > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with that. Dhammas exist, but not inherently with essence or own-being. They are neither nothing at all nor are they self-existent entities. They are things-in-relation. ------------------------------------------------------ > > the Buddha says: > SnXXII 94 > Rupa that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this > the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it > EXISTS. Feeling...perception..volitional > formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and > subject to change..I too say that it exists." > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Did the Buddha, himself, capitalize the first 'exists'? ;-)) Yes, I agree that these things exist. That is, they are not nothing. But they ARE (my caps ;-) nothing IN-AND-OF-THEMSELVES. Their existence is, as you say so well below, not as we imagine it to be. Their existence as separate entities is merely conventional and ultimately false. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Paramattha dhammas exist but not in the way we usually imagine things > to exist. They are so ephemeral that time itself can only be properly > understood in relation to the arising and passing. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. And it is not only their ephemeral nature that makes them different from the way they seem, but also their dependent nature, and that dependency being a dependency on similarly ephemeral and dependent things makes these "things" quite empty. They are sunya - swollen, hollow. ---------------------------------------------------------- So many different > > conditions must coincide for even one moment of seeing, for example, > to arise - yet we take seeing for granted; and we think it lasts, > think we can control it. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. I've been coming to see more and more clearly the uncontrollability of things. The notion that we are or can be in any sort of ultimate control of things is a kind of sad joke. And when we buy into that joke the humor turns to tragedy. Impersonality is what there is, with little real ability to control anything, and no *controller* to be found anywhere in any case. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > best wishes > robert > =============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9425 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] discernment or realities- yoga/tai chi Dear Rob Ep (& Howard), --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I don't think you were too blunt, Sarah. In a sense, I think it means that > you > just enjoy the yoga in its own right, as something to 'do' and experience, > and > that is actually a much more 'enlightened' state, I would say, than doing it > with > striving and expectation. The strain that we often have on our involvements > to > somehow elevate us above the flow of life, simply creates more stress and > disappointment. But to do something so consistently, because it is something > you > have a predilection for, can't really be argued against. .................... Sarah: I’m not sure about the ‘enlightened’ part, but yes, I think these kinds of activity are something we have a predilection for just as Nina and Herman do for playing/listening to Bach. .................... > However, I take it that you perhaps have some 'aversion' to the potential for > Hindu philosophy to enter into the scene. I'm sure in 20 years, you've been > confronted with some Hindu beliefs accompanying your yoga friends' practice. > Correct me if I'm wrong about the above, but I think it might be an > interesting > issue [or not], how we react to philosophies that are different than our own? .................... Sarah: I think it’s interesting too and your tolerant and ‘positive’ attitude is a great example for us all, Rob. Actually, I think there are 2 issues here: Firstly is the question of aversion and any other unwholesome tendencies with regard to other teachings/philosophies. Of course this is never helpful and I’m glad to be reminded about it. Secondly, though, is a question of what we find most useful and so on with limited time. For example, without wishing to avoid facing up to any unwholesome tendencies, I question whether it’s helpful to try and develop knowledge or expertise in other philosophies which don’t help us develop more detachment from the idea of self, unless they are either relevant to our work or are objects of attachment (and aren’t there plenty enough of them?). Simply, like Frank once mentioned, I’d rather be reading a sutta or posts here on a Saturday evening than listening to a talk on another philosophy. If I need a break I’ll do some yoga or watch something on TV. This doesn’t mean that it always works out as planned at all. In fact it seldom does and as we know, anytime is a good time for wholesome mental states and awareness to arise;-) .................... > I > spent many years trying to figure out what the right 'view' is, even now I > struggle between aspects of Theravada and Mahayana. But those conflicts have > somewhat taken a back burner to the attempt to discern the reality that is > present > for awareness. And that is kind of a relief. .................... Sarah: I actually feel very fortunate that I’ve never had this kind of struggle. I don’t think it helps to get hung up on the labels either, but more valuable to learn more about discerning the realities as you suggest.... .................... > A former associate of mine had an 'enlightening' experience when he was > attempting > to reconcile different instructions from different strains of Buddhism. One > meditation method proposed that you cut all thoughts off at the root. > Another > method proposed that you allow thoughts to flow and simply observe them as > thoughts. He got to a point where he was very upset trying to choose which > method > was right and which one to use, when he suddenly realized that the conflict > he was > engaging with was also a thought. In that moment he observed the present > thought > and the whole conflict just popped like a bubble. .................... Sarah; Yes, exactly the point. All the choosing and idea of choices is done with the idea of self that needs to ‘do’ as we’ve discussed so much, without any awareness. A moment of awareness of thinking or doubt or wondring or confusion is far more valuable than any ‘choice’ or ‘working it out’. Good story, Rob. .................... > Anyway, I'll stop rambling, but I'll be interested to see what you think of > this > theme. ..................... Sarah; I think anytime we get lost in the concepts and stories , we can see there’s no awareness or understanding at all. It reminds me a little of the discussion I had with Christine who was wondering about sitting meditation versus study and then what kind of study in what order. Really, what we do or what is done will depend on conditions anyway. We may plan to read a sutta and then fall asleep. Or we may plan to read the messages here and then fail to get a connection. In the end it isn’t whether we turn right or left that will make the difference, but the understanding that is developed at this very moment. How does that sound? Actually, you rather remind me of my 3 brothers with your gentle prodding and probing;-)) ..................... >As for the yoga itself, I would tend to think that the attention to breathing > and > posture that yoga promotes, the fine use of awareness and concentration, > could or > should lead to a greater ability to discern the present reality. Do you see > that > as a possibility? .................... Sarah: I think this is very similar to Herman and Nina’s Bach discussion. Are yogis or Bach lovers more able to discern present realities and if so is it a result of the awareness and concentration developed in their ‘practise’? Personally, I don’t think so at all. The conditions the Buddha taught for developing the ‘right’ factors of the 8fold or 5fold path were hearing, considering and applying the Teachings. If someone has never heard or considered the truth of anatta or the nature of different realities, the so-called awareness and concentration developed in these activities will not be the samma-ones discussed by the Buddha so much. As we know, concentration can be with attachment and wrong view of self. A burglar, for example, also finetunes his concentration while robbing houses! However, with more understanding and appreciation of wholesome states and by consideration and discussion as we’re doing here, certainly whatever interests or pursuits we follow, are more likely to be followed with more skilful states, don’t you think? Sorry, if I’m not quite agreeing.....hope you keep up your yoga and Tai chi nonetheless...they are wonderful antidotes to too much computer sitting;-) Sarah > ====================== 9426 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Seeing Hi Ken O, I think we need to distinguish between latent tendencies and mental factors arising. Just as we don't say there is anger at every moment for us now, even though the latent tendency has not been eradicated, so we don't say for the arahats or the Buddha that there is panna (wisdom) at every moment, even though all defilements have been eradicated. Also I'd like to suggest that the conditional relations between one citta and the next and between the accumulation of panna is far more complicated than just considering latent tendencies. If we're considering the characteristics of seeing, visible object and eye-base and how they are known, I'm not sure it's useful to talk about the latent tendency of panna at these moments. Sarah Hope your boss is in a good mood when you ask him about your trip to Bkk btw;-) --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > Let us quote from > > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII > > "Anusaya-kilesa is a very fine kilesa. When kilesa has not been > eradicated, the anusaya-kilesa would settle like sediment in the cittas > that arise and fall away in continuation, like a seed, a paccaya for > pariyutthana-kilesa to arise. All kilesa would be completely eradicated, > never to arise again, when the lokuttara-magga-citta clearly realizes the > ariya-sacca-dhamma by experiencing the characteristics of nibbana > according to the levels of the magga-citta, which completely eradicates > kilesa according to the levels of the specific magga-citta." > > I was basing my argument on the function of latent tendecies in kilesa. > To me panna accumulation is due to this function of latent tendecies. As > one reach enlightment, such latent tendicies become Panna as all kilesa > element will have been eradicated. That is how a Buddha could study each > cittas with perfect clarity. Hence even though citta falls and rise > instanteously, there is still latent tendecies of Panna. Since there is > kilesa in each rise and fall citta of those who are not enlighted, why > can't there be a latent tendecies of Panna that rise and fall, once one is > enlighted. 9427 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Seeing Hi Herman. --- hhofman@d... wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a quick question thrown in here. > > Ken O says each citta conditions the next one. Not just Ken O either;-) Could ther be thinkng about what has just been seen if there wasn't seeing a moment ago? > > Does this mean that a vipaka citta is again creating kamma ? (please > say no, I couldn't bear the endless hall of mirrors that would > otherwise follow :-) NO.....happy? (I think others have come in with more details, but let me know if it's still unclear...) > > No problems with Maths ( I am surprised a girl could be any good at > it :-) ) Well, Herman, I'm beginning to realise that your new bride must have a lot of patience to put up with you;-)) > > All the best Likewise....am enjoying your musical discussions with Nina too;-) Sarah 9428 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anusaya, pariyutthana, vitikkama Hi Robert --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Ken O, > Moha (ignorance) can be anusaya-moha and pariyutthana-moha. Anusaya > means inherent tendency or latent tendency. Pariyutthana means > rising up. The ignorance that arises together with the akusala > consciousness is called pariyutthana moha. > Even at the moment of performing good deeds or wholesome actions > anusaya moha is present, it is latent, waiting to arise. > > When it goes beyond the stage of pariyutthana it is called vitikkama > and then unwholesome deeds are performed > Nina van Gorkom writes: > -http://www.dhammastudy.com/listening6.html > Akusala cittas can be coarse, medium or subtle. The coarse > defilements, vitikkama kilesa, are the unwholesome actions through > body, speech or mind, such as killing, stealing or lying. The medium > defilements, pariyutthana kilesa, are the akusala cetasikas which > arise with the citta but which do not have the intensity to motivate > unwholesome deeds at that moment. Akusala cittas > can be classified according to their roots, hetus ,in three groups: > lobha-mula-cittas, which are rooted in moha, ignorance, and in > attachment, lobha; dosa-mula-cittas, which are rooted in moha and > dosa, aversion; moha-mula-cittas which have moha as their only root. > Besides the roots there are other akusala cetasikas which arise with > these akusala cittas. > > The subtle defilements, anusaya, do not arise with akusala citta, > but they are latent tendencies; they lie dormant, they are like > microbes investing the body. We do not notice them, but they are > there, accumulated in the citta; they are pertinacious and they > condition the arising of defilements again and again. The inherent or > latent tendencies have been accumulated from life to life. The first > javana cittas of every living being who is born are lobha-mulacittas, > cittas rooted in attachment. These are conditioned by the latent > tendencies accumulated in the past. End quote > robert k: thanks for the clearer explaination, so does that implies that kusala citta also have this latent tendecies. Just like to be sure so that i do not interpret wrongly. with thanks Ken O 9429 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentary on Samannaphala/KenO Hi Rob Ep, just butting in here in brief;-) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi, Christine and Ken. > I prefer to think that different lifestyles are appropriate for different > people > in different stages. For some becoming a monk or recluse and focussing > totally on > discernment is the right thing at a particular point. For someone else, this > would just be an affectation or a form of increased suffering. To be > discerning > in the midst of family life or surgery, is ultimately the same thing as > leading > the 'holy life'. What's more important is that it serves the individual's > capacity and predilection so that they are most free to practice mindfulness. I fully agree with your comments and sentiments.....it's more a question of what is appropriate for us all and the lifestyle that comes naturally. Awareness or discernment can arise in any walk of life, depending on understanding and conditions. No reason at all why one could be a surgeon or concert pianist with just as much awareness as a forest-dweller or monk. That's why there are so many references to the holy life referring to the development of wholesome states, especially the development of satipatthana, rather than a particular situation. As I said before, I also agreed with Ken O's comments about the appropriate lifestyle for the monk. Sarah 9430 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:48pm Subject: RE: [dsg] meththa meditation Manji, I inadvertently left your name out from my post yesterday when I thanked everyone for their helpful comments on metta. Sorry for that;-) I really appreciated your reminders to develop awareness here and to develop more understanding of all rea;ities as not self. As you say, when there is awareness, there isn't any self-hate or any other aversion or unwholesome state at those moments. Thanks again, Sarah --- manji wrote: > Christine, > > Please be understanding "there is suffering", first noble truth. > Maybe sometimes memories arise and difficulty arises, maybe sometimes > "self" concept arises along with moments of aversion or clinging and > difficulty arises. > > Maybe what can help is understanding first noble truth, there is > suffering. Really make a sincere effort to see "right now". Mindfulness > arises and seeing suffering. > > Then maybe, compassion arises towards others. Understanding "there > is suffering". > > So even metta is conditioned. Arising and falling. So maybe right > now there is conditioning metta. :) So sometimes I am thinking that > right now seeing dhamma... Mindfulness... Etc. These are most powerful > antidotes to conventional realities of self-hate and low-self esteem > etc. > > Understanding right now dhamma with mindfulness, also understanding > that these dhamma are not "self". So even great moments of suffering, > not self :) > > So maybe cultivating a real and living metta, through wisdom and the > very process... The path. :) > 9431 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:52pm Subject: [dsg] latent tendecies Hi Sarah Is there a latent tendency for panna then, since there is latent tendecies for defilement, is there a latent tendecies for wisdom? I do not believe that Buddha's panna is not present in every cittas. I more incline it is in every citta or not he will not be able to explain all the citta in such detail and esp to the workings of paccaya. Kind regards Ken O --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Ken O, > > I think we need to distinguish between latent tendencies and mental > factors > arising. Just as we don't say there is anger at every moment for us now, > even > though the latent tendency has not been eradicated, so we don't say for > the > arahats or the Buddha that there is panna (wisdom) at every moment, even > though > all defilements have been eradicated. > > Also I'd like to suggest that the conditional relations between one > citta and > the next and between the accumulation of panna is far more complicated > than > just considering latent tendencies. If we're considering the > characteristics of > seeing, visible object and eye-base and how they are known, I'm not sure > it's > useful to talk about the latent tendency of panna at these moments. > > Sarah > > Hope your boss is in a good mood when you ask him about your trip to Bkk > btw;-) > > > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > > > Let us quote from > > > > Summary of Paramatthadhamma Part VIII > > > > "Anusaya-kilesa is a very fine kilesa. When kilesa has not been > > eradicated, the anusaya-kilesa would settle like sediment in the > cittas > > that arise and fall away in continuation, like a seed, a paccaya for > > pariyutthana-kilesa to arise. All kilesa would be completely > eradicated, > > never to arise again, when the lokuttara-magga-citta clearly realizes > the > > ariya-sacca-dhamma by experiencing the characteristics of nibbana > > according to the levels of the magga-citta, which completely > eradicates > > kilesa according to the levels of the specific magga-citta." > > > > I was basing my argument on the function of latent tendecies in > kilesa. > > To me panna accumulation is due to this function of latent tendecies. > As > > one reach enlightment, such latent tendicies become Panna as all > kilesa > > element will have been eradicated. That is how a Buddha could study > each > > cittas with perfect clarity. Hence even though citta falls and rise > > instanteously, there is still latent tendecies of Panna. Since there > is > > kilesa in each rise and fall citta of those who are not enlighted, why > > can't there be a latent tendecies of Panna that rise and fall, once > one is > > enlighted. 9432 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] hello all! Hi Mike, Glad to see you getting on well in the internet cafe and hoping you're still finding the 'live' discussions and talks uplifting. --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > Later I talked > > about what makes Buddhism > > distinct from other religions and in particular > > anatta, no being, no God and so > > on. > > No God, really? What about Brahma Sahampatti(sp)? who > beseeched the Buddha to teach? Lots of gods, I > think--just in different roles from that of the > Christian variety. A matter of perspective, perhaps? OK, Ok, good point! Many gods in the texts.... perhaps I should have said, no omniscient God and as we understand there is no self, we also understand there are no other beings or gods in actuality...merely conventional terms..... Does that pass? Thanks, pls feel free to 'pick' any holes anytime;-) Sarah p.s. I think your comment to me on metta has been answered by Nina and my later post to all..let me know if we still don't quite agree;-) 9433 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Nov 19, 2001 11:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga Cittas Hi Mike I did not know that there is a legal consideration before one could be a monk. Would you like share me what kind of legality issues are there if you do not mind? With thanks Ken O P.S. - I got no problem with cittas as discrete units :). In fact all of us are a combination of discrete units :). 9434 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 0:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities Howard (and Ken, Mike and others (including Erik)) --- upasaka@a... wrote > Just one cautionary note. Abidhammikas don't use the term > 'ultimate > reality' in a sense that precludes it from being conditioned. I find > that use > of the term a bit odd, but so long as it has a consistent meaning in > that > context, there is no problem. In Abhidhamma, I believe that a paramattha > > dhamma is any dhamma that is directly observable through a sense door as > > opposed to being (the referent of a) mere concept. We're headed for > misunderstanding when we conflate the Abhidhammic defintion with > another. I suspect most people find the term ‘ultimate’ (a translation of the Pali ‘paramattha’) used in conjunction with ‘reality’ (Pali: ‘dhamma’) a strange pairing, initially. The term ‘paramattha’ is, I believe, more often found in conjunction with ‘truth’ (‘sacca’), where its import is easier to see. I just checked Nyanatiloka’s Buddhist Dictionary, and thought that some might find the discussion there useful (although not, of course, authoritative). I have pasted it below. Of particular interest to one or two of our members (are you there, Erik?) will be the comment at the end about the importance given in the Madhyamika school of Mahayana to the distinction between ultimate truths and conventional truths Jon From Nyanatiloka, ‘Buddhist Dictionary’ http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_p2.htm “paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohára-sacca), which is also called 'commonly accepted truth' (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: samvrti-satya). The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohára-vacana). It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desaná), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in conventional language, are called 'truth' (vohára-sacca), being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes. The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (s. Guide, p. 62). (App: vohára). The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff. In Maháyana, the Mádhyamika school has given a prominent place to the teaching of the two truths.” [ends] 9435 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 0:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commentary on Samannaphala Christine --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Hi everyone, > Just a few questions on: > Restraint of the Sense Faculties verse 64: (p.38) The Discourse on > the Fruits of Reclusehip > > "And how, great king, does the bhikkhu guard the doors of his sense > faculties? Herein, great king, having seen a form with the eye, the > bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign or the details. Since, if he were > to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye, evil > unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief might assail him, > he practises restraint, guards the faculty of the eye, and achieves > restraint over the faculty of the eye." and so on and so forth, for > ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. Here is the earlier discussion on 'sign and details' ('nimitta and anubyancanna') that I referred to in my recent reply. As i mentioned, it is not easy to understand, so don't feel daunted if at first it doesn't make sense! Jon In message # 8949, I said: 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. In message # 9019, Sarah said: Would you kindly elaborate on the nimitta and anupayancanna as mentioned above and the distinction between them in this context. In message # 9070, I said: I would be very happy to, but I’m afraid I don’t know much about this area, except that it’s an important aspect of both sila and satipatthana. As I understand it, when impressions are received through the sense-doors there will inevitably be paying attention with kilesa to the ‘sign’ (shape-and-form/nimitta) and ‘particulars’ (details/anubya~njana) of those sense-impressions. It seems to mean the absence of the guarding of the sense-doors. I don’t know any more than this. Further study required, for sure. I am hoping Nina will have something to say about it in her writings on the trip, since it came up for discussion and Nalanda and again at Patna. In the meantime, here are some references to get started with— Nyanatiloka’s ‘Buddhist Dictionary’: 1/ ‘Nimitta’ is defined as ‘mark, sign; image; target, object; cause, condition’, with the comment that, ‘These meanings are used in, and adapted to, many contexts’. Several doctrinal usages are discussed, of which #3 is— <<'Outward appearance': of one who has sense-control it is said- that "he does not seize upon the general appearance” of an object (na nimittaggáhí; M. 38, D. 2; …).>> 2/ There is further discussion under the 4 kinds of morality consisting of purification (catupárisuddhi-síla), as follows: <<(2) Restraint of the senses (indriya-samvara-síla). "Whenever the monk perceives a form with the eye, a sound with the ear, an odour with the nose, a taste with the tongue, an impression with the body, an object with the mind, *he neither adheres to the appearance [J: nimitta?] as a whole, nor to its parts [J: anubyancana?]*. And he strives to ward off that through which evil and unwholesome things, greed and sorrow, would arise, if he remained with unguarded senses; and he watches over his senses, restrains his senses" (M 38).>> Visudhimagga I, 42, 54 At I, 42, a discussion of ‘Virtue as restraint of sense faculties’: <<‘On seeing a visible object with the eye, he apprehends *neither the signs nor the particulars* through which, if he left the eye faculty unguarded, evil and unprofitable states of covetousness and grief might invade him, he enters upon the way of its restraint, he guards the eye faculty, he undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty. … [and so on for the other sense doors] …’ (M.i, 180) [This] is virtue of restraint of the sense faculties.>> At I, 54, an explanation of the 2 terms: <<”Apprehends neither the signs”: he does not apprehend the sign of woman or man, or any sign that is a basis for defilement such as the sign of beauty, etc.: he stops at what is merely seen. “Nor the particulars”: he does not apprehend any aspect classed as hand, foot , smile, laughter, talk, looking ahead, looking aside, etc., which has acquired the name ‘particular (anubya~njana)’ because of its particularising ( anu anu bya~njanato) defilements, because of its making them manifest themselves. He only apprehends what is really there.>> Hope this is helpful. 9436 From: m. nease Date: Tue Nov 20, 2001 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities Jon, I think this gap is so important to bridge and I do it so badly--I'm keeping a copy of this on my 'desktop' for future reference. Thanks-- mike --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard (and Ken, Mike and others (including Erik)) > > --- upasaka@a... wrote > > > Just one cautionary note. Abidhammikas > don't use the term > > 'ultimate > > reality' in a sense that precludes it from being > conditioned. I find > > that use > > of the term a bit odd, but so long as it has a > consistent meaning in > > that > > context, there is no problem. In Abhidhamma, I > believe that a paramattha > > > > dhamma is any dhamma that is directly observable > through a sense door as > > > > opposed to being (the referent of a) mere concept. > We're headed for > > misunderstanding when we conflate the Abhidhammic > defintion with > > another. > > I suspect most people find the term ‘ulti